Scientific evidence and Bible prophecies.

[Ella S.]

The writing times and authors of the OT have been trashed by skeptical thinking but prophecies about Jesus and the times after the writing of the Bible are certainly written before the events.
Skeptical thinking then makes further attacks on Jesus and that the stories about Jesus were made up.
Sceptics lap it all up because they want proof before faith, which is an oxymoron.
All we are left with is the events that happened after the Bible was written. These are being fulfilled just like the rest of the prophecies.

Most of the prophecies supposedly about Jesus weren't about Jesus, and the ones which were about the messiah have not been fulfilled but supposedly will be fulfilled in Jesus's Second Coming according to Christian thinkers.

The few prophecies that were fulfilled were written decades after Jesus's death in clearly mythical texts (the gospels) which contradict each other.

So, yes, the prophecies were written beforehand and yet they haven't been fulfilled, which is about what one should reasonably expect from prophecy.

 

[Brian2]

Most of the prophecies supposedly about Jesus weren't about Jesus, and the ones which were about the messiah have not been fulfilled but supposedly will be fulfilled in Jesus's Second Coming according to Christian thinkers.

That they weren't about Jesus sounds like your interpretation of them.
What is wrong with not all the prophecies being fulfilled yet?

The few prophecies that were fulfilled were written decades after Jesus's death in clearly mythical texts (the gospels) which contradict each other.

I am speaking about OT prophecies. They were written before Jesus was born.
Most of the things in the gospels which you might think are contradictions, are not really contradictions.

So, yes, the prophecies were written beforehand and yet they haven't been fulfilled, which is about what one should reasonably expect from prophecy.

If the Christ was prophesied to die and rise again and go to heaven to receive His Kingdom and that the gospel message would be spread all over the world then it is reasonable to expect the rest of the prophecies to be fulfilled both now in this Messianic age when Jesus is ruling and after His return, since that is what they are about.

 

[joelr]

I am curious about archeological evidence surrounding Bible prophecies. Is there any evidence that a supposed prophecy was written at a date prior to the prophesied event? or vice versa?
When I was doing my own research a few years ago ,i.e. googling stuff, I found that scholars would date the writing of prophetic books based on the prophecy itself. “Well, it was supposedly prophesying about this historical event, so it was written after said event.” is the line of reasoning I’ve generally seen used, as opposed to archeological evidence let’s say.
I get it, a scholar is going to approach the Bible as they would any other mythical book; with skepticism. But if one looks at the Bible with an open mind, they should entertain the possibility that the prophecies were written prior to said events. Then said person should examine the evidence from both sides, which is what I am intending on doing.
I figured I could google stuff, ooooor I can make a thread on RF and see if any of you fine individuals have opinions on the topic. I’m still gonna google, but I’ve done that before. RF is generally pretty resourceful.

No.
If you want to know more about Biblical archaeology William Dever is the most prolific and well known. Nova interviewed him and he gives a summary but he has many books if you want details.

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

 

[gnostic]

That they weren't about Jesus sounds like your interpretation of them.
What is wrong with not all the prophecies being fulfilled yet?

I am speaking about OT prophecies. They were written before Jesus was born.
Most of the things in the gospels which you might think are contradictions, are not really contradictions.

The one about Jesus, in Matthew 1:22-23, is a reinterpretation of Isaiah 7:14-17.

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

Isaiah’s original sign wasn’t even about any messiah, the child to be born, was born at Ahaz & Isaiah’s time, when Judah was at war with the two kings: Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram.

The actual sign was about when Assyria would intervene in the war (7:17), and drive out the two kings (7:16), when Immanuel was old enough to honey and cruds, and old enough to know the difference between good and evil (7:15).

So the sign wasn't about Immanuel’s birth (7:14), it was about the rest of the verses - Isaiah 7:15-17.

So Immanuel was no messiah. Immanuel’s role in the sign was only when he reach a specific age, Assyria would come and deliver Judah from the the 2 kings; that’s the actual sign.

Did you know notice that Isaiah started talking on verse 13, but he didn’t stop talking until the end of verse 17, hence the end quote mark.

The sign - the original sign by Isaiah - was never about Mary, never about the “virgin birth”, and never about Jesus being the sign.

The virgin birth and messiah are only the gospel’s incorrect interpretation of Isaiah’s sign. Isaiah’s sign was never about Jesus being a messiah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abraham Lincoln and abolitionists disagreed and found anti-slavery parts of the Bible.

One can read almost anything one wants into the Bible. But if one reads it literally it rather clearly supports it and never opposes it. Even in the New Testament it is treated more as an evil that one has to live with rather than openly condemning it.

 

[gnostic]

@Brian2

The other sign Matthew 2:15 - the out of Egypt sign is also not about Jesus.

14 Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.”

The original passage come from Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

If you bother to read all of chapter 11, you would see Hosea was talking about Moses leading children of Israel (Jacob), the first time they were Egypt, but then it talk about Ephraim (11:3-4) and the kingdom of Israel, and how god would send descendants of Ephraim (Israel kingdom) back to Egypt (11:5), for their lack of obedience and lack of faith, and in Israel’s place, he would set up the king of Assyria to rule over them when they are in exile again:

5 They shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me.

If the gospel author bother to read the rest of Hosea 11, Israel will be sent back to Egypt by Assyria.

Once again, the gospel author had misinterpreted passage from another book, which had nothing to do with the messiah and nothing to do with Joseph, Mary and Jesus living in Egypt and then leaving Egypt.

 

[Brian2]

The one about Jesus, in Matthew 1:22-23, is a reinterpretation of Isaiah 7:14-17.

​

Isaiah’s original sign wasn’t even about any messiah, the child to be born, was born at Ahaz & Isaiah’s time, when Judah was at war with the two kings: Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram.

The actual sign was about when Assyria would intervene in the war (7:17), and drive out the two kings (7:16), when Immanuel was old enough to honey and cruds, and old enough to know the difference between good and evil (7:15).

So the sign wasn't about Immanuel’s birth (7:14), it was about the rest of the verses - Isaiah 7:15-17.

So Immanuel was no messiah. Immanuel’s role in the sign was only when he reach a specific age, Assyria would come and deliver Judah from the the 2 kings; that’s the actual sign.

Did you know notice that Isaiah started talking on verse 13, but he didn’t stop talking until the end of verse 17, hence the end quote mark.

The sign - the original sign by Isaiah - was never about Mary, never about the “virgin birth”, and never about Jesus being the sign.

The virgin birth and messiah are only the gospel’s incorrect interpretation of Isaiah’s sign. Isaiah’s sign was never about Jesus being a messiah.

Isa 7:14 is about the same child shown in Isa 9. The Jews of course interpret the prophecies to be about the times they were written and indeed they might be but that does not stop a greater fulfilment in Jesus. As a prophecy about God, it would be appropriate to use "virgin" at Isa 7:14 instead of young maid. The word can be used in both ways it seems and the Septuagint translated it as "virgin".

Isa 9:1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
a light has dawned.
3 You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as warriors rejoice
when dividing the plunder.
4 For as in the day of Midian’s defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.
5 Every warrior’s boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

 

[Brian2]

@Brian2

The other sign Matthew 2:15 - the out of Egypt sign is also not about Jesus.


The original passage come from Hosea 11:1

​

If you bother to read all of chapter 11, you would see Hosea was talking about Moses leading children of Israel (Jacob), the first time they were Egypt, but then it talk about Ephraim (11:3-4) and the kingdom of Israel, and how god would send descendants of Ephraim (Israel kingdom) back to Egypt (11:5), for their lack of obedience and lack of faith, and in Israel’s place, he would set up the king of Assyria to rule over them when they are in exile again:

​

If the gospel author bother to read the rest of Hosea 11, Israel will be sent back to Egypt by Assyria.

Once again, the gospel author had misinterpreted passage from another book, which had nothing to do with the messiah and nothing to do with Joseph, Mary and Jesus living in Egypt and then leaving Egypt.

Yes the prophecy is about Israel but to see the first part as about Jesus Matthew first knew the story of Jesus having to be taken to Egypt as a child. Then given the typology of Israel being God's firstborn son and Jesus being God's firstborn Son, I imagine Matthew made the link with that verse. And of course if the OT scriptures were inspired God and Matthew was inspired there we have it.
Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
Many of the prophecies about Jesus are like that and in the midst of other prophecies. Much of the detail of the Messiah's life seems to have been intentionally hidden like that, and I would say it was for good reasons.

 

[gnostic]

Isa 7:14 is about the same child shown in Isa 9. The Jews of course interpret the prophecies to be about the times they were written and indeed they might be but that does not stop a greater fulfilment in Jesus. As a prophecy about God, it would be appropriate to use "virgin" at Isa 7:14 instead of young maid. The word can be used in both ways it seems and the Septuagint translated it as "virgin".

Isa 9:1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
a light has dawned.
3 You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as warriors rejoice
when dividing the plunder.
4 For as in the day of Midian’s defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.
5 Every warrior’s boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

You are either forgetting or ignoring Isaiah 8, where Immanuel is again mentioned (8:8) in connection with the two kings and with Assyria, confirming my interpretation. And the sign in Isaiah 8 is also related to the war in Isaiah 7.

That's how scholarship is done.

As to your quote from Isaiah 9.

There are no mention of Immanuel in Isaiah 9, so I don't give fig your quote, as it have no connection to Immanuel.

You have quoted something that also have no bearing on the messiah.

 

[sun rise]

One can read almost anything one wants into the Bible. But if one reads it literally it rather clearly supports it and never opposes it. Even in the New Testament it is treated more as an evil that one has to live with rather than openly condemning it.

It seems some atheists and fundamentalist Christians agree that the oniy way to read the Bible is literally even though it says not to do that ("the letter killeth...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems some atheists and fundamentalist Christians agree that the oniy way to read the Bible is literally even though it says not to do that ("the letter killeth...)

When I am dealing with a person that tends to take too much of the Bible literally I will use the same tactic myself. The Bible can work rather well if one does not abuse it in that way. I do not tend to debate against those that do not abuse the Bible. But for those that do so the Bible ends up being their foe and not their ally.

 

[gnostic]

Yes the prophecy is about Israel but to see the first part as about Jesus Matthew first knew the story of Jesus having to be taken to Egypt as a child. Then given the typology of Israel being God's firstborn son and Jesus being God's firstborn Son, I imagine Matthew made the link with that verse. And of course if the OT scriptures were inspired God and Matthew was inspired there we have it.
Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
Many of the prophecies about Jesus are like that and in the midst of other prophecies. Much of the detail of the Messiah's life seems to have been intentionally hidden like that, and I would say it was for good reasons.

This is all conjectures and loose interpretation.

READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER OF HOSEA 11, and not just first verse, and you would see Hosea 11 has nothing to do with being messiah...because Hosea 11 sent the people descendants of Ephraim, hence Joseph’s descendants, around the time of the Neo-Assyrians to Egypt, because the kingdom of Israel at that time were disloyal, disobedience and unfaithful to God.

By comparing Hosea 11 to Matthew 2, then you are saying that Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus were exiled to Egypt because Joseph, Mary & Jesus were also disloyal, disobedient and unfaithful to God.

Are you making the same comparison and connections between these 2 chapters? Did Joseph take his family into Egypt because they were bad or evil?

It is this type of poor scholarship and incompetent interpretations of the OT by Christians and churches, that made me agnostic, back in 2000.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I can't imagine why a wise Creator would give us two sources of moral guidance that sometimes are in conflict.

Is it wise to speak in a way that seems like opposites in conflict but are actually just different ways of saying the same thing?

Like saying to eat bread and to drink wine being exactly the same as saying to eat the flesh of man and drink his blood. Both ways can be found in the bible.

The words of Jesus show he knew what he was talking about when saying his bread is his flesh, and his wine is his blood. He knew what the OT was repeating in multiple ways.


He was trying to explain the connection.

"The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" John.



It is the way of the three groups.

The corn, the oil, and the wine.
(The bread is from grain translated as corn in the KJV).
And the way of the flesh, the bone, and the blood.



Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Bread - Oil - Wine
Flesh - Bone - Blood

Flesh and blood is bread and wine.
It is two different ways of saying exactly the same thing.

So the bread is my flesh, and the wine is my blood.

They are the high and the low.

 

[Brian2]

You are either forgetting or ignoring Isaiah 8, where Immanuel is again mentioned (8:8) in connection with the two kings and with Assyria, confirming my interpretation. And the sign in Isaiah 8 is also related to the war in Isaiah 7.

That's how scholarship is done.

As to your quote from Isaiah 9.

There are no mention of Immanuel in Isaiah 9, so I don't give fig your quote, as it have no connection to Immanuel.

You have quoted something that also have no bearing on the messiah.

It is easy to see that Isa 9:1-7 is about the Messiah because of the description of the child and of what He will do and about Jesus because of Galilee mentioned in verse 1.
The Jews saw the connection between the child in Isa 7 and in Isa 9 and the fact that "Emmenuel" appears in Isa 8:8 and Isa 8:10 helps us to see that Isa 7 to Isa 9 are part of a single prophecy.

 

[Brian2]

This is all conjectures and loose interpretation.

READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER OF HOSEA 11, and not just first verse, and you would see Hosea 11 has nothing to do with being messiah...because Hosea 11 sent the people descendants of Ephraim, hence Joseph’s descendants, around the time of the Neo-Assyrians to Egypt, because the kingdom of Israel at that time were disloyal, disobedience and unfaithful to God.

By comparing Hosea 11 to Matthew 2, then you are saying that Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus were exiled to Egypt because Joseph, Mary & Jesus were also disloyal, disobedient and unfaithful to God.

Are you making the same comparison and connections between these 2 chapters? Did Joseph take his family into Egypt because they were bad or evil?

It is this type of poor scholarship and incompetent interpretations of the OT by Christians and churches, that made me agnostic, back in 2000.

God called His son, Israel, out of Egypt in the time of Moses, before the first covenant with them. If you want a connection, that could be it along with the fact that Israel is a type of the Messiah in that they are both called the son of God, and Matthew knew the story of Jesus being taken to Egypt and could see the connection.
God was not going to plainly say in the OT what the Messiah would do, it would be used against Him, just as the plain knowledge about Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Messiah was used against Him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is easy to see that Isa 9:1-7 is about the Messiah because of the description of the child and of what He will do and about Jesus because of Galilee mentioned in verse 1.
The Jews saw the connection between the child in Isa 7 and in Isa 9 and the fact that "Emmenuel" appears in Isa 8:8 and Isa 8:10 helps us to see that Isa 7 to Isa 9 are part of a single prophecy.

Except Jesus did not do what the child did in Isaiah. For one thing he was never called "Manny".

 

[Brian2]

Except Jesus did not do what the child did in Isaiah. For one thing he was never called "Manny".

Trinitarians call Him Emmanuel, God with us.

 

[joe1776]

Is it wise to speak in a way that seems like opposites in conflict but are actually just different ways of saying the same thing?'''

You're offering a false analogy. With more than 100 references to slavery, the Bible does not condemn the practice. But conscience, our moral intuition, allows us to feel that the practice of slavery is wrong.

The Bible and conscience are not saying the same thing in different ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trinitarians call Him Emmanuel, God with us.

Only because of the prophecy. So that does not count. It would only be fulfillment if others of his time called him Manny. That makes it another failed prophesy of the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

We call Him "God with us" because that is who He is.
Jesus promised to be with the Church till the end of the age and He is God.