Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 4:31 PM
34 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (9 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,865 Year: 8,901/19,786 Month: 1,323/2,119 Week: 83/576 Day: 83/50 Hour: 2/20


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
32NextFF
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 479 (564257)
06-09-2010 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
06-06-2010 10:04 PM


What steps would you take to identify a false religion?

Step #1: Notice that it's a religion, or indeed any other proposition claiming to be factual.

Step #2: Ask its adherents to provide any evidence that it's true.

Step #3: Wait ...

Step #4: Wait ...

Step #5: Wait ...

Step #6: Wait ...

Step #7: Wait ...

Step #8: Wait ...

Step #9: Wait ...

... you get the picture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 06-06-2010 10:04 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 7:44 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 32 of 479 (564265)
06-09-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw
06-09-2010 8:56 AM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Coyote writes:

Don't forget contradictory evidence. It takes very little contradictory evidence to disprove an idea or belief -- or a theory.

Of course, you do mean the debatable evidence, debatable relative to the thesis premise which determines the application of that evidence.


No, I mean contradictory evidence. The fact that you are willing to debate anything you disagree with has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

Face it, various religious tenets can be falsified with very little contradictory evidence, but the contradictory evidence for many is overwhelming. Just look at the young earth belief and belief in a recent global flood. Those two ideas have been disproved by the contradictory evidence. Debate all you want, but that's the bottom line.

The more corroborating non-contradictory evidence supportive to a given religion, the more ligitimate it becomes.

And to get that state of "ligitimacy" [sic] you simply ignore, deny, or misrepresent all of the contradictory evidence. That might make for good apologetics (e.g., creation "science"), but it is both dishonest and the antithesis of actual science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 8:56 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

mh
Junior Member (Idle past 3204 days)
Posts: 1
From: Exeter
Joined: 05-16-2010


Message 33 of 479 (564286)
06-09-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
06-08-2010 11:31 PM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Buzsaw writes:


It should not be a Johnny come lately takeoff from an old established doctrine, contradictory to the original. Usually this originates from one self acclaimed prophet. Examples of this are Mormonism and Islam

My history of religions is poor at best, but isn't Christianity ("Johnny come lately take-off ... contradictory to the original ... usually this originates from one self acclaimed prophet") a, at best offshoot, of Judaism ("old established doctrine")?

Buzsaw writes:


How old is it?

Do you think the Romans asked this question before converting to Christianity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2010 11:31 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1350 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 34 of 479 (564310)
06-09-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
06-08-2010 11:31 PM


Buzsaw, meet Bayes.
Corroborating evidence that it is supernatural.

1. Fulfilled prophecy - none in most.
2, Enough verifiable historical significance.
3. Culturablly benefits. Do the cultures under it's influencef fare relatively well?
4. How old is it? If it's true, it should have been around from the beginning of recorded human history having some established doctrine.
5. It should not be a Johnny come lately takeoff from an old established doctrine, contradictory to the original. Usually this originates from one self acclaimed prophet. Examples of this are Mormonism and Islam, both take - offs from the Biblical record, contradictory in some aspects from the original but having enough of it to draw adherrants.

These come to mind.

I'd like to draw attention to the "fulfilled prophesy" point that is frequently used, most often perhaps by Buz, as "evidence" supporting Chistianity.

The strength of any fact as evidence for or against any particular hypothesis is dictated by when we should not expect the predicted event to happen.

For example, let's imagine that I have purchased a lottery ticket using numbers I've chosen. If my ticket wins, then my prediction could be said to have been accurate...and since my prediction was not based on the extrapolation of an observed pattern or theoretical model, you could say that my winning number was in fact a "fulfilled prophoesy."

How can we explain my ability to win the lottery? Was there a supernatural agent involved? Blind luck?

There are innumerable potential hypotheses to explain my accurate prediction. To make an assessment of each hypothesis and how well my prediction supports each one, we must first establish how likely the event was to occur without any knowledge of the prediction. In other words, how likely would I be to win the lottery if I had simply gotten a randomly generated ticket rather than my chosen numbers?

The more likely the predicted event was to happen on its own, the less likely any given hypothesis surrounding my ability to predict lottery numers will be.

If we are to rationally examine any prophesy, we need to first look at how likely the event was to happen even without the prediction. If I predict that a disaster will befall the United States this year, I am almost absolutely going to be correct simply because my prophesy is so vague. The "predicted event" would include a tornado in the Midwest, a consequence of the recent Gulf oil spill, a terrorist attack, a hurricane, a poorly maintained bridge falling into a river, a earthquake, a particularly cold winter, a drought anywhere in the country, etc. Because the prophesy is so likely to be fulfilled, it is highly unlikely that any supernatural ability or entity is involved with my predictive ability.

Typically, Biblical prophesies are "interpreted" such that they are only made to apply to an event after the fact. This means that they weren't "predictions" at all - they're the result of human rationalization and apologetics, noting a pattern that fits if you simply "interpret" the text to say something it may or may not actually say. Such techniques allow phophesies to apply to nearly any significant event, and because of the typical lack of a specific timeframe, there are countless events to search for vaguely similar patterns to fit to the prophesy. Because prophesies interpreted in such a manner are almost certain to be fulfuilled by the looseness of interpretation allowed, they do not strongly support the hypothesis that the prophesies were the result of divine revalation.

What the hell am I talking about? Bayes.

P(H|D} = P(D|H) P(H) / P(D)

The probability of a hypothesis being true given data D = the probability of the data being observed if the hypothesis is assumed to be true * the probability that the hypothesis was true before the data was observed / the probability of the data being observed under all possible hypotheses.

In this case, the probability that Biblical prophesies are divinely inspired given a fulfilled prophesy = the probability that fulfilled prophesies will occur if they are divinely inspired * the probability of divine inspiration / the probability that the event specified in the prohpesy would happen anyway.

We should expect that P(D|H), the probability of a given prophesy being fulfilled given that the prophesies are divinely inspired, would be 100%.

P(H), though...The probability of Biblical prohpesy being divinely inspired before considering any fulfilled prophesy is difficult to estimate. I could easily say that the prior probability of Biblical divine inspiration is 1:infinity, simply becasue there are infinite conceivable "god concepts," including one or any number of gods or no gods, which can all be mutually exclusive. This should be further lowered because the hypothesis contradicts very well-supported models of causality - this is an event that requires freaking magic, and as such should be considered nearly infinitely improbable given our current understanding of the world; if precognition is possible, it will throw all of physics on its head while everyone scrambles to make sense of the mess. This corresponds directly to the mantra "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The prior probability of me seeing a squirrel on a tree outside my home is relatively high compared to that of Godzilla attacking New York, for example (everybody knows Godzilla attacks Tokyo, not New York).

P(D) is the probability of the event specified in the prophesy occurring regardless of anything else. If I were to win the jackpot in the California Mega Millions lottery, for example, P(D) would be 1 in 175,711,536. This is where we see what i was discussing above - The less likely the observed data is to occur on its own across all possible hypotheses, the more strongly an observation of that data supports our hypothesis. Conversely, an event which is extremely likely to happen regardless of the hypothesis carries proportionally lower support for any specific hypothesis.

Let's carry this though my lottery example, since we have some known numbers there. Our hypothesis is that I can reliably predict lottery numbers, and out datum is that I have won the California Mega Millions jackpot. I'd say that the probability of me being solely able to predict lottery numbers out of all humanity would be extremely unlikely, particularly since it violates known laws of physics...but let's just call it 1:6,000,000,000 - one person out of the entire population of the world (this is an absurdly high probability for such a contradiction of other very well-supported hypotheses, but I just don't want to do that much math - you should probably drop the probability of this by at least several orders of magnitude, as causality-violating precognition would be very nearly infinitely improbable). I'm also assuming that I can predict the outcome every time, so P(D|H)=1 (to parallel a deity's expected perfect rate of prediction).

P(H|D) = 1 * 1.6e-10 / 5.7e-9

P(H|D) = 0.028

There is a 2.8% chance that my hypothesis is correct and that I am actually able to predict lottery numbers. Not very high. Even though the probability of my winning the lottery was very low, the prior probability of me being able to violate physics and predict lottery numbers was even worse - my singular rare event doesn't mean much.

However, if I can do it again, we'd have to use our previous results (2.8%) as our new P(H), and we'd come up with a much higher result given that my chance of choosing the right lottery numbers by pure chance would remain the same 1:175,711,536.

When we apply Bayesian reasoning to claims of fulfilled prophesy, we typically find that the probability of the event happening anyway (given the typically loose interpretation of the initial prediction, the fact that the prediction itself only becomes clear after the event in question has already happened, etc) was relatively high, and that combined with the low prior probability of literal-Bible Christianity being correct out of all possible competing hypotheses (not to mention the low probability of discovering an exception to very well-supported universal rules of causality) prior to the consideration of supposedly accurate prophesy, the probability for the Bible being divinely inspired even given a supposedly fulfilled prophesy comes out pretty low.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not simply the fulfillment of a prophesy interpreted so vaguely as to potentially apply to any number of similar events.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2010 11:31 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 8:13 PM Rahvin has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 479 (564314)
06-09-2010 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coyote
06-09-2010 12:03 AM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Coyote writes:

Buzsaw writes:

4. How old is it? If it's true, it should have been around from the beginning of recorded human history having some established doctrine.
5. It should not be a Johnny come lately takeoff from an old established doctrine, contradictory to the original. ...

You're Jewish?

No. I am part English, part Norwegian, part German, a tad of French and the rest mongrel.

Christianity is not an aborrition of Judaism who's scriptures are messianic, the prophets of Judaism declaring a christ/messiah would emerge. Judiasm's OT prophets, including King David himself alluded to specific tennants of Christianity, including the suffering savior. Isaiah 53 etc are examples of this. They are in many OT books.

The Jews were apostate from their own scripture more than they were following the precepts of Jehovah. They were scattered globally because of idolitry etc. They were exiled in apostacy and ignorant of their own scriptures, much like most Christians today are not students of our own scriptures. Thus they fail to understand the significance of the restoration of the nation after 19 long centuries of dispersement.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2010 12:03 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by anglagard, posted 06-09-2010 11:09 PM Buzsaw has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 479 (564315)
06-09-2010 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
06-09-2010 9:52 AM


The Waiting Game
Dr Adequate writes:

Step #2: Ask its adherents to provide any evidence that it's true.

step # 2A Deny any evidence not attributed to a secularist worldview premise.

Dr Adequate writes:

Step #3: Wait ...

Step #4: Wait ...

Step #5: Wait ...

Step #6: Wait ...

Step #7: Wait ...

Step #8: Wait ...

Step #9: Wait ...


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2010 9:52 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 479 (564319)
06-09-2010 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Rahvin
06-09-2010 6:50 PM


Re: Buzsaw, meet Bayes.
Rahvin writes:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not simply the fulfillment of a prophesy interpreted so vaguely as to potentially apply to any number of similar events.

Rahvin, your message, depicting a single prophecy, is a strawman, so far as my argument goes. I've never argued that one prophecy would be adequate grounds to believe the Biblical record.

I consistently apply corroborated evidence in debating the Biblical record. That includes the prophecies.

Jesus, the NT messiah/christ, meeting the corroborated conditions predicted in the OT Jewish scriptures, himself used some of those OT prophecies to proclaim his role. He also corroborated the OT prophets by his own Luke 21 prophecy that the city of Jerusalem would be occupied by the Gentiles until the end times when their occupation would cease.

Relative to the OP of this topic, religions which deny evidence like this supportive to the Biblical record, including some ultra-liberal Christian religions can be assumed to be false.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2010 6:50 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2010 8:23 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2010 9:40 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 38 of 479 (564320)
06-09-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
06-09-2010 8:13 PM


Re: Buzsaw, meet Bayes.
Relative to the OP of this topic, religions which deny evidence like this supportive to the Biblical record, including some ultra-liberal Christian religions can be assumed to be false.

I'm still waiting for a realistic answer to my point that there are many things in the bible flatly contradicted by scientific evidence. Young earth and the global flood about 4,350 years ago are two examples.

Do these examples, disproved by empirical evidence, not mean anything to you?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 8:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by hooah212002, posted 06-09-2010 9:36 PM Coyote has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 39 of 479 (564328)
06-09-2010 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coyote
06-09-2010 8:23 PM


Re: Buzsaw, meet Bayes.
Do these examples, disproved by empirical evidence, not mean anything to you?

Of course not, Coyote. That was the central theme of my recent thread. He doesn't buy into any of the science used that disproves those events. He thinks it is all a hoax simply to prove his beliefs wrong, rather than actually being legitimate science there to learn about the earth.


"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2010 8:23 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1350 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 40 of 479 (564330)
06-09-2010 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
06-09-2010 8:13 PM


Re: Buzsaw, meet Bayes.
Rahvin, your message, depicting a single prophecy, is a strawman, so far as my argument goes. I've never argued that one prophecy would be adequate grounds to believe the Biblical record.

I consistently apply corroborated evidence in debating the Biblical record. That includes the prophecies.

Jesus, the NT messiah/christ, meeting the corroborated conditions predicted in the OT Jewish scriptures, himself used some of those OT prophecies to proclaim his role. He also corroborated the OT prophets by his own Luke 21 prophecy that the city of Jerusalem would be occupied by the Gentiles until the end times when their occupation would cease.

Relative to the OP of this topic, religions which deny evidence like this supportive to the Biblical record, including some ultra-liberal Christian religions can be assumed to be false.

My post was not about a single prophesy - that was used as an example.

My post was about how we determine the relative strength of evidence pertaining to a given hypothesis.

In the case of Biblical prophesies as a whole, we would need to evaluate the probability of each one individually, and P(H) would be the P(H|D) of the previous result. Multiple successful prophesies would each successively increase P(H) and thus increase the probability of the hypothesis being accurate.

This doesn't only apply to prophesies, of course - it's how any and all evidence is evaluated in a rational context. It's called Bayes' Theorem, and it's a well-established method of determining probability.

To determine the likelihood that your hypothesis (Jesus is the prophesied messiah) given your observations (the conditions you say fulfilled various prophesies), you need to evaluate the likelihood of the conditions happening on their own, the likelihood of the conditions happening given that the prophesies are accurate, and the prior likelihood of the prophesies being accurate without considering the fulfillment conditions. Then you can calculate the probability that your hypothesis accurately reflects reality.

Bayes' Theorem, applied correctly, will help to eliminate personal bias (confirmation bias, false pattern recognition, etc) and establish an objective analysis of how strongly any particular bit of evidence supports a given hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 8:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 41 of 479 (564339)
06-09-2010 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
06-09-2010 7:22 PM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Buzsaw writes:

No. I am part English, part Norwegian, part German, a tad of French and the rest mongrel.

Which of course qualifies you to speak for all humanity, despite an arrogant dismissal of anyone 'different.'

Christianity is not an aborrition of Judaism who's scriptures are messianic, the prophets of Judaism declaring a christ/messiah would emerge. Judiasm's OT prophets, including King David himself alluded to specific tennants of Christianity, including the suffering savior. Isaiah 53 etc are examples of this. They are in many OT books.

And the unmistakable identity of this messiah is ....

The Jews were apostate from their own scripture more than they were following the precepts of Jehovah. They were scattered globally because of idolitry etc. They were exiled in apostacy and ignorant of their own scriptures, much like most Christians today are not students of our own scriptures. Thus they fail to understand the significance of the restoration of the nation after 19 long centuries of dispersement.

If you are such an advocate of Christianity over Judaism, why do you place more importance upon which day is the sabbath, the supposed inferiority of women, or indeed all the present day impossible rules of Deuteronomy and Leviticus (see Year of Living Biblically) than you do over the content of the Sermon on the Mount? or for that matter any of the Gospels? To me it seems it's all Paul and Revelations, Jesus be damned.

Now I realize that those who actually place the words of Jesus over the rest of the Bible may not have the self-satisfaction of condemning others, and also aspire to another set of ideals instead of the senseless and arbitrarily brutality of the divine as continuously described in detail in the OT, but like it or not they share a commonality with the best aspirations of other cultures through their religious belief systems.

It is not God that is wrong, but it could be Buzsaw.

Would you like to know how I can tell the difference IMO?

Racism
Misogyny
Provincialism so extreme it revels in harm to others for the crime of being different.
Abject ignorance and praise of ignorance so vehement it becomes the praise of criminals over the law-abiding.
A total lack of humility before God.

Despite any claim to read, and indeed pretty much only read*, the Bible, I think it is obvious you did not read for understanding but rather to confirm your own authoritarian biases.

*Either an example of bearing false witness or of prideful ignorance

Sorry Buz, as I have said before, I must admire your perseverance but I can't see how anyone can admire your Anti-Christ, Anti-Krishna, Anti-Lhotse, Anti-Buddha, Anti-Human philosophy.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
ó Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Itís us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 7:22 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 11:33 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 8:29 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 479 (564340)
06-09-2010 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by anglagard
06-09-2010 11:09 PM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Anglagard writes:

If you are such an advocate of Christianity over Judaism, why do you place more importance upon which day is the sabbath, the supposed inferiority of women, or indeed all the present day impossible rules of Deuteronomy and Leviticus (see Year of Living Biblically) than you do over the content of the Sermon on the Mount? or for that matter any of the Gospels? To me it seems it's all Paul and Revelations, Jesus be damned.

    1. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, Jesus fulfilling the Judao messianic prophesies.

    2. Jesus did not change the Sabbath. It is and has always been the 7th day.

    3. Neither the OT or NT of the Judao scriptures consider women to be inferior. They have different roles, the leadership role being designated to the man in both as prescribed by the writers of both.

    4. Jesus, preacher of love also preached hell fire and other consequences of unrepented sins.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by anglagard, posted 06-09-2010 11:09 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Phage0070, posted 06-10-2010 1:58 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 47 by Woodsy, posted 06-10-2010 4:38 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 43 of 479 (564346)
06-10-2010 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
06-09-2010 11:33 PM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Buzsaw writes:

1. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, Jesus fulfilling the Judao messianic prophesies.

I would like to ask about these prophesies. Which are the most impressive and to your view provide more evidence for your claim, prophesies that are fulfilled almost immediately or very old prophesies that are fulfilled long after their being written? (I am suspect the old ones)

Also, if someone were to fulfill one or two of a series of predictions in a prophecy but fail to do the rest, is the prophecy considered false or do we just wait until they area all fulfilled? (I am inclined to say that you would wait)

The reason I ask these two questions is to highlight a disconnect in assessing prophecy that I think you might be exhibiting. A hypothetical abstract prophecy might be the claim that someone with qualities A and B will do a series of acts, C, D, and E. No time limit or date is provided.

If the prophecy is immediately fulfilled it isn't terribly impressive because short-range predictions are made all the time. Accurate predictions of political races are hardly considered prophecy because pertinent information is available on which to base such predictions. Predicting a political race hundreds of years later would be much more impressive; given the time frame, there is no way the appropriate information would be accessible.

On the other hand, this type of prediction slants in the opposite direction. The claim that "someone fitting this bill" will come along with qualities and acts A-E increases in likelihood as time goes by. Someone with quality A but not B has no affect on the prediction; only a positive result is counted. The longer you have to wait for a positive result the less impressive the prediction, due to the increased pool of potential fulfillments.

So my last question is, how old are these prophecies you are referring to? A few years? A few hundred years? Maybe a few *thousand* years? What does that equate to in impressiveness?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 11:33 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2010 8:20 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 479 (564392)
06-10-2010 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Phage0070
06-10-2010 1:58 AM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Phage... writes:

So my last question is, how old are these prophecies you are referring to? A few years? A few hundred years? Maybe a few *thousand* years? What does that equate to in impressiveness?

To delve into specific prophecies would be for other topics. Click on my name to bring up my profile and you will find some in the archives.

For the most part the prophecies to which I allude, the fulfillments of the most significant ones are are thousands of years after the prophecies were given. The most significant ones regarding the restoration of Israel have occurred in the last 100 years, prophesied by OT prophets as well as Jesus in the NT. .


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Phage0070, posted 06-10-2010 1:58 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 45 of 479 (564393)
06-10-2010 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by anglagard
06-09-2010 11:09 PM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
And the unmistakable identity of this messiah is ....

King Cyrus of Persia (see Isaiah 45:1).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by anglagard, posted 06-09-2010 11:09 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2010 4:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Prev12
3
456
...
32NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019