Myth Or History?

[Kenny]

Kenny, you're the person claiming you have prophecies that meet the criteria of believability I provided you. The burden of proof here is on you. Trying to pass the buck is not a good look for you.

I think you have gone a bit too far...

1) The OP stated why I believe the OT. If you can read this softly and gently, it didn't say for me to convince you or that I needed to convince anybody. It was simply my personal viewpoint.
2) If you remember, I asked you "where did your list come from" and you said it was your personal viewpoint. I didn't say i agreed with your position and I offered one possibility and, for reasons you mentioned, you didn't believe it even though it met your criteria
3) Go through the list of archaeological findings about Israel and you will have a litany of hard evidence... not general.
4) There is no need for me to have a "burden of proof" in as much as you don't have any proof either.

I think you are taking this a bit too far.

I am not asking you to believe me nor trying to convince you that I am right. Each person comes to their own conclusion on their own journey.

 

[muhammad_isa]

1. The common thread of the narrative: When people that are labelled as prophets write the narrative which, in many instances, did not even know what the other person wrote and yet the narrative is either exactly the same or have the same message, we find that something supernatural is in the making.

Mmm .. I feel the same way. I find that the Torah, Psalms, NT and Qur'an all fit together in a coherent fashion.
To believe that it is one gigantic conspiracy from beginning to end, is just too far-fetched for me.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That link is interesting. As far as Robin Hood goes; he never was connected with spiritually or addressed God’s purpose for humanity, how to attain eternal life, etc. The so-called Egyptian gods and/or the kings or pharaohs associated with them were shown to be inferior, fake gods when confronted by the biblical God of Israel, Who as the Creator of heaven and earth has stated repeatedly, “There is no other God”.
( Isaiah 44:6, 44:8; 45:5, 18-23; 46:9)

The point was that myths/legends can also have real people and places. This doesn't make them real history.

 

[Left Coast]

I think you have gone a bit too far...

1) The OP stated why I believe the OT. If you can read this softly and gently, it didn't say for me to convince you or that I needed to convince anybody. It was simply my personal viewpoint.

I understand that. Look, if you're not interested in the conversation, you're under no obligation to reply to me, ever. I assume you're here because you are interested in discussion and debate of these ideas. So for you to throw out a claim and then be asked for evidence to support it is not exactly out of left field.

2) If you remember, I asked you "where did your list come from" and you said it was your personal viewpoint. I didn't say i agreed with your position and I offered one possibility and, for reasons you mentioned, you didn't believe it even though it met your criteria

But it didn't meet the criteria. And I explained to you how it didn't meet the criteria. I also asked you to feel free to critique the criteria themselves if you had an issue with them. But you didn't.

3) Go through the list of archaeological findings about Israel and you will have a litany of hard evidence... not general.

What list?

4) There is no need for me to have a "burden of proof" in as much as you don't have any proof either.

Again, you're trying to pass the buck. I didn't make the claim that started this interaction. You did. My position here is the null hypothesis.

If your basic point is that you just have personal reasons for believing whatever you do about Bible prophecy that you don't think should or would convince anyone else, that's fine. Lots of people have beliefs like that. So just say that at the outset instead of claiming your beliefs meet a standard of proof put before them or that they're statistically impossible or whatever. It would save everyone time. I wouldn't have even bothered questioning you about them if that were the case.

 

[CG Didymus]

The point was that myths/legends can also have real people and places. This doesn't make them real history.

If we were told today that somebody had turned water into wine and walked on water, or that a man parted the seas and his cane turned into a snake, how many of us would believe it? Yet, when it's in a religious story from 2000 years ago or more, some people believe it. And I think that is only because they are told that those stories are true. But those same people probably don't believe the same type of miraculous events in stories they believe to be myth or fiction. But their religious stories are different. For them, those stories, the characters, the places and the event, have to be true.

 

[Kenny]

I understand that. Look, if you're not interested in the conversation, you're under no obligation to reply to me, ever. I assume you're here because you are interested in discussion and debate of these ideas. So for you to throw out a claim and then be asked for evidence to support it is not exactly out of left field.

No problem with discussion. It just seems like your discussion is more of a "this is my belief and I'm sticking to it". I don't have a problem with it but there isn't real discussion.

That being said, you could the same of me.

But it didn't meet the criteria. And I explained to you how it didn't meet the criteria. I also asked you to feel free to critique the criteria themselves if you had an issue with them. But you didn't.

No, you explained why you thought it didn't apply even though it fulfilled your criteria.

1) Specific and verifiable details of the future event being prophesied should be given: names, dates, times, specific locations, and specific actions or events.

They were very specific and given name, specific location and events.

2) The prophecy should be fulfilled in the way it was expected to be fulfilled before the alleged fulfillment, not after. Post hoc or “spiritualized” reinterpretations should not be accepted.

No spiritualized reinterpretations. Fulfilled

3) The events being prophesied cannot be plausibly predicted via any known means, e.g. through scientific prediction or projection. Similarly, the probability of the prophesied events being correctly guessed by someone would have to be astronomically low, if not zero.

No scientific prediction or projection.

So, you can see it fulfilled according to your specification. Now that it was fulfilled, you are moving the goalpost and adding "requirements".

What list?

Look are Israel in archaeology. Multiple sites and innumerable artifacts, locations, verifications et al.

Again, you're trying to pass the buck. I didn't make the claim that started this interaction. You did. My position here is the null hypothesis.

If your basic point is that you just have personal reasons for believing whatever you do about Bible prophecy that you don't think should or would convince anyone else, that's fine. Lots of people have beliefs like that. So just say that at the outset instead of claiming your beliefs meet a standard of proof put before them or that they're statistically impossible or whatever. It would save everyone time. I wouldn't have even bothered questioning you about them if that were the case.

So, rather than passing the buck to me, would you please hold on to your buck?

 

[Left Coast]

No problem with discussion. It just seems like your discussion is more of a "this is my belief and I'm sticking to it". I don't have a problem with it but there isn't real discussion.

The irony of you making this statement to me is actually humorous. You literally began your participation in this thread explaining that your approach to the Bible, presumably for decades, has been to simply by default assume it's true from the start. Myth Or History?

Please, please Physician... heal thyself.

No, you explained why you thought it didn't apply even though it fulfilled your criteria.

1) Specific and verifiable details of the future event being prophesied should be given: names, dates, times, specific locations, and specific actions or events.

They were very specific and given name, specific location and events.

There's another word there in that bullet point, even in bold for you. The details must be verifiable. If we have no way to reliably verify that a prophecy was either made or fulfilled, why in the world would we believe it?

2) The prophecy should be fulfilled in the way it was expected to be fulfilled before the alleged fulfillment, not after. Post hoc or “spiritualized” reinterpretations should not be accepted.

No spiritualized reinterpretations. Fulfilled

As explained to you before, we have more than one reason to believe that the "prophecy" in fact did not come before the fulfillment. These reasons were given but dismissed without real engagement. Actually reply to them this time, perhaps?

3) The events being prophesied cannot be plausibly predicted via any known means, e.g. through scientific prediction or projection. Similarly, the probability of the prophesied events being correctly guessed by someone would have to be astronomically low, if not zero.

No scientific prediction or projection.

So, you can see it fulfilled according to your specification. Now that it was fulfilled, you are moving the goalpost and adding "requirements".

As anyone can now reasonably see... no, no moving of goalposts. Just methodical explanation to you, again, of the same things I've been saying.

Look are Israel in archaeology. Multiple sites and innumerable artifacts, locations, verifications et al.

Again, this is vague. Yes Kenny, Israel is a real place, lol. There are lots of artifacts from Israel's history. Neat. No one denies this.

Do any of those artifacts confirm that this alleged prophecy or its alleged fulfillment occured as described?

So, rather than passing the buck to me, would you please hold on to your buck?

The buck has been yours from square one, Kenny. We'll see if you respond substantively to what I've said. Hope springs eternal!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The irony of you making this statement to me is actually humorous.

You have a unique sense of humor.

Look are Israel in archaeology. Multiple sites and innumerable artifacts, locations, verifications et al.

Again, this is vague. Yes Kenny, Israel is a real place, lol. There are lots of artifacts from Israel's history. Neat. No one denies this.

Do any of those artifacts confirm that this alleged prophecy or its alleged fulfillment occured as described?

When a challenged apologist confidently puts forward the ever popular ...

they think they've found Hezekiah's tunnel
therefore God parted the Sea of Reeds​

argument, it's best to wait patiently in the hope that, sooner or later, the goofiness will pass. Yes, it is a false hope, but no less false than the hope that debating such nonsense might prove fruitful.

 

[Left Coast]

You have a unique sense of humor.


When a challenged apologist confidently puts forward the ever popular ...

they think they've found Hezekiah's tunnel
therefore God parted the Sea of Reeds​

argument, it's best to wait patiently in the hope that, sooner or later, the goofiness will pass. Yes, it is a false hope, but no less false than the hope that debating such nonsense might prove fruitful.

The one fruit I can hope such conversations bear is to show readers how thin the excuses and rationalizations of apologists are. As a child I was not much exposed to alternatives to Biblical fundamentalism. It was always assumed that the Bible must somehow, someway be true. That was just the water I swam in.

I had to go looking myself to find that, gee, there are really good and fairly obvious reasons not to buy that assumption. Perhaps someone will profit from viewing these point/counterpoint exchanges.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe our disconnect is in how it is presented or a poor choice of words on my part.

Obviously it was possible since it happened. My point is that it is so astronomically improbable (with just 8 out of over 45 prophecies) - that it adds to my conclusion that the scriptures that I read are true. Statistically the improbability of 45+ prophecies fulfilled by one person can be thought of as impossible unless there was something supernatural involved... in this case God.

Hopefully restating it clears it up

How many of those 45 prophecies actually meet the criteria for a valid prophecy?

A valid prophecy must meet several criteria:

• It must actually be a prophecy. Not a documentation of events that is misinterpreted as a prophecy after a similar event occurs later.
• It must be written before the events that it predicts.
• The predicted events must actually occur.
• The prediction must be both falsifiable and verifiable.
• It must not be overly vague.
• It must not predict a likely event.
• It must not be self-fulfilling.

Prophecy - Religions Wiki

 

[1213]

Why?

I should have said, according to the Bible. And obviously that is, because they are not true God. For example, keeping me as ones God would be wrong, because I am not really the God.

 

[CG Didymus]

• Mathematical: The statistical improbability that one man, Jesus, can fulfill prophetic messianic prophecies is so astronomical as to be a literal impossibility and yet it was fulfilled

• Personal: When I gave my life to Jesus I said, "Either the Bible is true or false. I will start with the position that it is true and then I will test the sucker and will find out soon enough if it is false. The impact it has had in my life, the experiences that conform to what is written, the truths that have unfolded and changed, well... after 40 years I am still testing "the sucker" and it has held to be so true as that now it has removed all doubt.

How many of those 45 prophecies actually meet the criteria for a valid prophecy?

There's a couple of religion that claim their guy fulfilled all sorts of prophecies, then I take a look at some of them. The ones I look at all have one thing in common... They were all just one verse taken out of context. Like with Zechariah 9:9. What is the chapter talking about? I don't know. I'm sure Jews have an interpretation, but are Christians going to agree with it? Probably not... Especially when they get to verse 9. Christians take that and make it about Jesus, but nothing else in the chapter. Then some gospel writers have one donkey and another gospel, Matthew's, there is two donkeys.

The other one that bothers me is Isaiah 7:14. Jesus didn't fulfill any of the other things about this boy in Isaiah chapter 7. And again, it is Matthew's gospel. To me, these "prophesies" could have easily been made up... Verses cherry-picked out of the Bible and added into the Jesus story.

But I do agree, and I do believe what Kenny says is true. He believes it and it has changed his life. However, other people in other religions that believe their guy has also fulfilled Bible prophecies are just as convinced what they believe is true. And, of course, what they believe contradicts what Christians believe.

I don't see how they can both be right. But in their own little world that their beliefs have created, they are right and everything in that world their beliefs have created for them works. It explains everything. Why we are here. How we got here. Where we're going. Why the world is the way it is. But again, only one problem, those religious worlds of theirs contradict each other.

But, to them, does that matter? No, because their religion explains why the other religion contradicts theirs. And naturally, theirs is the one that's true. And their personal experience and fulfilled prophecy proves it... sort of.

 

[pearl]

That would reflect a pretty ignorant -- if not agenda-driven -- reading of my post. One can only hope that you are capable of something a bit better when reading Torah.

Its not that complicated to believe that everything from the Torah is not to be taken literal, there is a theological purpose. As for the infancy narratives in the Gospels;

The infancy narratives as vehicles of the Evangelist’s theology, the quest for the Evangelists’ intent.

Weather or not the infancy narratives were historical, whether or not they were based in eye witness testimony, whether or not they had a pre-gospel existence, Mathew and Luke thought they were appropriate introductions to the career and significance of Jesus. For the evangelists the infancy narratives were fitting vehicles of a message they wanted to convey. They ought not to be considered an embarrassment, but a masterpiece. Perhaps precisely because the material had been less fixed in the course of apostolic preaching, the evangelists exercised greater freedom of composition in the infancy narratives. One is hard pressed to find elsewhere in the Gospels theology so succinctly and imaginatively presented.

Excerpts from ‘Birth of the Messiah’, Raymond Brown

The Birth of The Messiah - Raymond Brown | PDF | Nativity Of Jesus | Gospels

 

[Kenny]

The buck has been yours from square one, Kenny. We'll see if you respond substantively to what I've said. Hope springs eternal!

LOL... cute. It is always amazing how people give their points that to me aren't substantive but then turn around and say I don't have substance.

An effort of unbelief imv.

The irony of you making this statement to me is actually humorous. You literally began your participation in this thread explaining that your approach to the Bible, presumably for decades, has been to simply by default assume it's true from the start. Myth Or History?

Please, please Physician... heal thyself.

How you jump from point a to b is quite amazing and yet no substantive points here.

There's another word there in that bullet point, even in bold for you. The details must be verifiable. If we have no way to reliably verify that a prophecy was either made or fulfilled, why in the world would we believe it?

I don't know. The annals of written history is a method of declaring events... unless we don't want to take the history of what is written during the Continental Congress as fake because we have no way of verifying exactly what they said. (Except for what is written)

So, since "verifiable", in your definition, isn't listed in your requirement so, therefor, non sequitur.

As explained to you before, we have more than one reason to believe that the "prophecy" in fact did not come before the fulfillment. These reasons were given but dismissed without real engagement. Actually reply to them this time, perhaps?

Why you believe the fact did not come before fulfillment doesn't mean it wasn't. An effort of unbelief IMV>

As anyone can now reasonably see... no, no moving of goalposts. Just methodical explanation to you, again, of the same things I've been saying.

So, yes, moving of goalpost.

Again, this is vague. Yes Kenny, Israel is a real place, lol. There are lots of artifacts from Israel's history. Neat. No one denies this.

Do any of those artifacts confirm that this alleged prophecy or its alleged fulfillment occured as described?

Go back to what I said to why I believe and then, don't change it into your interpretation

 

[Kenny]

How many of those 45 prophecies actually meet the criteria for a valid prophecy?



Prophecy - Religions Wiki

I suppose you could look at it come to your own count - some may have been stretched - but anything over 8 is already quite an achievement as stipulated by the statiticism:

365 Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus Christ & Printable Gospel Tract - Eternal Evangelism

 

[Left Coast]

LOL... cute. It is always amazing how people give their points that to me aren't substantive but then turn around and say I don't have substance.

So...still no actual reply to what I said in Post #144. Got it.

How you jump from point a to b is quite amazing and yet no substantive points here.

I'm simply commenting on your own statement of why you believe the Bible is true.

I don't know. The annals of written history is a method of declaring events... unless we don't want to take the history of what is written during the Continental Congress as fake because we have no way of verifying exactly what they said. (Except for what is written)

The difference is, the recordings of what was said in the Continental Congress proceedings are completely different in form and content to the Tanakh. And we don't hear stories in the recordings of what happened there of completely implausible, magical events throughout. Which we do have in the case of the Tanakh. And the recordings are verifiably contemporary to the events. Historians can date them. Such cannot be said for the Kings narrative.

So, since "verifiable", in your definition, isn't listed in your requirement so, therefor, non sequitur.

LOL it literally is listed in the criteria, verbatim. You copied and pasted it yourself. This is embarrassing for you Kenny, honestly.

Why you believe the fact did not come before fulfillment doesn't mean it wasn't. An effort of unbelief IMV>

The time to believe things is when we have good evidence for them. But as you admitted from the outset, you don't take that view of the Bible. You assume it's true before you even open the book and read the words on the page. Which is a textbook way to convince yourself something is true no matter what the actual evidence is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suppose you could look at it come to your own count - some may have been stretched - but anything over 8 is already quite an achievement as stipulated by the statiticism:

365 Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus Christ & Printable Gospel Tract - Eternal Evangelism

Are all of them as crap as the first two? That's as far as I got before I stopped.

 

[CG Didymus]

Mmm .. I feel the same way. I find that the Torah, Psalms, NT and Qur'an all fit together in a coherent fashion.
To believe that it is one gigantic conspiracy from beginning to end, is just too far-fetched for me.

And how many Christians agree with you that the Quran fits in? But does the Christian interpretation fit in with Islamic beliefs? Like Ishmael or Isaac being taken to be sacrificed? Was Jesus born in a manger or under a date palm. And was he crucified on the cross? And what are Islamic beliefs about him rising from the dead and then ascending into the clouds?

 

[Kenny]

So...still no actual reply to what I said in Post #144. Got it.

Thank you for reminding me...

I don't think it's arbitrary. If you have an issue with the criteria, let's talk through your criticisms.

As one example... you added "verifiable" after you made the list. So, anytime we fulfill a list, you just add another. Arbitrary

A few things:

1) You understand that these two books were originally one book, one narrative, yes?

Supportive documentation? But the answer is no, they were not. They may have been compiled into one book and the originals through deterioration were lost but they were not "one book".

Much like the Bible today is one book but not one book.

2) We have no evidence that the prophecy predated Josiah. The use of the term 'cities of Samaria' in verse 32, a place that did not have any cities at the time of Jeroboam, is an indication that we're reading a post-dated text. The manuscript evidence for these texts dates from hundreds of years after the alleged events they describe.

Wrong. Lack of evidence does not mean it never happened. With the destruction of so many cities whether by war or natural causes does not mean that cities didn't exist.

3) These narratives are full of completely implausible details that make them highly suspect at baseline. For example, just a few verses later in 1 Kings 13 we read this:

"When the king heard what the man of God cried out against the altar at Bethel, Jeroboam stretched out his hand from the altar, saying, “Seize him!” But the hand that he stretched out against him withered so that he could not draw it back to himself. The altar also was torn down, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign that the man of God had given by the word of the Lord. The king said to the man of God, “Entreat now the favor of the Lord your God, and pray for me, so that my hand may be restored to me.” So the man of God entreated the Lord; and the king’s hand was restored to him, and became as it was before."

As an unbeliever, yes, any miracle will seem implausible. However, as one who has seem many miracles, I find it very plausible.

This is magical, Lord of the Rings sort of stuff. Not plausible history.

So, is there any independent source attesting to any of the relevant prophetic material?

So, for you, it is a Lord of the Rings story. Got it. I think we have nailed what I have been saying all along just with different words

 

[Kenny]

Are all of them as crap as the first two? That's as far as I got before I stopped.

One man's garbage is another man's treasure.