Restoring My Beliefs

[Danoff]

OK, first off, if it was written in the Bible then it's true and could be completely plausible that all Jews would have been killed by the Nazis. I think that's the point in your question that I am struggling with. If you are asking me to modify a historical event in order to falsify a scriptural prophecy, only to then turn around and ask how likely it would be for that prophecy to come true...well, that's just pretending.

The prophecy I am thinking of deals with an event that has not yet happened. I believe there is a prophecy in Revelations stating that there will one day be peace in the Middle East and that the treaty will be drawn up from someone in present day Greece. Let's say that person is the Pope. And if I am following your question, I am supposed to pretend that the Catholic church disolves and there's no Pope. Well, the only logical course is that the solution will come from some other leader in Greece, religious leader or political.

If I am still not getting your question, I apologize. Apart from pretending, there's no other way I see of answering your question as this has turned into a debate about what is true, and not pretending things happened differently to prove them untrue.

Yea, that's not what I'm suggestiong.


Here's an example prophecy.

The sun will come up tomorrow.

Here's are possible scenarios that would prevent that from being true:
- The sun blows up.
- The Earth stops spinning
- Time stops
- Our atmosphere becomes instantly opaque
- A new planet materializes between us and the Sun the obstructs our view for one day.


I'd rate none of those as probable. Therefore, the prophecy wasn't much of a prophecy at all. It was a pretty safe guess at what would happen.

This is the test I'd like you to apply to prophecies you believe to have come true. Try to think of what it would take to invalidate them. If those scenarios are highly unlikely then the prophecy is lame to begin with.

 

[dahze_dichriste]

See, there's the problem with your question. Biblical prophecy does not start with an outrageous presumption to begin with. Say I'm a Christian Hebrew living in the time of Roman occupation. I have in my hand Isaiah's and other prophet's foretelling of Israel becoming a soverign nation, being the center of the world's attention, and the Jews repopulating their land. In the world, it's AD 80 and all but the Apostle Paul is dead. We are now being persecuted because of the religious unrest caused by the Christian movement.

It's very plausible in that time frame that the prophecy could have been untrue. Rome is still growing, and we could be wiped out in the persecution. I may not have presented that in the best way.

Here's another problem with your question. Say I'm living in the time of Noah. It has never rained a day in the history of man. Here comes this aging old fool and his small family starting to build a large boat. We laugh and call him a fool. After all, it has never rained before. One day the ark is complete, we amass and gawk as large quantities of animals peacefully assemble and climb into this thing, then it starts raining. Boy was I wrong.

So before I knew it was going to rain, in order for that prophecy to not come true life would continue as I know it.

If I started looking through many of the Biblical scriptures, God often provided them in times of bleak desperation. Things could go either way, and the people who lived in those times had to deal out their measure of trust, much more so than we have to. I can't think of one prophecy that would work me into that logic trap.

[Edit] Provide an example of a Biblical prophecy, and we'll discuss it.

 

[Swift]

Here's a pretty nice prophecy:

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

I like that one because it's in the middle of a text that really isn't talking too much about the messiah at all. But I'm sure this will be shot down(nicely) as well.

 

[Danoff]

See, there's the problem with your question. Biblical prophecy does not start with an outrageous presumption to begin with.

Where did I suggest that it had to?

It's very plausible in that time frame that the prophecy could have been untrue. Rome is still growing, and we could be wiped out in the persecution. I may not have presented that in the best way.

But if they had, there aren't any believers left to find out that the prophecy was wrong anyway right? So that doesn't get it out of lameness.

Here's another problem with your question. Say I'm living in the time of Noah. It has never rained a day in the history of man. Here comes this aging old fool and his small family starting to build a large boat. We laugh and call him a fool. After all, it has never rained before. One day the ark is complete, we amass and gawk as large quantities of animals peacefully assemble and climb into this thing, then it starts raining. Boy was I wrong.

This is a perfect example of a good prophecy. Say that the Noah myth is true for a moment. He predicted a crazy event. Now that's a prophecy. If you predict a crazy event and it happens, you just might know what you're talking about. Predicting the sun won't come up tomorrow is a balsy prophecy. Any prophecy that could easily not come true given the current situation has a lot more credibility than one that is almost certain to come true.

By the way, do you really believe that crap that it didn't rain before Noah? Did they have plants back then? Snow capped mountains? Rivers? If so, how did the plants get water? How did the snow capped mountains get snow? Where did the river water come from? If you answer is "god did it" I ask you, why? Why would he intervene in all of the thousands of little ways he'd have to intervene in order to break the water cycle, when the world was perfectly set up for the water cycle to occur without intervention?

Here's a pretty nice prophecy:

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

I like that one because it's in the middle of a text that really isn't talking too much about the messiah at all. But I'm sure this will be shot down(nicely) as well.

You can't prophecize after the fact. That would be like me today writing a book that took place in 1999 where a guy knew that 9/11 was going to occur.

 

[dahze_dichriste]

First off, so Noah's prediction did come true and he knew what he was talking about. The Apostle Paul was visited by Jesus after His resurrection, and after since he was a Christian. God gave him many prophecies of outrageous events that are happening today. How is he less knowledgeable or his predictions less balsy than Noah's?

If you read the first two chapters of Genesis, God created a space between water and water and then he gathered the waters to make land. The water that was separated from the face of the earth became a vapor canopy that at the time was a significant part of our atmosphere. Since the nature of water is reflective and doesn't lose much heat, the water would have trapped light and made earth tropical. Humans would have been protected from much much more harmful radiation effects. Then, the Bible clearly states that the earth was watered from dew in the morning and that there were rivers, between two of which was the Garden of Eden.

God flooded the earth with this vapor canopy and water from beneath the land. It was perfect the way he made it, but he destroyed the wickedness of earth. By doing so, we are exposed much more to the sun's effects, which speeds up our aging process. Therefore, we decay faster after the flood, fulfilling God's judgment upon Adam and Eve after the sin. I could send you a timeline of the lifespan of people pre and post flood. It is remarkable how drastic the change is.

[Edit] In addition to the vapor canopy there is plenty of evidence from the USGS and NASA to show that at that time, earth's axis was not tilted, further strengthening the argument.

 

[Swift]

You can't prophecize after the fact. That would be like me today writing a book that took place in 1999 where a guy knew that 9/11 was going to occur.

Ok, so you're saying that it could've been doctored to line up with the new testament then?

 

[Niels]

This is a perfect example of a good prophecy. Say that the Noah myth is true for a moment. He predicted a crazy event. Now that's a prophecy. If you predict a crazy event and it happens, you just might know what you're talking about. Predicting the sun won't come up tomorrow is a balsy prophecy. Any prophecy that could easily not come true given the current situation has a lot more credibility than one that is almost certain to come true.

Is there actually a prophecy that predicts the sun will come up? Or any propheracy like that?

By the way, do you really believe that crap that it didn't rain before Noah? Did they have plants back then? Snow capped mountains? Rivers? If so, how did the plants get water? How did the snow capped mountains get snow? Where did the river water come from? If you answer is "god did it" I ask you, why? Why would he intervene in all of the thousands of little ways he'd have to intervene in order to break the water cycle, when the world was perfectly set up for the water cycle to occur without intervention?

This is a good question though...

 

[Swift]

If you read the first two chapters of Genesis, God created a space between water and water and then he gathered the waters to make land. *snip*

Well said, but it really doesn't answer Danoff's question. much like us asking for a complete theory of evolution, he'll have to settle for, that's the way God did it.

 

[dahze_dichriste]

Well said, but it really doesn't answer Danoff's question. much like us asking for a complete theory of evolution, he'll have to settle for, that's the way God did it.

Very true, one would have to start from the position that the Bible is true. Well said.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, so you're saying that it could've been doctored to line up with the new testament then?

When was the bible written? When did the alleged conception occur? I rest my case.

Is there actually a prophecy that predicts the sun will come up? Or any propheracy like that?

Yup, here you go:

Zechariah 8:7-8: This is what the Lord Almighty says: "I will save my people from the countries of the east and the west. I will bring them back to live in Jerusalem; they will be my people, and I will be faithful and righteous to them as their God."

That pretty much says the sun will come up tomorrow.

 

[dahze_dichriste]

That pretty much says the sun will come up tomorrow.

lol...can you really say that looking over history at the dispersion of the Jews across the globe that it was a sure thing they would have their own nation? During the holocaust?

How probable is it that the American Indians are going to rise up and take over our nation? Pretty similar circumstances, smaller geographical region. Yet, if this was a Biblical prophecy, I'd pack up and head to Europe as to escape the event.

 

[Swift]

That pretty much says the sun will come up tomorrow.

Not in the slightest. It says that the hebrew people will be brought together in Jerusalem at some point. Now, that happened in 1948. But hey, I guess there is room for interpretation there.

 

[Danoff]

lol...can you really say that looking over history at the dispersion of the Jews across the globe that it was a sure thing they would have their own nation? During the holocaust?

It doesn't say they'd have their own nation. It says that some Jews (arguably all jews) will migrate to Jerusalem at some point.

Ya, pretty much the sun will come up (unless you argue that it says all jews, in which case it hasn't come true).

 

[dahze_dichriste]

It says save them, not move them. Germany, man, think Germany and other Arab States. US Jews don't need saving, many have built comfortable lives. However, many also left the US for the Israel nation.

 

[Danoff]

It says save them, not move them. Germany, man, think Germany and other Arab States. US Jews don't need saving, many have built comfortable lives. However, many also left the US for the Israel nation.

Germany is the wrong direction. And tell that to the multitudes of Jewish people who were murdered.

Besides, what difference does it make if it says "save" or "move" them. Does it really change anything?

If one Jewish person moves to Jerusalem because he's being persecuted against where he lives currently, then the prophecy is fullfilled. Hallelujah!!! The sun came up!

 

[dahze_dichriste]

If one Jewish person moves to Jerusalem because he's being persecuted against where he lives currently, then the prophecy is fullfilled. Hallelujah!!! The sun came up!

First off, you need another Jew. One Jew can't come from the East and the West. Secondly, the scripture doesn't state all Jews. Take the verse at face value and it came true.

Ezekiel 36:8-10
"`But you, O mountains of Israel, will produce branches and fruit for my people Israel, for they will soon come home. I am concerned for you and will look on you with favor; you will be plowed and sown, and I will multiply the number of people upon you, even the whole house of Israel. The towns will be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt."

In 1948, there were about 600,000 Jews living in Israel. Today there are about 6,000,000.

There are other individual prophecies besides just the passage from Zechariah.

Edit: Another example

Joel 3:2
I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, my people Israel, for they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land.

The UN divided Israel between Palestine and the Jews, a wrong. It's the Hebrew's promised land.

 

[Danoff]

First off, you need another Jew. One Jew can't come from the East and the West. Secondly, the scripture doesn't state all Jews. Take the verse at face value and it came true.

Granted, you need two. Does that change anything?

Ezekiel 36:8-10
"`But you, O mountains of Israel, will produce branches and fruit for my people Israel, for they will soon come home.

Do those mountains really produce lots of fruit for the Israelis?

I am concerned for you and will look on you with favor; you will be plowed and sown, and I will multiply the number of people upon you, even the whole house of Israel. The towns will be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt."

uh huh. The towns will be inhabited??!? Craziness? How could he have known?

 

[Danoff]

Joel 3:2
I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat.

When did that happen?

There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, my people Israel, for they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land.

I don't remember that happening either. When did this judgement get passed on all the people of the world gathered in the Valley of Jehoshaphat before God and why wasn't I invited?

If someone asks you if there's a person in your life who is close to you who's name starts with the letter P, do you think they're psychic?

 

[dahze_dichriste]

lol. And yes, Israel does have great agricultural system, I believe. Maybe someone else can provide more specifics.

So we don't agree on the impact of prophecy as a means to validate the Bible's deeper truths. What other points of Bible philosophy do you find troubling? And I am not talking about the actions of Christians, as every facet of our existence has suffered from the presence of idiots.

Edit: The valley of Jehosephat means the Valley of Judgment, which has not happened yet, no. We could get into a discussion about Armaggedon, but that's off topic.

 

[Duke]

First off, so Noah's prediction did come true and he knew what he was talking about.

There's something you're failing to understand here, purposely or not purposely:

The story of Noah was written after the Flood occurred. This means that the alleged foreknowledge of the Flood doesn't appear until after the Flood had occurred.

That's just like danoff said: It's like writing a book in 2006 claiming that you knew in 1999 that the World Trade Center would be attacked in 2001. It just doesn't make any sense.

But I'm going to step out here, because I argue by using logic. Logic is removed from any discussion on religion and the supernatural, so there is no point in arguing about it. I only recognize one legitimate tool - rationality - and you claim that that tool can't be applied to religion.

 

[Danoff]

lol. And yes, Israel does have great agricultural system, I believe. Maybe someone else can provide more specifics.

So we don't agree on the impact of prophecy as a means to validate the Bible's deeper truths. What other points of Bible philosophy do you find troubling? And I am not talking about the actions of Christians, as every facet of our existence has suffered from the presence of idiots.

Edit: The valley of Jehosephat means the Valley of Judgment, which has not happened yet, no. We could get into a discussion about Armaggedon, but that's off topic.

I see, thanks for the clarification on the Valley. So you've conceeded the point that the prophecies are too vague (or haven't happened yet) to be relied on for confirmation that the bible is correct to a non-believer...

I take issue with the altruistic messages in the bible, but that's really for another thread. Generally the philosophy in the bible doesn't bother me. Only the use of it as fact rather than myth. The evidence supporting the bible is extremely weak compared to the rigorous scientific standards used to validate scientific theories about the origin of man and the Earth. Yet religious folks seem to have no problem swallowing such notions as "mankind is 6000 years old" or "evolution is not the origin of man", or "it had never rained before Noah" or "people lived to be 1000 years old before the flood".

 

[Danoff]

But I'm going to step out here, because I argue by using logic Logic is removed from any discussion on religion and the supernatural, so there is no point in arguing about it. I only recognize one legitimate tool - rationality - and you claim that that tool can't be applied to religion.

That's totally valid. I only stepped in because it was claimed that the prophecies in the bible proved without doubt that it was divine in nature and wholly correct.

 

[dahze_dichriste]

I see, thanks for the clarification on the Valley. So you've conceeded the point that the prophecies are too vague (or haven't happened yet) to be relied on for confirmation that the bible is correct to a non-believer...

No, I have not conceded to that point. It goes back into my explanation of Biblical prophecies being a timeline not of actual dates, but a series of events.

I take issue with the altruistic messages in the bible, but that's really for another thread. Generally the philosophy in the bible doesn't bother me. Only the use of it as fact rather than myth. The evidence supporting the bible is extremely weak compared to the rigorous scientific standards used to validate scientific theories about the origin of man and the Earth. Yet religious folks seem to have no problem swallowing such notions as "mankind is 6000 years old" or "evolution is not the origin of man", or "it had never rained before Noah" or "people lived to be 1000 years old before the flood".

Well, to answer your question, mankind is only 6,000 years old, mankind was created, and people lived to just under 1,000 years old before the flood.

See, you need to go back and read scriptures a second time. In the beginning when God created everything, one of the first verses states that the earth was void and without form. I never have ascerted that the earth is only 6,000 years old...for all we know it could have been here for millions of years, just as science states. Mankind, however, was only created six thousand years ago.

Methusaleh lived to be only 969 years old. He also happened to be a righteous man and died just a week before Noah entered the ark.

 

[dahze_dichriste]

Rationality can be claimed in religious arguments. If 90% of the world's population believes in the existence and influence from a higher being (not saying that Christianity or the Bible is equal to other religions), how does that make an atheist rational? Don't read anything into my personal beliefs about that statement, but the burden of proof is on you.

While you can't physically prove the existence of God, many Christians hear God's voice and have witnessed his influence. If you have not, or choose to ignore the word's and experiences of others, that hardly makes one rational. Maybe disgruntled and skeptical, but not rational.

Edit: It is unfortunate that many people have negative experiences in churches or with the over-zealous. We are not all alike, but it's hard after several of those impressions to see it. And as I have said before, I have my own personal experiences to fall back on, my mind is set, even if the evidence I lay down may not convince you. I use the evidence I have to solidify my religious viewpoint, which is not irrational.

 

[Danoff]

Well, to answer your question, mankind is only 6,000 years old, mankind was created, and people lived to just under 1,000 years old before the flood.

See, you need to go back and read scriptures a second time. In the beginning when God created everything, one of the first verses states that the earth was void and without form. I never have ascerted that the earth is only 6,000 years old...for all we know it could have been here for millions of years, just as science states. Mankind, however, was only created six thousand years ago.

That's what I said. Check it out.

If 90% of the world's population believes in the existence and influence from a higher being (not saying that Christianity or the Bible is equal to other religions), how does that make an atheist rational?

Ah the old everyone-else-agrees-with-me-so-you-must-be-wrong argument. Nice try but it still doesn't hold water.

 

[dahze_dichriste]

Ah the old everyone-else-agrees-with-me-so-you-must-be-wrong argument. Nice try but it still doesn't hold water.

Actually, "normal" and "abnormal" behavior is generally defined by the actions of the norm. Since the majority believe in the influence of a higher being, those that don't are not in the norm. I said nothing about everyone else agreeing with me, nor presented it as valid evidence.

I am not a Christian because a lot of other people are jumping off the same bridge, I am a Christian because I know there's deep water below that bridge, and I would like to be swimming in it.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, "normal" and "abnormal" behavior is generally defined by the actions of the norm. Since the majority believe in the influence of a higher being, those that don't are not in the norm. I said nothing about everyone else agreeing with me, nor presented it as valid evidence.

Your presented it as evidence of rationality, to attempt to bolster the validity of your choice. It's ok though, I'm glad to see that you've backed off of that.

Ok, so it's time to admit it. You have no rational reason for believing in god. It's ok, that doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes you a person of faith (as you pointed out, you have a lot of company). It does, however, make you non-rational.

In the future, I'd suggest that you don't try to rationally prove the existance of God to non-believers. Instead, rely on the realm of the irrational - the realm of feeling. That way you'll have an easier time back up your claims when you bump into people like me.

 

[Famine]

Well, to answer your question, mankind is only 6,000 years old

Modern mankind is well over 140,000 years old.

 

[dahze_dichriste]

Rational (websters)
1.Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2.Of sound mind; sane.
3.Consistent with or based on reason rather than emotion
4.Based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation

I believe on three of those counts I have proved my rational reason for believing in God. I have not counted emotion as evidence, I have a clear thought process backing up my beliefs, and I am quite sane. Science, by its general nature, is narrowed in scope to only the things we can't explain. By purposefully narrowing your mind to scientific rationality, you close the door to anything left unexplained. Which is a fine way to live your live, and definately secure in the way that you see it.

Feeling has nothing to do with my experiences. I have felt a lot, yes. I have a cousin that was visited in the hospital last year by an honest angel in the presence of another person. There is a man in my church who was once dead for several days before he was brought back at a local prayer meeting many years ago. Documented accounts of God's influences on our lives are everywhere, and in my life. That's my "practical observation". You or your contemporaries cannot explain these experiences so they choose to ignore them. That doesn't prove I am wrong anymore than I have convinced you that I am right. Ignoring God won't make him go away.

 

[Danoff]

Rational (websters)
1.Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2.Of sound mind; sane.
3.Consistent with or based on reason rather than emotion
4.Based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation

I believe on three of those counts I have proved my rational reason for believing in God. I have not counted emotion as evidence, I have a clear thought process backing up my beliefs, and I am quite sane.

Since I was the one using the word, I guess I get to pick which definition I intended when I used the word rational. I'll go with number 3. Using reason rather than emotion. You have attempted to use reason to prove the existance of God and have failed.

Vague prophecies, some of which have not come true is not evidence for the existance of God. That much of humanity thinks it is true is also not evidence in support of the existance of God. Ignoring the rigorous observation of science in favor of mythology is anything but rational. You should be at peace with that fact by now.