Earth's Sudden End.

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You do realize that one could say about your beliefs "That's the imaginary god of the Bible". How would you prove that the god of Islam is any more imaginary than yours is? The two do have the same roots. That is why Islam is referred to as an Abrahamic religion and Hinduism and Buddhism are not.

It is interesting that the Bible is the only book that has prophecies that have come true. The Koran doesn't have them, nor do Hindu, Buddhist, or Mormon writings. There are Old Testament prophecies that were written hundreds of years before they were fulfilled; such has Isaiah who predicted the crucifixion of Christ hundreds of years before crucifixion was even thought of. Daniel's prophecy about the different nations that arose - Persian, Greek, and Roman, which actually happened. It is interesting to note that the depiction of the Roman empire were the two legs of the image. How could he have known that the actual Roman empire was going to be split in two with one half ruled from Rome and the other from Constantinople during Constantine's time?

We find none of this in the Koran, and so we see that it is not a prophetic book at all. So the difference between the Bible and the Koran is that the Bible is God's communication to mankind, containing prophecies that came true in accurate detail. The Koran is made up of Mohammed's own views and opinions, much the same as the thoughts of Chairman Mao of Communist China.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The above highlights the challenge I find when looking at Biblical prophecies and trying to decide how 'prophetic' they truly are. I don't think I've ever seen a Bible prophecy that can satisfy such rigid criteria.

I think that you are viewing it from an agnostic's point of view, and so the Bible is viewed as a man-made document and not God's inspired Word to mankind. It comes from the viewpoint that it is false unless proved true.

The problem is that someone who doesn't believe the Bible to be the Word of God, won't make the extra effort to carefully study the prophecies and then subsequent history to determine whether the prophecies came true and to what detail.

But there are Bible scholars who have made that effort and they have been able to prove that the Bible is one hundred percent true on the basis of the evidence they have uncovered.

But it is much more difficult to convince a person who has taken the stance that the Bible is not true, and that one religion is as good as another, even if the evidence is presented in the clearest way possible.

One example. For centuries, people did not believe that Pontius Pilate was a real person. Then not too long ago, archaeologists turned over a stone in the ruins of ancient Caesarea and found on the underside an inscription about Pontius Pilate who was governor of Judea. It happened that when he fell out of favour with the emperor, all evidence of him was erased, but the Caesarea stone was missed.

 

[pitabread]

I think that you are viewing it from an agnostic's point of view, and so the Bible is viewed as a man-made document and not God's inspired Word to mankind.

So? That isn't relevant to the question of whether Biblical prophecies are valid.

As I said earlier, immediately reaching for excuses to dismiss contrary views does not help your position.

If you really were concerned about Biblical prophecy, try running them through the gauntlet of criteria listed by JackRT.

Have you ever done that? Have you ever dug into real Biblical scholarship?

The problem is that someone who doesn't believe the Bible to be the Word of God, won't make the extra effort to carefully study the prophecies and then subsequent history to determine whether the prophecies came true and to what detail.

Again with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You're not doing yourself any favors by continuing invoking the same fallacies.

Besides, you haven't given any indication that you've studied anything in great detail yourself. What are your sources? What scholarly literature or academic coursework have you consumed?

But there are Bible scholars who have made that effort and they have been able to prove that the Bible is one hundred percent true on the basis of the evidence they have uncovered.

My experience reading Biblical scholarship is this isn't necessarily true. Sure it's easy to find conservative Christians that claim the Bible is 100% true. Yet it's also easy to find Biblical scholars (especially credentialed, experienced scholars) who will state otherwise.

For centuries, people did not believe that Pontius Pilate was a real person.

[citation needed]

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is interesting that the Bible is the only book that has prophecies that have come true. The Koran doesn't have them, nor do Hindu, Buddhist, or Mormon writings. There are Old Testament prophecies that were written hundreds of years before they were fulfilled; such has Isaiah who predicted the crucifixion of Christ hundreds of years before crucifixion was even thought of. Daniel's prophecy about the different nations that arose - Persian, Greek, and Roman, which actually happened. It is interesting to note that the depiction of the Roman empire were the two legs of the image. How could he have known that the actual Roman empire was going to be split in two with one half ruled from Rome and the other from Constantinople during Constantine's time?

We find none of this in the Koran, and so we see that it is not a prophetic book at all. So the difference between the Bible and the Koran is that the Bible is God's communication to mankind, containing prophecies that came true in accurate detail. The Koran is made up of Mohammed's own views and opinions, much the same as the thoughts of Chairman Mao of Communist China.

But the Bible prophecies all tend to fail rather miserably as well. You are using a very biased lens when you look at those prophecies. When viewed objectively they are not fulfilled.

 

[JackRT]

The above highlights the challenge I find when looking at Biblical prophecies and trying to decide how 'prophetic' they truly are. I don't think I've ever seen a Bible prophecy that can satisfy such rigid criteria.

And yet most Christians would have absolutely no problem in applying those same criteria to prophesy in other religious contexts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some of us Christians are inordinately fond of boasting of the prophetic accuracy of the Bible. In order to have a verified example of prophecy fulfillment, here are the criteria that must be adhered to:
(1) The prophesy must be clearly issued as a prophesy and unequivocally describe the event which it predicts.
(2) The prophecy must be proven to have been recorded prior to the event being predicted.
(3) The prophecy fulfillment may not consist of any event capable of being staged for the purpose of fulfilling prophesy.
(4) The event being predicted must consist of something that cannot be explained by an intelligent guess.
(5) The events must have actually come to pass.
These criteria are just as equally applicable to prophesy in scriptures other than the Bible and indeed in what might be called prophesy in other contexts.

I am quoting this for @Oscarr 's benefit. They are reasonable standards for any prophecy regardless of religion. Though in other religions the source would be by their own holy books and not the Bible of course. For the same reasons that you rightfully claim the prophecies of other religions fail, so do the prophecies of the Bible.

 

[pitabread]

And yet most Christians would have absolutely no problem in applying those same criteria to prophesy in other religious contexts.

Ironic, huh?

 

[pitabread]

I am quoting this for @Oscarr 's benefit. They are reasonable standards for any prophecy regardless of religion. Though in other religions the source would be by their own holy books and not the Bible of course. For the same reasons that you rightfully claim the prophecies of other religions fail, so do the prophecies of the Bible.

Given that he blatantly ignored that post the first time, I wouldn't expect him to acknowledge it now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given that he blatantly ignored that post the first time, I wouldn't expect him to acknowledge it now.

When one finds an argument that one has no answer for it is sometimes the only strategy that one could follow.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So? That isn't relevant to the question of whether Biblical prophecies are valid.

As I said earlier, immediately reaching for excuses to dismiss contrary views does not help your position.

If you really were concerned about Biblical prophecy, try running them through the gauntlet of criteria listed by JackRT.

Have you ever done that? Have you ever dug into real Biblical scholarship?



Again with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You're not doing yourself any favors by continuing invoking the same fallacies.

Besides, you haven't given any indication that you've studied anything in great detail yourself. What are your sources? What scholarly literature or academic coursework have you consumed?



My experience reading Biblical scholarship is this isn't necessarily true. Sure it's easy to find conservative Christians that claim the Bible is 100% true. Yet it's also easy to find Biblical scholars (especially credentialed, experienced scholars) who will state otherwise.



[citation needed]

All I have is a masters in divinity. I guess I fell short of a PhD, so I didn't go as deep into Biblical scholarship as some.

If you want further information about Pontius Pilate you can use Google as well as I can.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But the Bible prophecies all tend to fail rather miserably as well. You are using a very biased lens when you look at those prophecies. When viewed objectively they are not fulfilled.

This thread is not about Biblical prophecies and whether they were fulfilled or not. We are getting off track here. The discussion is about the end of the world and the issues around it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I am quoting this for @Oscarr 's benefit. They are reasonable standards for any prophecy regardless of religion. Though in other religions the source would be by their own holy books and not the Bible of course. For the same reasons that you rightfully claim the prophecies of other religions fail, so do the prophecies of the Bible.

This is getting off track.

 

[pitabread]

This is getting off track.

No, it's quite on point. You brought up Biblical prophecy, time to own it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread is not about Biblical prophecies and whether they were fulfilled or not. We are getting off track here. The discussion is about the end of the world and the issues around it.

I was not the one that brought up the failed prophecies. But as to the end of the world why give the Bible any credibility? And how do you you know what the "right" interpretation is? It appears that you are placing a rather huge burden of proof upon yourself.

 

[pitabread]

All I have is a masters in divinity. I guess I fell short of a PhD, so I didn't go as deep into Biblical scholarship as some.

Fair enough. I guess I walked into that one.

That said, I'll stand by my prior points. Claiming that one cannot study the prophecies in detail unless they explicitly believe the Bible is the Word of God is still avoiding the uncomfortable reality of criticism of the same.

Your original claim about the accuracy of Biblical prophecy doesn't generally hold up when one puts them to the real test, in my experience.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

The Bible is quite clear about how the world will end. We know this because all the fulfilled Old Testament prophecies which have been fulfilled have been fulfilled so accurately that one cannot doubt that the Bible is absolutely true and that God is real and alive.

Yes, so clear, so obvious that millions of people endlessly debate revelations trying to figure out what it all means.

So what is your take on it ? What will happen and when ? Who is the beast ? What are the horns ? Do we get death ray from the sun just about these days as some forum poster speculates ? When will the Third temple be built ? Will it ? Will it be right temple ?

What will happen before you die of ripe old age (hopefully) ?

 

[grasping the after wind]

You don't live in a society?

Besides which even if didn't necessarily cause a mess directly, you may still be impacted by its consequences. That alone should give you an interest in working towards solutions.

Living in society does not require me to make a mess.

You first must have a mess to need a solution for it.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread is closed at OP request.
​