Well, I already pointed out Hosea 11:1 was not a prophecy and neither was Isaiah 53.
First of all I would like to thank you for this debate, and appreciate you being polite and kind and respecting other's viewpoints even though they are different than yours. To reply to the above statement you made, I guess you would have to elaborate on why specifically they are not prophetic.
I am of the opinion that Christians used a method similar to that found in the book of Hebrews. Where the sayings of Christ are quoted exclusively from the Old Testament sayings of God/David or others. It's not a fulfillment of any prophecy, just some New Testament author reading the Old Testament and allegorizing it. I think the same thing happened with Hosea 11:1 and other New Testament texts.
If I use a history book, and quote a previous history book. That is evidence of the later history book's accuracy. I only say this to say that there is no need to quote an old testament book if it was all allegory to begin with. It would be meaningless to quote something if it was allegory, unless one were writing a poem etc. One must prove that the Bible is not to be taken as historical. We know the Bible is a historical document because of the fact that it quotes many historical places, people groups, tribes, cultures, currency, etc. I post a few examples of video's of what I meant in the first post, and copied them at the bottom of this post.
And your link, 'refuting' a prophecy is very bad. Listen around the 28:20 mark. The pastor claims both genealogies are for Mary and Joseph! This is patently false. Both genealogies are vastly different, and both of them are Joseph's genealogies. They both can't be right!
That is fine, I neither agree with him, nor you. So technically we have three views on the geneologies. If you have a specific error regarding the geneologies we can deal with that. But all this is neither here nor there. Just because there are three opinions on a text, does not make a text right or wrong. IF you are speaking about the issue relating to Joram, josephs father, I will quote geisler on that as well:
"
MATTHEW 1:8—Is Joram the father of Uzziah or of Ahaziah?
PROBLEM: Matthew says “Joram begot Uzziah.” However,
1 Chronicles 3:11 lists “Joram [and then] his son, Ahaziah.” Which one is correct?
SOLUTION: Ahaziah was apparently the immediate son of Joram, and Uzziah was a distant “son” (descendant). Just as the word “son” in the Bible also means grandson, even so the term “begot” can be used of a father or grandfather. In other words, “begot” means “became the ancestor of,” and the one “begotten” is the “descendant of.”
Matthew, therefore, is not giving a
complete chronology, but an
abbreviated genealogyof Christ’s ancestry. A comparison of
Matthew 1:8 and
1 Chronicles 3:11–12 reveals the three generations between Joram and Uzziah (Azariah):
MATTHEW
1:8............1 CHRONICLES
3:11–12
Joram.........................Joram
…................................Ahaziah
….................................Joash
….................................Amaziah
Uzziah...........................Uzziah (also called Azariah)
MATTHEW 1:9—Did Matthew make a mistake concerning the father of Jotham?
PROBLEM: In
2 Kings 15:1–7, the Bible mentions the father of Jotham as Azariah, and in
2 Kings 15:32 and
34, Jotham’s father is named Uzziah. Some have concluded that the Bible made a mistake by listing two different people as the father of Jotham.
SOLUTION: These are two different names for the same person. For different reasons, the Bible occasionally gives two different names for one individual. For example, Paul was also named Saul (
Acts 13:9).
6:32;
7:1). Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin is also known as Jeconiah (cf.
2 Kings 24:6 and
1 Chron. 3:16). Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were all given new names. They are Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego (
Daniel 1:7). Also, some of Jesus’ disciples had two names, for example, Simon (Peter) and Lebbaeus (Thaddaeus) (
Matt. 10:2–3).
"- quote from "when Critics Ask- by norman geisler
But then they don't address the point that a Messiah will be traced to a MALE descendant of David, and Joseph was not Jesus' biological father! So how is Jesus fulfilling that prophecy, again?
Knowing that Joseph was himself of the line of David makes Jesus the rightful legal heir to the throne of David even though he wasn't biologically related to his earthly father.
Born of virgin is not really a prophecy. Original Hebrew doesn't use the 'term' virgin in Isaiah 7. Greek translation uses 'virgin' and then, voila, Christian NT authors found a 'prophecy'!
"
ISAIAH 7:14—Is this verse a prophecy about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?
PROBLEM: The prophecy of
Isaiah 7:14 concerns the conception of a virgin and the bringing forth of a son whose name would be Immanuel. However, verse
16 seems to place the birth of the child before the invasion of the Assyrian armies and the fall of Samaria in 722 b.c., and
Isaiah 8:3 seems to be a fulfillment of this prophecy. How can this be a prophecy about the virgin birth of Jesus?
SOLUTION: The fulfillment of this prophecy may be two-fold. Because of the desperate situation which the people of Israel faced, God promised to give them a sign that would assure them that He would ultimately deliver His people out of bondage. Many scholars believe this sign came in two ways. First, it came as a sign of the physical deliverance of Israel from the bondage to which they were going under the invading Assyrians. Second, it came as a sign of the spiritual deliverance of all of God’s people from the spiritual bondage to Satan. The first aspect of the sign was fulfilled in the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz as recorded in
Isaiah 8:3. The second aspect of the sign was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ at Bethlehem as recorded in the Gospels.
The word translated “virgin” (
almah) refers to a young maiden who has never had sexual relations with a man. The wife of Isaiah who bore the son in fulfillment of the first aspect of the prophecy was a virgin until she conceived by Isaiah. However, according to
Matthew 1:23–25, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin even when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus. The physical conception and birth of the son of Isaiah was a sign to Israel that God would deliver them from physical bondage to the Assyrians. But, the supernatural conception and birth of the Son of God was a sign to all of God’s people that He would deliver them from spiritual bondage to sin and death."
-When Critics Ask- on Isaiah 7:14. By the way, all these are quotes from norman geislers work called "when critics ask." I highly recommend it for you. It may help you in your studies. If you like that one, there are probably half a dozen other works on Bible difficulties I could recommend. The book "when critics asked" has been revised and updated into a book called "the big book of bible difficulties." It has over 800 answers to Bible difficulties. reading this book really gave me faith in the Bible, I just had to really start believing in God. And it was not that I didn't want to believe in God, but I was letting these criticisms stump my faith, I sort of felt foolish after reading this book because the Bible, the Book that I had dismissed, was really a solid book after all.
Here is a repeat of some of the archeological discoveries supporting the historicity of the Bible:
- Scientific Evidence of Moses:
- 9 Archaeological Discoveries that prove the Bible