the only way they can be refuted is by sceptics claiming that it was written after the fact... or added in later
Remember the book of Daniel... oh yeah! That was a complete forgery written in the 1st century LOL
If the only way a prophecy can be disproved is by claiming that it was added in later, then i dont think your analysis passes the sniff test.
Yeah. For example, here's an excerpt from the
Book of Dr Adequate, which, as you can see from the text, was written in 1990.
And behold, in this year that is called 1990, Dr Adequate spake saying: Truly, I say unto you, in the reign of Bush who is son of Bush, even in the year 2001, in the month of September, then shall al-Qaeda smite at the Towers that are called Twin, and great shall be the lamentation of the people.
Now, one of those silly
skeptics would say that there's no evidence that the
Book of Dr Adequate was composed in 1990, and that this fact suggests that what we have here is a case of
vaticinia ex eventu.
You, on the other hand, know that
that's no refutation of my self-proclaimed magical powers, and are therefore compelled to believe that I am a
bona fide prophet.