What is wrong with Biblical prophecy?

First of all, you seem to have misread this subforum's title. This is a subforum in which Christians offer answers to non-Christians...not the other way around. Posing "challenges" to the non-Christians who frequent this section is hardly the most hospitable atmosphere.But I'll indulge you.The main reason I don't consider Biblical prophecy credible is because it is all a) self-contained and vague. By self-contained I mean that a prophecy will be mentioned in one part of the bible and then fulfilled somewhere else in the bible. Obviously, this is not going to be convincing to any non-Christian. Evidence of redaction throughout the bible is rampant, and this is to be expected. If someone is of a particular faith, he is going to want to make that faith look more legitimate to others. And he has the original prophecies at the ready simply by reading the older books of the bible in which they were described. So all he has to do is look for biblical prophecies, and then edit him into his own account so that they seem to be fulfilled. So hopefully that answers your question about a prophecy from Daniel being fulfilled in the gospels. If we were to see some extra-biblical fulfillment of biblical prophecies, that would be much more convincing. If they were the big deal that the bible makes them out to be, then why didn't anyone else chronicle them?The second point is much easier to describe. Many biblical prophecies are very vague. If the prophecies had mentioned specific dates, and they were fulfilled on those precise dates, then biblical prophecy would also appear much more convincing. This isn't the case, however. Some prophecies are so broad as to be self-fulfilling - I once had someone argue that prophecies were being fulfilled in the modern day because we were experiencing "war and natural disasters." Stuff like that just doesn't count.Lastly, biblical prophecy has at least one extremely noteworthy hole, even after redaction has been considered - no second coming. We have been over the many quotes suggesting that the second coming would be within the lifetime of Jesus' followers. I'll list them again. Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:27-28, Luke 9:27, Mark 13:30-31, Matthew 10:23, Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, John 21:22, 1 Thessalonians 4:17. And to get Mark 13:30-31 out of the way: I'm aware of the alternate interpretation for "generation" here. Considering the general gist of the other passages I find this interpretation dubious, but even if this is the correct interpretation, it does not explain away all of those other unequivocal passages.There are numerous other unfulfilled prophecies or inaccuracies in biblical prophecy, but I'm sure you're well-acquainted with them.

(Alpha and Omega;55815)
Please take the time to watch these videos it'll take about 20 min or so.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7cMEdChiXAhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsHCzm037V0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UfkAuE45s4
Those videos are loading really slowly. Can you just summarize the general idea of it? If it's something that you consider to be important evidence for your own beliefs then I'm sure you're well-acquainted with it.(If this is about the vaunted prophecies in Daniel, though, then I already know what I will say.)

I think you touched on something very important, and something I wondered many years ago as a young Christian.Why aren't more people convinced? Christians are so convinced of the truth, but how on earth do you lose 4 billion people? Honestly, if this is the absolute truth, why isn't it recognized as such.If it's as easy as pie then why hasn't everyone signed up to Christianity? Maybe it's not that easy.I have my scapegoats; the idiot christians, the obnoxious bigots, the crusades. basically the attitudes portrayed by the church for so long (high-horse anyone?), and not by everyone obviously, but people all want to blame someone. Society doesn't want to look at the church any other way, and a lot of people in the church aren't giving them any grounds to reconsider.

(ps77;56311)
I think you touched on something very important, and something I wondered many years ago as a young Christian.Why aren't more people convinced? Christians are so convinced of the truth, but how on earth do you lose 4 billion people? Honestly, if this is the absolute truth, why isn't it recognized as such.If it's as easy as pie then why hasn't everyone signed up to Christianity? Maybe it's not that easy.I have my scapegoats; the idiot christians, the obnoxious bigots, the crusades. basically the attitudes portrayed by the church for so long (high-horse anyone?), and not by everyone obviously, but people all want to blame someone. Society doesn't want to look at the church any other way, and a lot of people in the church aren't giving them any grounds to reconsider.
Luke18:8 - I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?II Corinthians 4:4 - In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

that's really easy though, to hide behind that; the god of this world hath blinded their eyes. a concept that i'm sure is fundamental to any fundamentally exclusive religion.

(ps77;56315)
that's really easy though, to hide behind that; the god of this world hath blinded their eyes. a concept that i'm sure is fundamental to any fundamentally exclusive religion.
I don't hide behind religion. For I say unto thee, I don't have a religion, nor do I want one.

what i was saying was that, it is really easy to say i am right and pull out a verse that backs you up saying the evil one has blinded everyone who doesn't agree with me. if you were muslim, i'm sure you could come up with a verse like that. if you were a rasta, you could come up with a verse like that, and the same goes for judaism, hinduism, etc.

(ps77;56320)
what i was saying was that, it is really easy to say i am right and pull out a verse that backs you up saying the evil one has blinded everyone who doesn't agree with me. if you were muslim, i'm sure you could come up with a verse like that. if you were a rasta, you could come up with a verse like that, and the same goes for judaism, hinduism, etc.
If I was a Muslim, then yes I would do the same. But if I was a Muslim seeking the REAL truth, then no.The only person is right is Christ alone. And Christ can't lie.

because if you were a muslim seeking the REAL truth, you wouldn't be muslim would you?waiiiiit. REAL truth?most religious people claim to have the REAL truth.and you seem to be no different. but that's just what you find real.

(ps77;56326)
because if you were a muslim seeking the REAL truth, you wouldn't be muslim would you?waiiiiit. REAL truth?most religious people claim to have the REAL truth.and you seem to be no different. but that's just what you find real.
Does REAL Truth cometh by flesh and blood? or does it cometh from Heavenly Father?

i'm not too sure from whence it cometh, or by whom

(Alpha and Omega;56399)
Because people do not want to change. If they did believe in a supernatural then they would have to change their ways. Because they would be held accountable to a higher power that can cause eternal damnation. That is why they find every excuse under the sun (like my internet is slow) to look the other way or cast it off as no evidence. Or some just do not care. For example a good friend of mine just tells me all the time "Well, you only live once". Well, if that is one's attitude God have mercy.
Do you honestly believe that? Sure, there will always be those who don't believe and who make excuses. But according to this site, there are 1.1 billion people who declare themselves as non-religious. I don't think that you can honestly claim that all of those people are non-religious simply because they don't want to feel accountable to a higher power. Even if you granted that 90% of those people were non-religious for that reason, that still would leave 110 million who would supposedly believe given greater evidence. To label all these people as just being apathetic, selfish, or evasive is to be ignorant of the real issues and why people decide that belief in God is untenable. And dare I say that one reason people give for abandoning religion is because religious people are ignorant and paint them in that light...(Alpha and Omega;56399)
They believe that if it can't happen then it didn't happen. However I say believe the unbelievable.
This does not make any sense. If something can't happen, then it can't happen. Do you mean that if something is unlikely to happen, then it didn't happen?(Alpha and Omega;56399)
Just a side note on proof of existence and the need for empirical evidence.You realise if you consider this statement to be true you're saying galaxies did not exist UNTIL man could prove they existed? Or germs did not exist UNTIL man could PROVE they existed. Or the Earth was not round UNTIL man could PROVE it was round.There WAS a time when PROOF of THESE things (and a great many others) was ABSENT. Are people saying the absence of such proof was PROOF these things were absent????Before Columbus (OK I know there are claims of earlier discoveries but it is just for illustration purposes) there was no proof in Europe that America existed. So when exactly did the landmass begin to exist??
Weak argument. Galaxies existed before man could prove it, but did man believe that they existed before they found the evidence for them? No. Did man believe in germs before they could prove them? Maybe in a rudimentary way, but no. And I'm sure you know that people dogmatically clung to the notion of a flat earth until it was proven to be round. This doesn't change the actual existence of a round earth, but why should someone believe in a God with no evidence to show He exists? Perhaps He does exist, but unlike galaxies, germs, and round earths, God has a living will and can choose to reveal Himself to us. More than that, He knows us and how we will see things, so He can choose to reveal Himself to us in ways that we will understand and comprehend. Unfortunately, I seem to be finding that He isn't doing that...

If the prophecies had mentioned specific dates......
There is a passage in Daniel that specifically tells when Messiah would be "cut-off" (crucified) if one does a little digging. The God of the bible wants one to dig a little instead of being indulged like a slob or spoiled brat fed everything on a proverbial silver platter. That's what differentiates people of self-centered flesh,and people who love God and are really serious by living in the Spirit and searching for answers. But anyways, here is the prophecy:Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.Now... first simple fact: there are 70 weeks here divided up into three groups, 7, 62 and 1.Second fact: These are weeks of years (in prophetic jargon) and a prophetic year consisted of 360 days (12 x 30). Therefore a "week" consisted of an actual 2520 days.Third fact, the first seven weeks consists of rebuilding (Jerusalem) in troublous times.4th fact, 62 weeks later Messiah would be cut off, or 69 weeks after the decree was given.The decree was given in 444BC. Let's now convert 69 weeks to solar years:69 x 7 X 360 = 173,880 actual days. There are 365.2422 days in a solar year, hence, 173,880/365.2422 = 476.07 years. We'll round that to 476 years.Formula for converting and crossing over from BC to AD;(BC year) + (# of years )+ 1= AD year (the BC year is a negative number)|# of years| > |BC year| for this formula to work otherwise there would be no crossover.Plugging into the formula, based on this prophecy Messiah would be cut off at:-444 + 476 + 1= 33ADAs I always say, math says it all, and I believe this is a smack-in-one's-face true prophecy as to when to look for Messiah.This is why the New Testaments told about the people awaiting Christ. They were expecting him by this prophecy. In these last days, we look to Israel and see that nation and the parable of the fig tree that Kriss had a message about regarding the Second Coming. Personally, I believe in the "gap theory" and that last week is reserved for that Man of Sin aka Antichrist and the Great Tribulation before that Second Coming.

(tim_from_pa;56607)
The God of the bible wants one to dig a little instead of being indulged like a slob or spoiled brat fed everything on a proverbial silver platter.
Does the God of the bible mention anything about treating other people with some common decency, perchance? I don't recall ever calling you any names. Let's try and respect the spirit of friendly discussion here. I'm not even the one who started this thread, so don't act as though I'm the one trying to provoke a flame war.(Curious that you'd bring the point about us being required to do a thorough literary analysis of the bible to understand it though, since I brought that precise issue up in another thread. You should give it a look - I hope you're not implying that those without bibles, or the analytic skill, or the luxury of time, to delve into them as you have aren't worthy of knowing the truth.)Believe me, I'd very much like to not buy into the stereotype of Christians being arrogant, self-righteous people, so please do both yourself and me a favor and don't say things like that.Now, as for the actual prophecies.I have heard this line of reasoning before. I find it very unconvincing. Here is why.First, the Jews never used a 30-day month or 360-day "prophetic year" in their entire history. They used a lunar calendar which varied between 29 and 30 days per month, and had 354 days per year, and then added a thirteenth month every few years to keep it in sync with the solar year. No nation in history has ever used an inflexible 360-day calendar without adding days somewhere. So the entire premise being used for your math is unsubstantiated. This is a fatal flaw for the theory, I think.The only arguments I have seen for the 360-day prophetic year are 1) your own attestation and 2) a few cross-referenced bible verses, like when the 5-month period of Noah's flood is described as 150 days. This is not at all impressive to me. A specific 360-day year is never explicitly mentioned, and it seems much more likely, especially given the quirks of the Jewish lunar calendar, that they were simply using round numbers. It certainly wouldn't be in the only place in the Bible in which numbers have been rounded, or otherwise interpreted liberally. And if the 360-day prophetic year was used elsewhere in the bible, we are lead to absurd conclusions concerning other prophecies (like that Jesus' Millennial reign would be only 986 years).Also, the math is incorrect. Before 1582 the Julian style calendar was used, where every year was exactly 365-1/4 days (rather than the slightly smaller 365.2422). This is small, but by the time it was reformed the difference was enough to desync the calendar by 11 days. You used the Julian dates of 476 BC and 33 AD, but then used the Gregorian system of 365.242 to multiply. You should have used exactly 365-1/4.But lastly and most importantly, the seventieth week never happened. The Roman "people of the prince who is to come" should have oppressed the Jews and destroyed Jerusalem in 2520 days from 33-40 AD, and then Jesus should have come to rule on Earth, according to the prophecy. But that never occurred. You could argue that the seventieth week was postponed by God because the Jews crucified him...but that explanation implicitly makes the prophecy incorrect. You cannot say that the prophecy was true, and then say that it was only false because the Jews did X or Y. It is simply false.And the book of Daniel is absolutely littered with unfulfilled prophecies such as these. Daniel 10-12 claims that Antiochus Epiphanes was to conquer Egypt again, unopposed by Rome, set up his palace in Palestine, and then be miraculously destroyed along with his empire by the Archangel Michael, culminating with the resurrection of the dead. In reality, Antiochus fell ill and died while he was looting the treasures of Persian territories.Daniel's "prophecies" are only accurate up to the beginning of the Maccabean revolt and the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in 167 BC - which is, not at all coincidentially, when the book was written. His predictions of the invasion of Antiochus, his supernatural slaying, the resurrection of the dead, and the impending Messianic age were all completely false. Why would this be? If this was actually the inspired work of God, and its author was gifted with prophetic abilities, then why would he not be able to accurately predict anything past the point at which he was writing?This is why I don't pay much heed to the prophecies of Daniel.

Does the God of the bible mention anything about treating other people with some common decency, perchance? I don't recall ever calling you any names. Let's try and respect the spirit of friendly discussion here. I'm not even the one who started this thread, so don't act as though I'm the one trying to provoke a flame war.
Sorry. The statement was meant to be generalized. I guess a knee-jerk reaction from many skeptical sources that seem to do likewise. I guess this sin affects both sides whether one wants to admit it or not.
First, the Jews never used a 30-day month or 360-day "prophetic year" in their entire history. They used a lunar calendar which varied between 29 and 30 days per month, and had 354 days per year, and then added a thirteenth month every few years to keep it in sync with the solar year. No nation in history has ever used an inflexible 360-day calendar without adding days somewhere. So the entire premise being used for your math is unsubstantiated. This is a fatal flaw for the theory, I think.The only arguments I have seen for the 360-day prophetic year are 1) your own attestation and 2) a few cross-referenced bible verses, like when the 5-month period of Noah's flood is described as 150 days. This is not at all impressive to me. A specific 360-day year is never explicitly mentioned, and it seems much more likely, especially given the quirks of the Jewish lunar calendar, that they were simply using round numbers. It certainly wouldn't be in the only place in the Bible in which numbers have been rounded, or otherwise interpreted liberally. And if the 360-day prophetic year was used elsewhere in the bible, we are lead to absurd conclusions concerning other prophecies (like that Jesus' Millennial reign would be only 986 years).Also, the math is incorrect. Before 1582 the Julian style calendar was used, where every year was exactly 365-1/4 days (rather than the slightly smaller 365.2422). This is small, but by the time it was reformed the difference was enough to desync the calendar by 11 days. You used the Julian dates of 476 BC and 33 AD, but then used the Gregorian system of 365.242 to multiply. You should have used exactly 365-1/4.
First, let me answer the latter half. There was no Julian calendar to use at the time of this prophecy. The Jews as you pointed out never used this. However, did they know a 365.2422 year? I don't know, but that does not mean the angel could not use it. Now notice I said I did not know if the Jews knew this or not. However, the earlier Hebrews may well have. There are some of us that believe that the Great Pyramid used the unit of measure called the "Enoch circle" which was 365.2422 pyramid inches. This is something directly measurable. I personally believe the ancients knew the true length of the solar year. (The pyramid also has the sidereal and anomolistic year in its measurements as well) The Great Pyramid gets off on a tangent involving Enoch, Noah and whonot..... but that's just the scientific and mathematical geek in me that likes this sort of stuff (my personality and interests are very similar to Sir Isaac Newton). The point I always make is that nobody goes to bed and dreams this stuff up. The fact that this is mentioned shows there's something to it.Now, for the first half. There is nothing wrong with my calculations. As a matter of fact, I derived them myself and to my surprise it agreed with others later on when I compared them. The whole pivotal point of your argument is whether or not there is a 360-day prophetic year. Of course I believe this, but I'm going to let you hang on that one. The reason is simply this: if there is a 360 day prophetic year, then these calculations show the exact date. If there is not, then it's "coincidence". It'll let you have that uncertainty so that truth does not smack you too much in the face. But let's face it..... the argument for or against Daniel's prophecy hangs on the balance of the 360-day year. IMO, the only straw a skeptic has left is to dispute that idea of a 360-day year. Again, I will let you have that. But for myself, I am convinced. I have my sources.