The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

I've already answered this question. The verse could be interpreted as conditional since God gave two commands in the verse; what if the Jews don't obey those commands. Also he could have easily been referring to invading heathen armies (since he was talking about invasions in the previous chapter) and the prophecy could have been intended for their lifetimes. If I say a Yankee fan will never enter this house. I obviously mean during my lifetime, but I don't actually say that, it's implied.

Also it's not practical to believe that he also meant such people as traders and caravans who might pass through the large city for economic reasons.

Isaiah 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.


No if there Doc. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I suppose that many inhabitants found their clothes beautiful. Failed prophecy Doc, why can't you admit it?
 
Last edited:
<some whining>


What's in this Google Earth image, DOC?


Tyre.jpg

Am I missing something here?
 
Joobz how come you are allowed to continuously (possibly 15 to 20 times) give the opinions of people, but I'm no longer allowed to give the opposite opinion (concerning prophecy) of attorney Jay Sekulow.


Because this:

To help us get back to the OP, I shall post an updated list of where we stand regarding the arguments made.

speaks directly to the topic, while that stuff that you seem determined to keep talking about in defiance of the Mod Box has nothing whatsoever to do with it.


That's not fair.


Neither is it joobz' directive.


Plus the fact it is a bandwagon fallacy with no new relevant information given (other then some anonymous person's opinion).


It's a running poll of the effectiveness of your arguments, nothing more and nothing less.

What's this 'no new relevant information given' bilge anyway? Quite apart from anything else, none of your own posts have ever presented 'new relevant information'.
 
I've already answered this question. The verse could be interpreted as conditional since God gave two commands in the verse; what if the Jews don't obey those commands. Also he could have easily been referring to invading heathen armies (since he was talking about invasions in the previous chapter) and the prophecy could have been intended for their lifetimes. If I say a Yankee fan will never enter this house. I obviously mean during my lifetime, but I don't actually say that, it's implied.

Also it's not practical to believe that he also meant such people as traders and caravans who might pass through the large city for economic reasons.

What are the incredible odds of such a conditional prophecy coming to pass?
 
The conditions are an invention of Doc's. The prophecy is quite clear, and clearly it has failed.

I know. But when they are shown to have failed, DOC has to twist himself into knots to redefine words and "interpret" what was clearly written. But then, based on his rewriting of whichever prophecy he's apologizing for, he forgets that his interpretation no longer qualifies it as a prophecy.

He's just shooting himself in the foot.
 
I know. But when they are shown to have failed, DOC has to twist himself into knots to redefine words and "interpret" what was clearly written. But then, based on his rewriting of whichever prophecy he's apologizing for, he forgets that his interpretation no longer qualifies it as a prophecy.

He's just shooting himself in the foot.

You would think that his almighty, all-seeing god would have spotted this and worded the prophecies in clear terms. Or could it be that the prophecies were written by primitive Iron Age goat herders?
 
At this link you can see Gateway lists 30 different translations of the Bible into the English Language. (hit the down arrow next to "page options" to see them)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV


As it happens, DOC, I use the BibleGateway site all the time, and yet I've never seen this translation there:


Isaiah 52:1

If you awake and put on thy strength, O Zion; if you put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: then for the next twenty or thirty years there shall not come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean, except for traders, caravans and invading heathen armies.


Which leads me to believe that you have in your possession a version of the Bible with which nobody else seems to be familiar.

Don't you think you should share this great discovery with the rest of Christendom? I'm sure there'd be quite a to-do about it.
 
I've already answered this question. The verse could be interpreted as conditional since God gave two commands in the verse; what if the Jews don't obey those commands. Also he could have easily been referring to invading heathen armies (since he was talking about invasions in the previous chapter) and the prophecy could have been intended for their lifetimes. If I say a Yankee fan will never enter this house. I obviously mean during my lifetime, but I don't actually say that, it's implied.

Also it's not practical to believe that he also meant such people as traders and caravans who might pass through the large city for economic reasons.

Looks like if god makes a promise you better get it in writing, read the fine print and consult a very good lawyer.
 
I'm not DOC but I see an island that was turned into a peninsula centuries after Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to have destroyed it and was abandoned forever by people.
That was done by Alexander the Great, who built a causeway to besiege the island city, and it caused the surroundings to silt up.

DOC seems to believe that Alexander's successful expedition is somehow a fulfilment of the prophecy that Nebuchadrezzar would destroy the city, which he didn't.

But I ask, if fishermen dried their nets there while it was still an island "in the midst of the sea" - and we can be sure they did - could that have been a fulfilment? But more rational beings would surely think that the prophecy means that the site would stop being a city, and become a mere rock casually used by fisher folk. And as a city it would be lost forever.

As Google Earth shows, that has not happened.
 
I'm not DOC but I see an island that was turned into a peninsula centuries after Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to have destroyed it and was abandoned forever by people.


That was done by Alexander the Great, who built a causeway to besiege the island city, and it caused the surroundings to silt up.


Yep. A city of 40,000 people that wouldn't have been there at all if the prophecy had been fulfilled.


DOC seems to believe that Alexander's successful expedition is somehow a fulfilment of the prophecy that Nebuchadrezzar would destroy the city, which he didn't.


Which would still be wrong because even though Alexander had a bit of tanty and wrecked half the city he didn't destroy it any more than Nebuchadnezzar did.


But I ask, if fishermen dried their nets there while it was still an island "in the midst of the sea" - and we can be sure they did - could that have been a fulfilment?


No, because the first part of the prophecy - "and they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock" - would still be missing from the scenario.


But more rational beings would surely think that the prophecy means that the site would stop being a city, and become a mere rock casually used by fisher folk. And as a city it would be lost forever.

As Google Earth shows, that has not happened.


Wildy and I aren't hallucinating after all?

That's a relief.

;)
 
Last edited:
Joobz how come you are allowed to continuously (possibly 15 to 20 times) give the opinions of people, but I'm no longer allowed to give the opposite opinion (concerning prophecy) of attorney Jay Sekulow. ...You parading your poll is like me parading a poll taken at a Tea party convention (where there was a debate about Obama's performance) that states 98% of those that heard the debate think Obama is not doing a good job.

No DOC, it's not.
Your attorney quote was about his conversion, an ill-disguised 'appeal to authority', if you will.
By the way, what is the Tea party and what does it have to do with bibical prophecy?

Joobz' poll is about how the forum members here view your efforts to show there have actually been fulfilled bibical prophecis.
Do you get the difference, DOC?

Here's the OT quote:
"Isaiah 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean."

Here's your answer
"I've already answered this question. The verse could be interpreted as conditional since God gave two commands in the verse; what if the Jews don't obey those commands. Also he could have easily been referring to invading heathen armies (since he was talking about invasions in the previous chapter) and the prophecy could have been intended for their lifetimes. If I say a Yankee fan will never enter this house. I obviously mean during my lifetime, but I don't actually say that, it's implied.

Also it's not practical to believe that he also meant such people as traders and caravans who might pass through the large city for economic reasons. "

Do you see any problem with your interpretation, DOC?
 
That's my problem with the bible. All believers have their own interpretation. If the bible was the holy word of god then there could only be one interpretation.
 
What's in this Google Earth image, DOC?

A big silver dragon drinking all the ocean.









Well, that's what it looks like to me...










I'm wrong, aren't I?


Not necessarily. Our old mate Isaiah has another bit of a prophecy with a sea dragon in it.


Isaiah 27:1

In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.


It's supposed to be about the redemption of Israel and I think Matty was cribbing from it when he wrote that stuff about Jeebus coming "not to bring peace, but to bring a sword".

Ezekiel was hoping for nasty things to happen to the Egyptians at the hands claws of a big, soggy lizard as well.

Ezekiel 29:3

Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.


Izzy and Zeke totally didn't like Egyptians very much.
 
Last edited:
Once more into the link (i.e. 60 "fulfilled" prophecies about Jesus)

The day Jesus was crucified
Prophesied---Fulfilled
28. Betrayed by a friend- Ps 41:9, Jn 13:18-27
29. Sold for 30 pieces of silver- Zech 11:12,
Mt 26:14-15
30. Thirty pieces thrown in Temple- Zech 11:13, Mt 27:3-5
31. Thirty pieces buys potters field- Zech 11:13, Mt 27:6-10

Taking these four prophecies as a block I might point out that the earliest report of post resurrection appearances by Jesus, found in 1 Corinthians 15, says in v. 6 that, after appearing to Cephas (Peter), Jesus appeared to the twelve. Apparently, when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians ca. CE 50 - 60, the grand myth of the betrayal by Judas had yet to be formulated. Once it was formulated, the gospel writers, particularly Matthew and John, scoured the Hebrew scriptures to find verses - even in the Psalms - that could be used as prophecies for this fictional event.

Think about the actions of Judas. What would be the point of his betrayal. If he were really money hungry enough to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, why would he have been hanging around with an itinerant teacher who preached a doctrine involving voluntary poverty? So, we are supposed to believe that Judas hung around with Jesus for about three years, wandering around Galilee, then, suddenly, without apparent cause, betrayed him.

Then we have the two contradictory stories of his death: Matthew saying he hanged himself (as did Ahithophel after he had betrayed King David); Luke saying (in Acts) his guts burst out as he was looking down at the field he'd bought with the 30 pieces of silver. Fundamentalist apologists have some ingenious ways to try to reconcile the two disparate accounts; but its all mental gymnastics and special pleading in the end.

32. Forsaken by His disciples- Zech 13:7, Mk 14:27+50
33. Accused by false witnesses-
Ps 35:11+20-21, Mt 26:59-61
34. Silent before accusers- Isa 53:7,
Mt 27:12-14
35. Wounded and bruised- Isa 53:4-61,
Pet 2:21-25
36. Beaten and spit upon- Isa 50:6, Mt 26:67-68 37. Mocked- Ps 22:6-8,
Mt 27:27-31
38. Fell under the cross- Ps 109:24-25,
Jn 19:17, Lk 23:26

Again, these are simply the gospel writers claiming something happened, then scouring the Hebrew scriptures for "prophecies" that were somehow fulfilled in the gospels. It's not worth going into detail for each of them. However, to show to what degree the gospel writers were reaching, let's consider the supposed prophecy in # 38. Did Ps. 109:24-25 really predict Jesus falling under the cross? Let's look at these verses:

My knees are weak through fasting;
my body has become gaunt.
I am the object of scorn to my accusers;
when they see me, they wag their heads.

Somehow, I don't see a cross here or even anyone falling. So, this is a prophecy that isn't. This is the case with many of the 60. Like a heavily padded resume, the list of 60 prophecies proves upon examination to be without substance.
 
That's my problem with the bible. All believers have their own interpretation. If the bible was the holy word of god then there could only be one interpretation.

Hmm, i wouldn't say that. If the holy babble really was the inerrant word of some god, then surely _no_ interpretation _at all_ should be required. It should have to be clear to understand for everyone.

Greetings,

Chris
 

Back
Top Bottom