If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it?

I'm quite sure that the folk in the village were thrilled to have water.My problem though is not with getting water to the town square, it is with the many alive today that seem to think they have to justify the Bible by showing that it contains all current and future technological knowledge and that had we not been so stupid, we could have had rocket science 3000 years ago.People in the past did not look on the world, on history and on geography with the same perspective we have today any more than we share the same world view of those who will follow us 3000 years in the future. Even the meaning of things we consider basic, for example truth, and honesty, have changed dramatically over the centuries.I think the difference in point of view was best summarized by Urban VIII when he said

quote:

---

It would be an extravagant boldness for anyone to go about to limit and confine the Divine power and wisdom to some one particular conjecture of his own.

---

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Try your local synagogue.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, I looked over at That link and could not find any real evidence that there were any prophesies fullfilled.But I could be persuaded. Look through the Bible and find a prophesy that will happen later this year, one for next year too, and post them for us.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, as a Christian that is very familar with the Bible, I can say that none of the quotes you pointed to refered to the founding of Israel.Prophesies that can only be understood after the fact are not prophesies. They ain't even hindsight.edited to add:Prophesy, if it is to have any worth, must clearly inform about something in the future. If it does not predict, then it has no value. If it is so vague that many different things could be seen as fullfilling it, it is of no value.So my challenge stands. Go through the Bible and point to prophesies that will come true in the second half of 2004 or in 2005.This message has been edited by jar, 08-22-2004 12:53 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How is a prophesy that can only be understood after the fact of use?This message has been edited by jar, 08-22-2004 01:16 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry, but you did not answer the question.What good is a prophesy that can only be understood after the fact?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't understand how you are missing the gist. It's a simple question.What good is a prophesy that can only be understood after the fact?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry, but not an answer.If it can only be understood after the fact, how does that help?We have a thread here on prophesy and so far, not one person has been able to show a single prophesy that was specific and later fullfilled. Would you like to stop over and give it a try?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay, let's look at it.

quote:

---

In 1988 a calculation was discovered in the Bible that accurately foretold the exact year of 1948 for the Independence of Israel over 2,500 years after the prophecy was made.

---

In 1988 a calculation was made that showed what would happen in 1948.How exactly does a prophecy that is understood 40 years after the fact help?And for the Daniel prophecy to work, you have to fudge things by changing weeks to years. Then you need to change years from the Hebrew Lunar calendar to a 360 day calendar.Nonsense.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To be a valid prophesy, it must be capable of specificity and being understood before the fact.For example:Prophecy:
There will be an earthquake of greater than 6.5 magnitude with the epicenter located near Palmdale, California before the US Presidential election of 2004.That is prophecy. It will come true, or be proved false.So far you have not shown anything that resembles prophecy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Often folk don't understand me, I'm old and slow and sometimes have trouble explaining things.If a prophecy is only understood after the fact, it is useless.So how about showing us a specific Biblical prophecy that will come true in the second half of 2004 or during 2005.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'd say it is more a hope or statement of belief. For a prophecy to be of some use it really needs to be specific enough to tell what it protends, there has to be some dating even if just a rough estimate, and it has to be unexpected.I can say that man will travel to Mars in the next two generations. That's specific, has a time line, but it's also not unexpected, so it's not a prophecy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, not quite.as I said in another post, a prophecy has to have certain characteristics. First, it must be understandable. Vague statements that can be satisfied in several ways simply don't count.Second, there has to be a reasonable time line. Newton saying that Israel will become a nation again simply is less of a prophecy then my saying that in the next two decades man will go to Mars.Third, it has to be unexpected.Fourth, it has to be understood before the fact. As an example, Matthew was probably written long after the temple had been destroyed so saying it predicted something that had already happened just doesn't work.So keep trying, perhaps you'll be able to do what your sources have been unable to do.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry, but I have already shown that the examples given in your links are not prophecy.First, they were only understood after the fact. Second, many were not even written until after the fact, as in the case of Matthew.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion