Fulfilled Prophecy - Proof of Bible’s Divine Inspiration?

New thread courtesy of J.D. - he writes:

Christians claim that the Bible has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, and is proof of its divine inspiration. In actuality, these so called fulfilled prophecies failed, were false or weren’t prophecies at all. Many of these prophecies are so vague, they can be attributed to different events. It’s also a fact that the Bible was written 100’s, even 1000’s of years after these presumed prophecies and their “fulfillment” took place. It’s also fair to mention that nowhere in the Bible will you find countries such as the United States, Russia, China, Korea, Great Britain prophesied. Oh Christians will tell you that they are, if you know how to interpret the Bible.

Genesis 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.

Here God tells Isaac that his descendents (Hebrews) will be as numerous as the stars. Considering the number of stars there are in the universe, that would have to be on the order of 10 to the power of 20 Jewish people.
——————————————————————————

Isaiah 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.

Christians say that this verse is a prophecy of Jesus’ birth to a virgin. There are a couple problems with this prophecy…First, virgin in this verse is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word “almah”, which actually means “young woman”. A young woman is not necessarily a virgin. “Bethulah” would have been the correct word to use if the author meant virgin. Second, nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus referred to as Immanuel.
———————————————————————————-

Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.

Damascus is still inhabited today with over a million people, and hardly a ruinous heap.
———————————————————————————-

Isaiah 19:4-5 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.

The river mentioned here is the Nile. The Nile is still one of Egypt’s greatest natural resource.
———————————————————————————–

Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.

The Canaanite language has never been spoken in Egypt, and is now an extinct.
————————————————————————————

Isaiah 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

There are uncircumcised people living in Jerusalem even today.
—————————————————————————————

Ezekiel 29:10-11 Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.

Never in its long history has Egypt ever been uninhabited for forty years.
———————————————————————————-

Amos 9:15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

Many times, Jews have been pulled up out of their land. The ownership of their land is still being fought for.
————————————————————————————

Jonah 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

Nineveh was never overthrown. Why? Because God changed his mind in verse 3:10, despite what Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19 and Ezekiel 24:14 says about God never changing his mind.

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

(another note on this one:so god did evil huh? sinned? not so perfect?)
———————————————————————————-

Zechariah 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

Christians say that this prophecy is was fulfilled when Judas received 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. Matthew 27:9 recites this verse, but incorrectly credits Jeremiah with the prophecy.
———————————————————————————

Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Again, Jesus is never referred to as Emmanuel (Immanuel).
——————————————————————————–

Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Nowhere in the Old Testament is such a prophecy found, so how could such a one be fulfilled?
———————————————————————————–

Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

There is no passage in the Old Testament that can be attributed to what Jesus is saying here.
————————————————————————————

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus states that all the signs marking the end of the world in Matthew 24 would be fulfilled before his generation ended. That generation ended 2000 years ago, and the world has not come to an end, neither has all those signs been fulfilled.
————————————————————————————

Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value.

This prophecy was never spoken by Jeremiah.
————————————————————————————-

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Jesus tells the high priest that he would see his second coming. The high priest is long dead, and Jesus hasn’t returned yet.
————————————————————————————

Throughout the New Testament, the end of the world is prophesied as being very near, at hand, to be witnessed by those living at the time. Paul often told the people he preached to that they would be witnesses to Jesus’ second coming. They are all long gone.

Ethics and Atheism

Some of the earlier posts on this blog dealt with morality, where some theists challenged the possibility of atheist morals, and others questioned the reason atheists should be moral at all. Having discussed those questions theoretically, it might be interesting to revisit them in light of an example. Let’s consider the ethics of blogging and use this blog as the example.

An interesting aspect of blogging is the opportunity to interact with a wide array of people that we might not otherwise ever come across. Some people who post here on this blog are believers, others are skeptics. Some are thoughtful, others are flippant. Some are respectful, others are contemptuous. As one who posts on this blog, what should guide my behavior, regardless of how others behave? Here are a few thoughts:

1) I should treat others as I would have them treat me. However this presumes that others wish to be treated the same way I wish to be treated, but it’s not a bad place to start. In that case, I’ll post thoughtful, respectful comments.

2) I should follow rule one even when others don’t. In face-to-face discussions, this may not be good advice - no one is obligated to endure abuse. But in a blog setting, it’s unlikely that someone’s abusive post, whether intensionally abusive or accidentally abusive, will harm you in any real sense. Other readers will think more poorly of the abuser, and even the group or community that he represents, than of the “abusee.” Which leads me to the next rule:

3) Don’t respond to abuse in kind. There can be many reasons for abusive posts. Some people simply have poor communication skills, or they could even have personality disorders. Others have been abused themselves (maybe they merited the abuse, and maybe not) so they are just taking it out on the next guy. Still others are simply trying to incite their target to be abusive in order to use the target’s abusive reactions to discredit him (see the last part of #2). In the first 2 cases, the kind thing would be to respond with respect. In the 3rd case, the smart thing would be to respond with respect.

What would you add to these?

What if anything does the fact that I, an atheist who has a sense of morality and follows a set of ethics, say about arguments from morality for the existence of God? What if anything does the fact, that my ethics differ from the ethics of other commenters on this blog, say about an “absolute morality” versus a natural sense of morality innate to humans - and therefore what if anything does it say about arguments from morality for the existence of God?

Why do “at&theists” continue to argue science vs. philosophy?

Doug says:

dear the atheist,
“i am so like totally lost” ;D in regards to all of this.
i am confused about how to go about all of these things.
i hope this works.
before i forget mr/s the atheist you sound like a very nice person.

okay here blows.

why is it that at&theist insist upon arguing science vs. philosophy?
definition of at&theist: “reach out and touch someone” an old at&t campaign ad ;D
at&theist force science against God in order to reinforce their own refusal to believe that YES GOD IS !
a good scientific argument would be :
intelligent design
or
global warming
a good philosophical argument would be:
reincarnation

at&theists continue to argue matter vs. faith to put it another way.

when you call someone you Believe someones out there.
when you pray you Believe God is out there.

i have read many entries on different lines or blogs and/or whatever. almost everyone out there to a [wo]man ;) sounds very intelligent some with their own sites, books pending,etc. mind you i’m not a mental midget, but once more almost to a [wo]man on both sides people seem to enjoy hearing themselves talk. you want 15 minutes of fame go shoot your post[wo]man :D personally i am a minimalist. there is too much over thinking on here. too many references to books [yawn].
as for myself i believe in kiss [not the band ;) keep it short &simple stupid. to do anything but that is once more enjoying the sound of your fingers on the keys.

so once more:

why do at&theists continue to argue science vs. philosophy?

best wishes & God bless you,
doug

The “life of Christ” is life to its fullest

(note that this post is a new thread branching from this comment; on this blog)

Demodocos says:

You asked on what do we base our claims (or at least the particular claims in question here). This is another topic that I wanted to press/explore with you, because it seems that we differ on what gives validity and weight to the things on which we base some of our claims.

To begin, is there “a basis” for a claim that is as nuanced and multitentacled as the good life? To name a paltry handful of things that I consider are a part of “life to its fullest”: my relationships, my health, and my leisure. Life to its fullest is comprised of many different things, and the validity of each of those things is not necessarily based on the same thing. We base good health care on something different than what we base good relationships. Both are valid, but based on different criteria (this way of thinking about what gives things meaning is based on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s work, particularly with regards to his work in the Philosophical Investigations).

Rational proof (scientifically speaking) is the basis for some of the things that make our up notions of the good life, but there are numerous other things that make up the good life that are based on things that are not validated by the scientific method. You could use the language of scientific evidence to base your claims on what makes a marriage “good.” But on what would you base the claim that these aspects of life need to be based on the same claims as science? (I know that was convoluted)

So the short answer is that your question cannot be answered in generalities. To be fair, I’ll try to express what I think makes a relationship good and how my belief in Christ plays into that. I anticipate the response to whatever rationale I give to be, “why do you need a belief in Christ to believe that?” This is a fair question. But why do we need Darwin in order to affirm certain theories of revolution; why do we need Einstein to believe the theory of relativity. We could argue that these things could have been discovered without these men, but why would we want to distance the people from their discoveries? More to my point, if I felt that someone had given me a great gift, what good reason would I have to drive a sharp distinction between the gift and the person that gave me that gift, when in fact they are intimately connected. Similarly (and this only plays a minor part in my rationale), to ask why I would need Christ in order to affirm the all of good things in my life that exist because of him seems to be dishonest.

Christians can say that it is because of Christ that we have friends who are men and who are women; black and who are white; who are heterosexual and who are homosexual. It is because of Christ that we can see the power in loving our enemy, and even accepting death at their hands rather than inflicting it ourselves. It is not only because of Christ that I we empathies with those suffering injustices, but also because of Christ that we see some things as unjust while others may not, like abortion. I could go on to tell of all of the ways in which I have trusted in my faith and that it has only led an abundant life (of course the word “abundant” has a very particular definition within my faith, and it does not refer to monetary things).

I understand that this doesn’t constitute proof. Nor does it prove any other religion as “wrong.” But you asked on what I base my claim, and it is the fact that I have lived out the aforementioned (which is only a small list), and have seen it as “good” not merely for me, but “good” for an entire community.

I feel bad for the long post (that could have been much longer), but I am particularly interested in the conversation of what constitutes a valid basis. As you can probably guess, I’m assuming that we differ on this topic. At any rate, thanks for the conversation thus far.

Sociology of Minorities Class

Curious College Students Says:
Alright dog, i have a few questions for you that will help me on a project for my Sociology of Minorities Class. We are working on social issues regarding minorities and we would like to get the opinion of Atheist.

First of all do you feel that Atheist are a minority in this county? If not how do Atheist view themselves in the United States?

Secondly in a social respect, how do you feel Atheist are viewed differently.

And lastly, what can Atheist do to attain a level of minority status that will allow them to receive benefits that are given to other minority groups?

Thank you for taking time to answer our questions and we look forward to reading your responses and learning about Atheism.

Curious College Students

Presupposition and Other Logic-based Apologetics

I’m delighted to see what I think is a new trend in Christian apologetics. I’ve noticed it in conversations with Christian friends and also on the bogs. More and more Christians seem to be employing the classic logical arguments to justify their faith (but if you could prove it logically, would it still faith?). Of course, some are better adept at critical thinking than others.

The reason this delights me is that I see it as an indicator that this generation’s potential prosilites are not quite as gullible as previous generations. They require more than the usual emotional cajoling to win them over. They demand reason.  It is true that many potential prosilites will continue to respond to the cajoling, but I think this new trend in apologetic technique indicates that their numbers are on the wane.

In response to the need for critical apologetics, Christians are forced to consider the <i>reasons</i> why others should believe as they do. And in the process, Christians are forced to reevaluate their own reasons for faith. The ones who are better adept at critical thinking will be much more tolerant and understanding of those who believe differently than they do. This can only be good for society.

Atheists Read the Bible in More Detail Than Christian

chris in Houston Says:
I find it curious that “athiests” seem to read the bible in more detail than alot of Christians. Seems like they’re still trying to convince themselves…..that’s good! Search and you will find, knock - and the door will be opened for you.

I will make it simple: Jesus rose from the dead, performed many miracles (including raising Lazurus from the dead), and preached his truth in front of thousands of witnesses. Jesus said he was God.

I believe him. You’re not sure (if you were, you wouldn’t waste your time reading the Bible or even discussing Christianity). I know it doesn’t make sense in our day and in our 3 dimensional world. But that’s just our little world…not God’s. You’ve got to put aside your paradigm of what can and can’t be, and then examine Jesus’ teachings. Then, hopefully, the truth will become apparent despite all the inconsistencies with our world.

And that is FAITH. Please, keep at it and hopefully the truth will become acceptable to you. And then, through embracing the truth, you will become acceptable to God. Make no mistake, he already loves you. But you’ve got to reciprocate!

Incidentally, it didn’t make sense to me either, even though I was raised a Christian. Too many wierd things to believe. Didn’t match up with my world view as a university trained scientist… But then I read the Bible through and voila! I believe! Does it always make total sense to me? No. Do I sometimes doubt it? Yes. That’s just our human nature. I no longer question Jesus’ truth, just my ability to accept it and live according to God’s will.

As a truth loving person, please get a copy of “A Case for a Creator” - book or DVD. You will see proofs of God’s hand in creation that no scientist or Darwinist can explain away.

What DO Atheists Believe?

JB Monteverde Says:

I have no issue with someone who does not believe in G_d. I do not think that one should be forced, pressured, coerced, or even convinced to believe one way or another.

But I would like to know what atheists DO believe in. What do you have FAITH in.

I hear a constant prevailing theme and tone in these blogs and from other sites for atheists and atheists I have spoken with, personally, that does, however, ridicule other peoples’ beliefs and faiths. And THAT attack-mode stance and mentality does much to diminish the validity of atheists’ position in my eyes. I have belief and faith and know what I know, yet I never feel the need to bolster my position by negating somebody else’s belief.

Personally I think it is ridiculous to waste one’s time looking for “evidence”. I have never associated the concept of “evidence” with any aspect of my spirituality. To me, a truly spiritual person just “GETS” the concept of faith.

I feel that if one can reach a point of true spirituality and faith and all the enrichment that those qualities bring to a life, without a belief in anything beyond mortal man and earthly material-world evidence, then that is just as valid as anyone elses belief or mindset.

I do not want to know why you don’t believe in G_d. What I would like to know, is what IS your belief system. What consoles you, teaches you, counsels you, sustains you in troubled times. Is there anything more important than you? Is there anything beyond you? I am asking this quite sincerely. By the way, I do know that who ever answers this is just probably speaking for themself, since i don’t think the atheist non-church has elected their pope yet….LOL

Thanks for your time. —-JB

“Atheists believe in neither God nor Love?”

milehigh Says:

It’s my understanding atheistsr don’t “believe” in god because there’s no “scientific evidence” of god’s existence. Do atheists not believe in love since there no way to quantify scientifically it’s existence?

Where do atheists derive their morality from?

theist Says:

Where do atheists derive their morality from? Can you really just say it is “innate” without either implying that God created us with a sense of morality built in. Also, if you argue that we are socialized to have a moral sense, does that not originally derive from religion?