|
|
Post by element771 on Sept 9, 2008 12:29:35 GMT
Hi,
I have been reading Strobel's book regarding the real Jesus and am just about finishing the messianic prophecy section. This got me thinking about Biblical prophecy in general.
The problem with Biblical prophecy is that trying to find objective sources and data to verify or refute these prophecies is like trying to choose a presidential candidate by watching MSNBC (Left Leaning) and FoxNews (Right Leaning).
I know a lot of you guys field of expertise if history and I thought that many of you could shed some light on Biblical Prophecies and are they legitimate.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Sept 9, 2008 18:33:22 GMT
Wow! This is a BIG subject and it is hard to know where to begin. Your question on legitimacy suggests to me that what you have in mind is the sort of debate where some Christians say that the Bible is the inspired word of God because certain events were foretold centuries in advance, citing specific events from the life of Christ as recorded in the gospels, and non believers saying that either these prophecies were made up after the event or were not prophecies at all, or events in Jesus life were invented to make them look like fulfilled prophecies, and therefore the Bible is not the inspired Word of God.
Apart from anything else, I have difficulty in trying to tie down what it means to say that the Bible is inspired, or that it is the Word of God. And it doesn't really worry me too much either. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I know that when I approach the Bible with an open mind and an open heart I find that it enriches me.
But back to prophecy. Would you like to choose a prophecy and discuss it? Choose one, tell me what you think about it, and let's take it from there, if you are happy to do that. That might be more constructive than trying to discuss the subject in a more abstract sort of way.
|
|
|
|
Post by element771 on Sept 9, 2008 18:51:37 GMT
Wow! This is a BIG subject and it is hard to know where to begin. Your question on legitimacy suggests to me that what you have in mind is the sort of debate where some Christians say that the Bible is the inspired word of God because certain events were foretold centuries in advance, citing specific events from the life of Christ as recorded in the gospels, and non believers saying that either these prophecies were made up after the event or were not prophecies at all, or events in Jesus life were invented to make them look like fulfilled prophecies, and therefore the Bible is not the inspired Word of God. This is pretty much it in a nutshell. Could all of these be postdictions? What about the destruction of the second temple? |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Sept 9, 2008 23:16:13 GMT
A couple of comments and a suggestion .....
1. When I studied Isaiah in my misspent youth, we were taught that prophecy can have multiple fulfillments - in the time of the prophecy, and well into the future, for example at the first coming of Jesus, or even the second coming. This would suggest to me that one or both of the fulfillments will likely be less than obvious and literal.
2. When I look at how the NT applies prophecies, I find this confirmed, that the prophecies are selected and interpreted in the light of the actual events. Again, something less than an exact fulfillment, though sometimes remarkable enough for all that.
(As an aside, this is in fact true of all types of NT quotation of OT passages. I have assessed all the OT quotations in the first 6 books of the NT, and found that while half were quoted more or less exactly - I used only English translation as I don't read Hebrew, and I don't expect translation to be an exact science - no less than half were modified at least a little, including significant changes to wording, taken out of context or changed meaning. I conclude then that the Jewish method of OT quotation is less exact than ours - they seem to quarry out their own meanings and not just proof text.)
So I have always been a bit wary of the idea of a proof of christianity based on prophecy, although I think something can be made of it all in apologetics. But why not try hawkinthesnow's suggestion and discuss a particular prophecy (or two)?
I nominate two prophecies, of quite different nature.
1. Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."
This is the familiar prophecy of the virgin birth, yet in context (Isaiah 7:1-17), it is something quite different. I don't think it could be used to "prove" anything, though it is used in the NT in the "quarrying meaning" way that I mentioned.
2. Ezekiel 26 - prophecy against Tyre.
This prophecy makes a number of predictions, including that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the city, that the city's materials will be thrown into the sea and it will never be re-built. These things were fulfilled (I understand) (a) when Nebuchadnezzar conquered and destroyed the city, but found that the population had moved to a new city on an offshore island, and (b) when Alexander wanted to conquer the city, but having no effective navy, he built a causeway to the island and marched across and captured it - leaving a blip on the coastline that is still there. Although there is a modern city of Tyre, it isn't on the same location (I think).
So it is claimed that the prophecy is very literally fulfilled, though I would wonder about some aspects. I'm not sure what sceptics say about all this.
These are two very different types of prophecy, and discussing them may throw some useful light.
|
|
|
|
Post by element771 on Sept 10, 2008 12:50:53 GMT
A 1. Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."This is the familiar prophecy of the virgin birth, yet in context (Isaiah 7:1-17), it is something quite different. I don't think it could be used to "prove" anything, though it is used in the NT in the "quarrying meaning" way that I mentioned. I think that this one can be attributed to midrash. Although my knowledge is limited, it was an acceptable practice that Jewish people used to interpret older passages which would elucidate their meanings for the present. Please someone correct me if I am wrong. |
|
