Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It does get rid of the problem of countless failed prophecies.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Prophecies Aren’t Predictions of the Future
- Thread starter sooda
- Start date
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Prophets aren’t Fortunetellers or Meteorologists (by C. A. Strine)
How does one explain with any intellectual honesty a Second Coming that Jesus said would come soon but didn’t? As Christopher mentioned in the first post, we believe it comes down to how one understands “predictive prophecy.”
We think that the statements about Jesus’ return in the Gospels are prophecies, which aren’t meant to be predictions of future events. Now that really sounds weird.
Except, it isn’t.
When most people read something called prophecy, especially predictive prophecy, they assume that the statements about the future intend to describe accurately what the prophet understands, through divine inspiration, will actually happen in the future.
We tend to think of prophets like divine meteorologists providing a long-term forecast. Predictions of doom and gloom or images of abundant blessing are taken to be statements about what the future will be like. That’s what prophets do: they tell us now about what things will be like then, some time in the future.
Only that’s not what the Old Testament tells us.
The Book of Jeremiah comes closest to giving a model for how predictive prophecy works, and it is rather different than the “predict the future” model.
Indeed, Jeremiah makes it very clear that some predictive prophecy is not meant to come pass at all.
Let’s look at Jeremiah 18:5-10. This passage explains that God reserves the possibility to change course even after the prophet who speaks on God’s behalf predicts blessing or cursing.
Then the word of the LORD came to me: Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the LORD. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.
In other words, God may not send the predicted punishment if the people repent, or conversely withhold a predicted blessing if the people do evil in God’s sight.
Statements about the future are descriptions of how bad it might be, or how abundant God’s blessing could be. It all depends on what people do.
Prophecies are conditional statements. Predictive prophecies explain what is on offer, not what has already been decided.
This dynamic is highlighted later in Jeremiah (ch. 26, to be exact). After having prophesied the destruction of the Temple—obviously not a popular position in Jerusalem—the priests, the prophets, and all the people condemn Jeremiah to death (vv. 7-9) because of his prediction of doom.
But then the elders of the land recall that Micah had predicted a similar fate for Jerusalem. They also recall that, on that occasion, Hezekiah (the king reigning at that time) didn’t try to eliminate Micah because he was irked by his dire prophecy; rather, the threat of destruction provoked Hezekiah to plead with God to spare Jerusalem.
And God did. Crisis averted.
Micah’s prophecy didn’t come to pass, but drove Hezekiah to change his ways. And that made him a good prophet. A very good one indeed.
Prophecy does not simply seek to predict the future, but to change the present. The potential of future disaster is meant to change current behavior, to motivate people to repent, to turn back to God, and to live in a way that will persuade God to hold back judgment.
Or, when blessing is promised, prophecy aims to encourage people to persevere in following God’s commands, to do so with all the more conviction, and to remind them that backsliding into rebellion might convince God not to bestow the good things offered to them at all.
Prophets want to activate certain behaviors in their audiences, not prognosticate future events. They are like parents warning children against foolish behavior and encouraging good behavior, not weather forecasters attempting to tell you whether or not you’ll need an umbrella at noontime tomorrow.
This is the case around the ancient world and the Old Testament (as we discuss in the book).
Think, for instance, of the book of Jonah. This prophet is no doubt a comic figure, in a comical book, but surely one with a serious point.
C. A. (Casey) Strine
Why does Jonah resist going to Nineveh? Precisely because he knew that alerting the people of this foreign nation to the potential of God’s punishment would cause them to change their ways (Jon 4:1-4). Jonah wanted God to punish Nineveh; he knew his “prediction” of punishment could change their behavior and avoid that outcome; so he ran away.
In the book we show how this same view of prophecy lies beneath passages in Isaiah, 2 Samuel, early Jewish texts, and, as Christopher will explain in the next post, the New Testament too.
In the book we show how this same view of prophecy lies beneath passages in Isaiah, 2 Samuel, early Jewish texts, and, as Christopher will explain in the next post, the New Testament too.
Prophets are not fortunetellers or weather forecasters. They are not claiming to predict an inevitable, unchanging future, but to change the way that people live in the present.
When we read predictive prophecy—in the Old Testament, the Gospels, or elsewhere—we need to ask what it wants to activate us to do, not what it might prognosticate about the future.
As we’ll see in our next post, this is just what New Testament shows us.
[Part 3 coming tomorrow . . . ]
See some of Pete’s popular books: The Bible Tells Me So (HarperOne, 2014), Inspiration and Incarnation (Baker 2005/2015), and The Sin of Certainty (HarperOne, 2016).
Prophecies Aren’t Predictions of the Future (You Can Look It Up)
So the prophecies aren't worth paying much attention to, especially when they come true. Nice one
sooda
Veteran Member
So the prophecies aren't worth paying much attention to, especially when they come true. Nice one
Most didn't come true.. The ones that did were written after the fact.
For instance, Isaiah had two authors, probably three.
Israel had thousands of prophets.. They had schools for prophets in 4 or 5 towns.. See Samuel.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
I think we're on the same page... prophecies that were reported to have come true were probably written in direct response to the original text; kind of like how if an author of a comic siad their hero would die, then another author came along and killed the hero. The original author wasn't predicting the future; the later author was finishing a story.
Sorry, I shouldn't have used sarcasm in my forst post
sooda
Veteran Member
I think we're on the same page... prophecies that were reported to have come true were probably written in direct response to the original text; kind of like how if an author of a comic siad their hero would die, then another author came along and killed the hero. The original author wasn't predicting the future; the later author was finishing a story.
Sorry, I shouldn't have used sarcasm in my forst post
Fundamentalists would disagree.. They reject using any sources other than scripture.. But, I think its helpful to look at WHEN a particular prophet lived.
mistoftime
Member
I believe that prophets have no more idea of the future than anyone else.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe a person would have to be extremely silly not to believe in them.
A prophet is a person who relates what God has said to him. Sometimes God tells the prophet what will happen in the future. Predictions are something made by analysts who recognize trends and fortune tellers both of which are often wrong in their predictions.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe God speaks through me so that makes me a prophet.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
1: based on what? Is it sillier to not be convinced by supernatural claims or convinced by them based on literally no evidence (assume by evidence I mean evidence of the standard required by logic and reason, that is to say direct and observable)?
2: To claim you're relating what god has said to you, you have to prove the existence of that god. Otherwise, I'm justified in saying I don't believe you. Isn't it odd that these prophets were alone at the time of their revelations? Take the burning bush... "and there was a bush that was on fire and it talked... wait no don't go and look it was cold fire and the bush isnt damaged... MAGIC"
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe free will takes place in the future as well as currently.
mistoftime
Member
I disagree, especially as there is no evidence to support the existence of any god.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
No it doesnt. The future hasn't happened yet. Tomorrow, they could activate zombie chips that they secretly put in our brains, taking away our free will.
Assuming youre a theist (based on posts); how do you reconcile the idea of 'god' giving you free will, but also the idea of that god knowing exactly how you'd use it and punishing you if you do it wrong? While we're at it, if he created you and knew how you'd turn out and that you'd go to hell - why did he create you that way?
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
What did he say lately?
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe it is based on the fact that God created all things and has all the power necessary to make all things happen.
I believe it is silly to think there is evidence for everything that has occurred.
I don't believe I have to prove anything.
I believe one irrational thought does not justify an irrational conclusion.
I believe that is not always the case. The Disciples witnessed the miracles of Jesus.
I believe magic is different. Mostly in our day it is simply an action taken for which only the perpetrator knows the method used. Magic in the past may simply be that.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that is not as reasonable as continuing to have free will. For instance Wednesday my serpentine belt broke and I have a lot of other problems with an old car. Today I chose to fix things instead of buying another car. I could have predicted I would do that but still the decision had to be made today with more information available. My free will didn't go away on Wednesday, it stayed right with me to today.
I believe there is no need to reconcile. It works the way it is supposed to work.
I believe it is better than not doing it this way. BTW I am destined to live in the New Jerusalem for a while and will not have to face the judgment of whether I should go to Hell or not but then that is my free choice.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Post #154 & 155.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
SJoseph Smith left this world as a martyr in a shoot out against an angry mob at a Jail House in Carthage, Illinois on June 27th, 1844; so there'd been no way he could have amended his prediction after the Civil War had happened.
Many at the founding of the Republic felt the seeds of civil war existed in allowing slavery. Many, at the time of Smith believed civil war was inevitable.
Smiths unbiased history is interesting. His father was a Mason, and Smith grew up listening to all the masonic rigamarole from pops.
Little joe was a child peeping tom, and complaints were made against him for this offense. He and his dad were fascinated by magical things, magic stones, magic glasses, etc,. etc.
Once, hearing about the alleged golden plates that Joe allegedly found, some farmers made up some markings they said the found written on, as I recall, an old buried broken shovel.
They then asked Joe to read them. he gave a wonderful presentation of fantasy, when he was finished, they told him of the joke, unhappy Joe.
As far as I know, no real scholar has ever seen these plates and their alleged writings, I wonder why .
Mormonism is shot full of things Joe took from the masons
The very first edition of his book that maroni ( no, not a traveling Italian opera singer) dictated to him is extremely, extremely rare. It seems to have disappeared from places who once had a copy, like the library of Congress.
Almost 50 years ago, I was a 25% owner of a rare religious book store. The majority owner did all the work, like going to Auctions and estate sales. He obtained a copy.
He put the word out that we had a copy, and we kept it off site.
Eventually a man, apparently a Mormon, made us an offer we couldn´t refuse,many thousands of times more than we paid for it.
Why is it so rare ? there seems to be changes that were made in the text in subsequent editions to very questionable paragraphs that cast a poorer light on the LDS.
Ol Joe was a huckster, nothing more.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
That's a truth claim. this is a debate forum. Please back up claims with evidence, or be prepared to have them rejected - Which is what I am doing now. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Incorrect. If you make bald assertions, you bear the burden of proof or accept that your position is baseless and can be rejected. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Oh good! so you accept that your point was irrational. However, my conclusion wasn't. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
so your book says. But at this point I can see that your epistemology is seriously flawed. Am I right in assuming that you'd accept the contents of the Bible as proof of their own veracity?
I see your point let's say "Miracle" instead - here meaning a supernatural event knowingly caused by a sentient entity.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
1. This point makes no sense. Your original claim seemed to be that free will will always exist - my rebuttal was simply that you cannot know that with certainty. Your reply suggests that because you had free will last wednesday, you will forever.
2. Thats up to you. If you're happy to live in a bubble impenetrable by reason and logic, who am I to criticise? Might I suggest that you stay in church and out of debates? It's easier.
3. Apologies, I wasn't clear. The "you" in that sentence wasn't intended to mean you personally. Let me rephrase - if God is all powerful and all knowing, then he created Hitler in full knowledge of what he would do and even made that happen. If he created him and set out his destiny in this way, then he hasn't given him free will. Hitler was a pawn in God's game.
My religion (my version of Hinduism) doesn't. Lots of religions don't. But the BIG NINE Baha'i recognised ones do, I suppose. So it that's how you're defining religion, sure. But many folks wouldn't define religion that way.