I keep seeing on this site people saying that the Bible is shown to be true because of prophesies in it which have come true. I don't think there's much constructive discussion that can be achieved by arguing about whether or not the prophesies have or have not been fulfilled but there's something I don't understand which I'd be interested in learning your perspective on.....
As far as I've understood so far the argument goes:
The Bible contains prophesies
The prophesies have been fulfilled
Therefore everything else in the Bible is true
...but...
If I can predict the outcome of horse races accurately it doesn't mean that I know anything about horses or racing. My predictions might come true but anything else I told you about the subject is not necessarily of any worth.
If I can prophesy US foreign policy for the next 100 years it doesn't necessarily mean I know anything about the subject nor that anything else I tell you about the US is true.
If I can prophesy great religious events it doesn't mean that anything else I say about the nature of man or God is worth anything.
As far as I've understood so far the argument goes:
The Bible contains prophesies
The prophesies have been fulfilled
Therefore everything else in the Bible is true
...but...
If I can predict the outcome of horse races accurately it doesn't mean that I know anything about horses or racing. My predictions might come true but anything else I told you about the subject is not necessarily of any worth.
If I can prophesy US foreign policy for the next 100 years it doesn't necessarily mean I know anything about the subject nor that anything else I tell you about the US is true.
If I can prophesy great religious events it doesn't mean that anything else I say about the nature of man or God is worth anything.