• 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

Thanks to all of you who have responded to my debunking posts. Actually, the work I did on these specific prophecies was, for the most part, done a few years beck, when I wrote Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment? for the Skeptics Society. There are quite a few things I'd like to change in that book. However, I'm still quite happy with the debunking of specific prophecies.

As to Hugh Ross, I debated him once on his home turf. He is an intelligent man and a gentleman. I also have to say that I was treated with respect by his congregation, which is a bit different from the treatment given by some fundamentalists. Ross, an old earth creationist, has often managed to antagonize the young earth creationists by accepting and defending the geological and astronomical time scales. I've never been able to figure out why he isn't simply a theistic evolutionist.

In our debate, Hugh asserted that green plants were on land in the Cambrian period, thus supporting the order of their appearance in Genesis 1. He cited a scientific paper to back up this position. I later asked Geologist and paleontologist Donald Prothero about this. He said that the land plant referred to in the paper were algal crusts and cryptogamic organisms, a far cry from the forests of the Carboniferous period. In other words, in service to his belief system, Hugh Ross had had construed and effectively fudged the algal crusts into a fulfillment of the order of creation in Genesis 1.

Hugh also insisted that the Aramaic of Daniel was the form of Aramaic used ca. 600 to 500 BCE, dating Daniel as being written whe it purports to have been written. Here again, I found that, while there were some experts who said it could be an older form or that it was impossible to tell whether Daniel's Aramaic was sixth or second century BCE, most biblical scholars saw it as Aramaic of the Hellenistic period (ca. 300 BCE to ca. 30 BCE). I was able to contact Dr. Randel Helms, who pointed out that certain phrases and words, such as, "a watcher, a holy one" (Dan. 3:13) are only found in other apocalyptic works, known to be from the second century BCE, such as the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch). The concept of the "watcher" angels, assigned by God to watch over and guide the human race was formulated in the Hellenistic period. In Enoch, the watcher angels betray their trust, coming down to have sex with mortal women (cf. Gen. 6:1 - 4) and teaching humans the arts of war, how to make weapons, the use of cosmetics (deceiving by artificial beauty over natural), astrology and divination.

I believe that Hugh Ross is quite sincere in his beliefs and that his fudging of evidence is merely the all too common action of tailoring reality to fit one's belief system, as opposed to any intentional deceit.
 
TimCallahan said:
I believe that Hugh Ross is quite sincere in his beliefs and that his fudging of evidence is merely the all too common action of tailoring reality to fit one's belief system, as opposed to any intentional deceit.
Click to expand...
He is not unique in this. It is extremely easy to deceive oneself. If you have the goal of proving something, you will unsurprisingly prove it to yourself. Proving it to others, however, is a different matter.
 
DOC said:
Actually, I don't have the time. Astrophycisist Hugh Ross' said there are 2000 fullfilled prophecies and listed some, people can do their own research if they want. I'd start reading Isaiah Chapter 53 and go from there.
Click to expand...

That's a cheap excuse. May I remind you that you started this thread? And that you forwarded Ross' claims in the OP without any reservations? It is the very topic of this thread, and we all wait for your defence of the claims put forward by you in your OP.
 
Hugh Ross also uses the Bible's predictive power to show that it is scientific. here are some of his claims, taken from the same site DOC used for the 13 prophecies.

a1) Science, such as it was in ancient times, said that the the earth was a flat disk, but the Bible said it was a sphere (Is. 40:22)

a2) Science then said that the total number of stars was 1,100. Since Ross doesn't give a source for this number, I can't say where he got it. The Bible, he asserts, said, as modern science does, that the number of stars is in excess of a billion (Jer. 33:22).

a3) Science then said that all stars are the same. Again, Ross doesn't give a source upon which he based this assertion. The Bible, he says, said every star was different, just as science does today (1 Cor 15:41).

a4) The Bible says light is in motion (Job 38:19-20). Science then said light is fixed in place. Again, I have no idea where he got this notion, since there's no attribution. Science today says light is in motion.

a5) The Bible says air has weight (Job 28:25). Science then said air was weightless.

a6) The Bible says winds blow in cyclones (Eccl. 1:6). Science then said winds blow straight.

7) Blood is a source of life and healing (Lev. 17:11). Medicine then said sick people must bled.

Ross also asserts that basic scientific principles were stated in the Bible, such as:

b1) conservation of mass and energy (Eccl. 1:9; Eccl. 3:14-15).

b2) the water cycle (Eccl. 1:7; Is. 55:10)

b3) gravity (Job 26:7; Job 38:31-33)

b4) The Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups (Job 38:31). NOTE: All other star groups visible to the naked eye are unbound, with the possible exception of the Hyades

b5) the effect of emotions on physical health (Prov. 16:24, 17:22)

b6) how to control contagious diseases (Lev. 13:4546)

b7) importance of sanitation to health (Lev.; Num. 19: Deut. 23:12-13)

b8) control of cancer and heart disease (Lev. 7-19)

The letter and number designations are mine. The assertions are made by Hugh Ross.

Let's look at a1. Did Is. 40:22 actually say the earth is a sphere? Let's see (Is. 40:22a):

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, / and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; . . . .

I've hilited "circle" since it's the operative word. The problem here is that the English word "circle" can be used to describe either a flat disk or a sphere. Let' take a look at the word in the original Hebrew: chuwg. This would be pronounced with a hard "ch" or a "kh' sound - khoog. It merely means "circle," so it would seem to be open to interpretation. However, if we look at the related word chagowr, pronounced "khagor", we find that it means "girded" as in something that goes around the waist, i.e. a flat circle. Thus Isaiah is describing a disk verse 40:22, not a sphere, and the Bible, not being a science text, saw the world in terms of what was commonly believed in that day.

I'll deal with the other claims on this list in later posts. Also, if anyone else wishes to examine this list, feel free to jump in.

ETA: While the authors of the books of the Bible seem to have seen the earth as a disk, the science of the day, as epitomized by the Greek philosophers, contrary Ross's assertion, saw the earth as a sphere. Here, from the Wikipedia site on the spherical earth, are Aristotle's reasons for asserting that the earth is a sphere:

Every portion of the Earth tends toward the center until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9–21)
Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. (De caelo, 297b31–298a10)
 
Last edited:
Taking a2 and a3 together, does the Bible actually say what Ross says it does? Here, again are his assertions:

a2) Science then said that the total number of stars was 1,100. Since Ross doesn't give a source for this number, I can't say where he got it. The Bible, he asserts, said, as modern science does, that the number of stars is in excess of a billion (Jer. 33:22).

a3) Science then said that all stars are the same. Again, Ross doesn't give a source upon which he based this assertion. The Bible, he says, said every star was different, just as science does today (1 Cor 15:41).

Jeremiah 33:22 says:

As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David and the Levitical priests who minister to me.

And here's 1 Cor. 15:41:

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

As to Jer. 33:22, saying the number of stars is measureless in a poetic passage is hardly a statement of a scientific concept. As to the true statement in 1 Cor. 15;41, is Ross really asserting that people other than the apostle Paul couldn't see that some stars were brighter than others?

ETA: according to this site, the ancient Greeks did indeed understand that stars differed in apparent magnitude and brightness:

The apparent magnitude system was first devised by the Ancient Greeks. In this system, the brightest stars in the sky were assigned a magnitude of 1, and the faintest objects that were just visible to the naked eye were assigned a magnitude of 6. Remember that there were no telescopes or binoculars in Ancient Greece, so that magnitude 6 stars were the faintest objects known in the sky. All remaining stars were then assigned a magnitude between 1 and 6 to indicate their relative brightness. Note that the brightest stars have the smallest magnitude.
 
Last edited:
If god, assuming it is ominopetent and omniscient, wanted to relay prophecies, it wouldn't be hard to do it in an unabiguous way. There might be issues of self fulfilling prophecies, but heh god is omnipotent and omniscient. It can do anything, right?
 
Last edited:
Is the Book of Job actually a science text? Here are Ross's assertions that it is:

a4) The Bible says light is in motion (Job 38:19-20). Science then said light is fixed in place. Again, I have no idea where he got this notion, since there's no attribution. Science today says light is in motion.

a5) The Bible says air has weight (Job 28:25). Science then said air was weightless.

Let's look again at what Job actually says about light (Job 38:19, 20):

Where is the way to the dwelling of light.
and where is the place of the dwelling of darkness,
that you may take it to its territory
and that you may discern the paths to its home?

Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see in these poetic verses a scientific concept about how light moves. Perhaps we'll have better luck with Ross's assertion that the Bible say air has weight (Job 28:25):

When he gave the wind its weight,
and meted out the waters by measure;

The Hebrew words translated as "wind" and "weight" are, respectively, ruwach and mishqal, and they do translate one-for-one as 'wind" and "weight." Of course the winds having weight might well refer to their force. Yet, it's possible that the ancient Israelites did understand that air had weight. What then of Ross's assertion that everyone else tought that air was weightless? Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Anaximenes (emphasis added):

While his predecessors Thales and Anaximander proposed that the arche, the underlying material of the world, were water and the ambiguous substance apeiron, respectively, Anaximenes asserted that air was this primary substance of which all other things are made. While the choice of air may seem arbitrary, he based his conclusion on naturally observable phenomena in the process of rarefaction and condensation.[6] When air condenses it becomes visible, as mist and then rain and other forms of precipitation, and as the condensed air cools Anixemenes supposed that it went on to form earth and ultimately stones. In contrast, water evaporates into air which ignites and produces flame when further rarefied.[7] While other philosophers also recognized such transitions in states of matter, Anaximenes was the first to associate the quality pairs hot/dry and cold/wet with the density of a single material and add a quantitative dimension to the Milesian monistic system.[7][8]

Considering the boldface sections above, that Anaximenes understood that air could expand and condense, and that heat and cold affected density, it would seem he, and the ancient Greek philosophers in general, understood that air had substance, hence weight - contrary to Ross's assertion.
 
Last edited:
Here's Ross's assertion I've listed as a6):

The Bible says winds blow in cyclones (Eccl. 1:6). Science then said winds blow straight.

Here's Eccl. 1:6:

The wind blows to the south
and goes round to the north;
Round and round goes the wind;
and on its circuits the wind returns.
 
TimCallahan said:
Here's Ross's assertion I've listed as a6):

The Bible says winds blow in cyclones (Eccl. 1:6). Science then said winds blow straight.

Here's Eccl. 1:6:

The wind blows to the south
and goes round to the north;
Round and round goes the wind;
and on its circuits the wind returns.
Click to expand...

Is the next verse 'The wheels on the bus go round and round.....'?
 
TimCallahan said:
Here's Ross's assertion I've listed as a6):

The Bible says winds blow in cyclones (Eccl. 1:6). Science then said winds blow straight.

Here's Eccl. 1:6:

The wind blows to the south
and goes round to the north;
Round and round goes the wind;
and on its circuits the wind returns.
Click to expand...

So, Ecclesiastes says that the wind changes direction. Didn't the ancient Greeks know this? Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on Andronicus of Cyrrhus. Note the area I've highlighted:

Andronicus of Cyrrhus (Greek:Ανδρόνικος Κυρρήστου) or Andronicus Cyrrhestes,son of Hermias, was a Greek astronomer who flourished about 100 BC.
He built a horologion at Athens, the so-called Tower of the Winds, a considerable portion of which still exists. It is octagonal, with figures carved on each side, representing the eight principal winds. In antiquity a bronze figure of Triton on the summit, with a rod in his hand, turned round by the wind, pointed to the quarter from which it blew. From this model is derived the custom of placing weathercocks on steeples.

I have no idea what Ross means when he asserts that the ancients thought the winds blew straight.
 
A7 on Ross's list of biblical science studies is: Blood is a source of life and healing (Lev. 17:11). Medicine then said sick people must bled.

Okay, here's Lev. 17:11:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.

Okay, the ancient Israelites figured out that any animal whose blood is drained out is dead. Is Ross seriously asserting nobody else figured this out?

So, the next question is, since the Bible doesn't mention a whole lot about medicine, did Bible-based societies militate against blood-letting? Her's a quote from the Wikipedia article on bloodletting:

The Talmud recommended a specific day of the week and days of the month for bloodletting, and similar rules, though less codified, can be found among Christian writings advising which saints' days were favourable for bloodletting. Islamic medical authors too advised bloodletting, particularly for fevers. The practice was probably passed to them by the Greeks; when Islamic theories became known in the Latin-speaking countries of Europe, bloodletting became more widespread. Together with cautery, it was central to Arabic surgery; the key texts Kitab al-Qanun and especially Al-Tasrif li-man 'ajaza 'an al-ta'lif both recommended it. It was also known in Ayurvedic medicine, described in the Susruta Samhita.
 
Last edited:
Let's take a look at Ross's assertion that the Bible mentions the conservation of mass and energy - what I've denoted as "b1." Here are the verses supposedly stating the laws of the conservation mass and energy: Ecclesiastes 1:9; Eccl. 3:14-15. Let's first look at Eccl. 1:9:

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
and there is nothing new under the sun.

I have to say that I seem to be missing something here. I just don't see the conservation of mass and energy elucidated n these verses. Let's try Eccl. 3:14, 15:

I know that whatever God does endures for ever, nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken taken from it; God has made it so, in order that men should fear before him That which is already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.

The statement, "God seeks what has been driven away," means that God makes everything happen all over again. This is a statement of the cyclic nature of things and the futility of human striving, not a statement of basic conservation laws.
 
DOC said:
Actually, I don't have the time. Astrophycisist Hugh Ross' said there are 2000 fullfilled prophecies and listed some, people can do their own research if they want. I'd start reading Isaiah Chapter 53 and go from there.
Click to expand...

Well Doc, people have done research and your hero Ross has been blown out of the water. No fulfilled bible prophecies.
 
b2) Ross says the Bible states the scientific principle of the water cycle (Eccl. 1:7; Is. 55:10):

Ecclesiastes 1:7 says:

All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.

Isaiah 55:10 says:

For the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and return not thither but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater

Somehow, the cycle of evaporation and condensation got lost in this version of the water cycle.
 
Oh, bother. I can't be energized enough to look through 11 pages of replies. So, for the 44th time or so: Have you considered that many, if not most, of the "prophecies" of the bible refer to events that had already occurred by the time the supposed "prophecy" was written? You do realize that the current bible is a compilation of numerous documents (including editorial compilation to make it look like earlier work was homogeneous)???

"Biblical Prophecy" ~= Hoax.
 
Finn McR said:
Oh, bother. I can't be energized enough to look through 11 pages of replies. So, for the 44th time or so: Have you considered that many, if not most, of the "prophecies" of the bible refer to events that had already occurred by the time the supposed "prophecy" was written? You do realize that the current bible is a compilation of numerous documents (including editorial compilation to make it look like earlier work was homogeneous)???

"Biblical Prophecy" ~= Hoax.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I actually wrote a book on it called Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment? for the Skeptics Society. The basic outline of the book is this: Bible prophecies are either true, false or too vague to call. Most are false. Of those that are true, the possibilities are: They were pretty obvious at the time they were made (example: Nahum' prophecy of the fall of Nineveh, made at a time when the Assyrian empire was collapsing and their enemies were closing in on Nineveh), it was made after the fact (the gospels' "foretelling" the fall of Jerusalem), it was divinely inspired. Suffice it to say, I have yet to find one in this last category.

The reason it's important to specifically debunk individual prophecy claims is that, if you don't, the fundamentalists can claim that the opposition simply refuses to take the claims seriously and hasn't effectively rebutted them.
 
We return once again to that treasure trove of scientific revelations, the Book of Job. According to Ross, it predicts the following:

b3) gravity (Job 26:7; Job 38:31-33)

b4) The Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups (Job 38:31). NOTE: All other star groups visible to the naked eye are unbound, with the possible exception of the Hyades

Job 26:7 says: He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth upon nothing.

This is supposed to be a statement about the property of gravity? It would appear, as is often the case, that Ross is reading a great deal into the biblical text that simply isn't there.

Here's Job 38:31 - 33:

Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades,
or loose the cords of Orion
Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth in their season
or can you guide the bear with its children?
Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?
Can you establish their rule on the earth?

These verses are part of God's answer to Job, who has dared to question the almighty about his undeserved sufferings. Essentially, God responds by saying, "Who the hell are you, little man, to demand answers from me?" In the process, God asks Job a series of rhetorical questions that add up to, "Can you create the universe?" Mazzaroth is the feminine plural denoting the signs of the Zodiac.

ETA: I found a fairly thorough debunking of the idea that the Bible was making any sort of scientific statement concerning the Pleiades or Orion here. It's significant that the author at this site is a believer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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