Fulfilled Prophecy

quote:

---

1. Travel will increase. Of course, the horse was the fast road for humans for all the milleniums until the emergence of the industrial revolution. Prophecies implying increase of and faster travel:

​

Daniel 12:4 (about 530BC) Daniel says: "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."
Item: increase of knowledge and travel.

---

I don't know about you but when I "run" I do so on foot. Nobody tuns while mounted on a horse or in a car. To which we can add the fact that Daniel was written about the time of the Maccabean revolt (he middle of the 2nd century BC - not the 6th) and is about that period (read Daniel 11 in the light of the history of that period). The reference to "sealing" the book is part off an explanation as to why the book of Daniel was not known until that time - thus the time it became known - "unsealed" must be the "end time".So it is definitely NOT about the Industrial revolution which did not occur until centuries later. Nor does it refer to the major points of that perod - the growth of manufacturing industry or the use of steam power. (Even if it did, just how long is the "End Time" supposed to be going on for ? The Industrial Revolution started more than 200 years ago !)Nahum is about the destruction of Nineveh (see Nahum 2:8) ! Again it is obviously not about the Industrial Revolution, but events long past when the Industrial Revolution occurred. (A quick check suggests 612 BC as the date !)The references to Revelation are even worse. Computer tech ? Not mentioned at all. TV ? Not mentioned at all. Cashless money ? Not mentioned at all.The only thing on the list that could be even implied is a "world government" - but there is no real sign of that coming true in the forseeable future.So, we have a complete failure on all the examples produced. Not one is supported. All rely on misrepresenting the Bible. I can only conclude that Buz simply doesn't care what the Bible really says - nobody who does could honestly have used a single one of these examples.

So you can't defend your use of Nahum.Your only defence of your use of Daniel is to appeal to a usage of the English word "run" - without even knowing if that usage exists at the time Daniel was translated into English. The other points are just ignored.And I'll get on to your attempts to defend part of your use of Revelation in a minute. However your failure to defend either of your first two examples pretty much demonstrates how feeble your case is.

quote:

---

1. I didn't say cash less. I said cashless, just as the prophecy implies. The global monetary systems are continuously becoming more cashless and computerized with numbers and marks, et all. You cannot deny that. It is also becoming more essential to produce your social security number in order to buy and sell, cash or no cash. Here in NY you can't get a tax resale permit without the number and in fact the number becomes your resale certificate number. If you sell as a merchant, you need the number to account to the government for the tax you owe on it, et al.

---

Let us note that in this entire paragraph there is no support for the claim that Revelation refers to a cashless society. So the key point is not addressed. The fact that a truly cashless society is decades off, at the least, also serves to warn against this verse as referring to the near future.

quote:

---

2. TV is also implied. It is indeed a speaking image. So is your computer. There is an ever increasing electronic economy with buying and selling on the internet. This also requires a credit card with numbers on it et al.
I failed to mention also regarding TV that there are at least three scriptures which clearly imply TV and other electronic image/speaking media. These are Revelation 11:8-12 where the peoples of the nations view the dead bodies of two men at one location. Revelation 18:9-18 depicts the kings/rulers of the earth and the shipmasters far off viewing the smoke of the city, mystery Babylon which is destroyed in one hour, implying both electronic media/speaking image and explosives which can destroy a city in one hour. The third is that all will see Jesus coming in the clouds when he comes. All three of these were impossible until after the industrial revolution and the emergence of TV and other electronic media.

---

Revelation 13:14-15 could more easily refer to magically (or by trickery) causing an idol to speak. It refers to making a (single) "image", which is "given breath". by a miracle-working (second) beast. If it is just one single image which is miraculously given the power to speak it certainly isn't television. Nor is it a computer. (Nor is trade restricted to the internet even now - or in the forseeable future.)Revelation 11:8-12 refers only to people originating from different parts of the world seeing the bodies. Foreigners visiting great cities were hardly uncommon at the time Revelation was written - so there's simply no need for television in these verses.In Revelation 18 the city is supposeldy destroyed by God, so there is no need for it to refer to human technology (remember Sodom and Gomorrah ?) and the leaders of the "world" are only supposed to see the smoke of the city burning. If there's a world government then these leaders could easily be close enough to the capital to see it destroyed !And if Jesus second coming isn't miraculous I don't know what is. Isn't it a bit insulting to say that God needs the help of human technology - if the verse (which you don't specify) isn't hyperbole in the first place ?It's pretty clear that you can't really defend any of these claims as serious predictions either.

quote:

---

My point did not pertain to Nahum 2:8. I

---

In that case your point had nothing to do with a correct understanding of the verses you did cite (Nahum 2:3-4). Nahum 2:8 is part of the context, telling us that those verses are about the destruction of Nineveh. Any correct understanding of Nahum 2:3-4 MUST include Nahum 2:8.

quote:

---

If you read chapter one of the book you will see that the book deals with the latter days and a few verses before the verses I sited in the beginning of chapter two,

---

If you read 1:1 it describes the book as the "Oracle of Nineveh" (NASB - "Burden of Nineveh" in the KJV or even "An Oracle Concerning Nineveh" in the NIV ) If YOU read chapter 1 you will see that there is nothing specifically about the last days. All your examples are simply cited as examples of God's power (the fact that they are rendered in the present tense ought to clue you in on that !)

quote:

---

Ninevah is not actually honed in on until verse 8 of chapter 2.

---

Is Nahum 1:1 not in your Bible ? Besides, even if you were right, Nahum 2:8 would still be part of the same passage as Nahum 2:3-4 and still dictate that Nahum 2:3-4 referred to the destruction of Nineveh.

quote:

---

All you need do is check out items preceeding Nahum 2:3-4 which I have cited, having never yet been fulfilled, most of which do not directly apply to Nineveh.

---

IF you bothered to read my post you would see that I already did, pointing out that they were not predictions at all. As I noted they are in the present tense - they are simply declarations of God's power. Even if they were predictions it would not change the clare maening of Nahum 1:1 and Nahum 2:8.

quote:

---

As I've stated, This sort of ambiguity is often encountered in the study of Biblical prophecy but the more you study the prophecies, the more you recognize corroborating events which work to complete the picture the artist is painting so to speak.

---

What you actually mean is that the more you study prophecy the more you reject the Bible. You ignore or misrepresent parts of the Bible that contradict what you want it to say. You ignore the simple face readings that make perfect sense for twisted readings whose only virtue is that they happen to please you.

quote:

---

...if you refuse to acknowledge the facts I've stated I can't waste my time repeating them

---

Which facts would those be ? I think that you mean that if I don't throw out the Bible and start worshipping you, you'll run away from the discussion. Sorry but it won't work.

quote:

---

I can't say with complete certainty who is right and who is wrong here because I just got around to dealing with this thread. From the little I have seen, Buz seems to be offering his analysis on the scriptures in question. I should add that his interpretation is not far off from the majority of Christian scholarship. Some people here are making Buz out to be coming up with some off-the-wall interpretations. I haven't seen that. From the little I have read it seems sound, doctrinally.

---

So far as I can see Buz is not offering any real or valid analysis. He is ignoring context, he is ignoring the obvious readings in favour of strained readings which really don't fit the text that well. If Christian doctrine agrees with Buz then Christian doctrine is opposed to understanding the Bible.

quote:

---

Nowhere in the Bible, that I'm aware of, does it predict the television. However, the book of Revelation makes allusions towards it when it says that the Two Witnesses will be seen by every nation. Well, how can every nation be in the same place simultaneously?

---

Well now we see why you dobn't see the problems. You don't pay much attention to what the Bible says either.

quote:

---

"Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial." -Revelation 11

---

ISee ? it DOESN'T say that "every nation" will watch it. It says that people FROM every nation will see it. It says that these smae people will refuse them burial - how will people watching a television thousands of miles away be in a position to have any say in their burial ? It doesn't need televsion, just a cosmopolitan city with a wide variety of foreign visitors.It's not the unbelievers who are having problems with the Bible - it is the self-styled beleivers who seem unable or unwilling to actually pay attention to what the Bible says.

THe difference is that "people form every nation" does not refer to the peoples of the nation as a whole, or imply that it refers to people curently within the nation. IN short if you read the Bible correctly your inference is a highly strained and unnatural intepretation. Indeed I find it very odd that when you use a miosreading apparently calculated to support an erroneous translation you fail to understand that the correct reading shoots down your claims. Is it really so difficult to correctly report the words of the Bible ?

quote:

---

It says that people's from all lands and backgrounds will despise these two men. And it says that they will "send" gifts because of what they had done all over the earth.

---

And how does this imply television ?

quote:

---

I'm giving you my opinion on the matter. Buz is giving you his opinion on the matter. You seem to be dead set on it not referring to television which invariably makes you out to be the one thing you are claiming me to be. That's rather ironic. Wait, no, that's rather hypocritical. If its not making allusions to television, okay. That's fine. I won't get bent out of shape over it. Why are you mad because I gave my opinion on the matter?

---

No, the fact is that Buz misrepresented the Bible, you misrperesent the Bible. And now you call me a hypocrite for catching you in your obivous misrepresentations of the `Bible. Whether your misrepresentation was intentional or not it hardly shows respect for the Bible or the discussion.

quote:

---

NJ didn't say every nation will view the bodies. He said all nations can view the bodies - big difference.

---

Actually a very small difference - especially when compared to what the verse actually says. Once again we see that you don't care about the actual words of the Bible.

quote:

---

1. Book title: Burden of Ninevah
NOTE: Narry the hint of anything aluding to Nineveh until chapter 2 verse 8.

---

i.e. you are using the lack of anothe r exlicit reference to Nineveh as an excuse to ignore what this verse says. Not a good start.

quote:

---

2. Topic one: The Biblical god, Jehovah. (ASV) Jehovah avenges and is full of wrath, taking vengence on his adversaries, reserving wrath for his enemies in verse 2.

​

Jehovah has his way in the whirlwind (tornadoes, hurricanes) and in the storm and the clouds are the "dust of his feet." verse 3

​

Jehovah rebukes the sea by making it dry, dries up all the rivers, Bashan, Carmel and the "flower of Lebanon" languish. verse 4

---

As has been already pointed out these are written in the present tense. Therefore they either refer to events at the time of writing (which we know not to be the case) or they are simply praise of God's power.And have a look at this translation of Nahum 2:3(NASB) Shields ? cypress spears ? warriors dressed in scarlet ? THat doesn't fit a modern army. Could it be that Nahum really did mean chariots ? You've offered no reason why he couldn't.

quote:

---

Suffice to say, if one; anyone who cares to keep what is written in perspective looks at the evidence which I have documented, the description of the speedy steel chariots having torches/lights in question are not contemporaneous to the time of Nahum.

---

Well no, you haven't. Chariots WERE fast by ancient standards - that was why they were used. Speedy steel chariots with flaming torches sounds fine for a night attack. In an ancient context. Scarlet uniforms, red shields and cypress spears on the other hand don't fit a modern army at all.And then again we have clear references in 1:1 and 2:8 that this prophecy refers to the fall of Nineveh (an event which occurred in 612 BC) and none to suggest that any part of it refers to much later events. There is no break in the narrative to suggest that 2:8 is anything other than a continuation of the earlier verses. No valid reason to suppose that 1:1 should be ignored.The "expert" way to read the Bible is apparently to ignore the context , invent imaginary breaks in the narrative, arbitrarily rejected plain readings that make perfect sense, all in favour of claiming dramatic fulfilled prophecies. That's no way to read anything.

quote:

---

Hi Mike. It's also unfair for my counterpart skeptics to essentially cancel out the very words of the text

---

THe skeptics are no cancelling any part of the text. They have valid readings which include all of it without arbitrarily chopping it into pieces. What you mean is that the skeptics refuse to accept your twisting of the text. They - unlike you - accept that the Bible says what it says.,

quote:

---

... which I've shown to apply to a number of other nations than Ninevah, infact the entire world, naming them by text quote, all the way from chapter one verse 2 through chapter 2 verse 8.

---

As I have been pointed out more than once. Those verses are in the present tense. They refer to the power of God to bring disaster to Nineveh. They are not predictions of specific events in the distant future. You have not rebutted these points.

quote:

---

Not only that but they totally ignore the fact that many of the events of chapter one of Nahum have never been fulfilled and that I posted near verbatum (abe: equivalant) events also prophesied in the book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible which have yet to be fulfilled. If they were rational in their responses, they would admit that if it could not have possibly have applied to the city of Ninevah, that introductory segment of the book had to apply to the named groups of the text being debated.

---

Of course this ignores the rebuttal that HAS been given. Nor can you offer any explanation why a curse on Nineveh would jump to a completely different subject without any textual markers indicating that it is doing so. The skeptics on the other hand can explain why the verses are in the present tense and do not have to mutilate the text as your interpretation requires. There are no textual markers for a sudden change of subject because there IS no sudden change of subject. Your whole argument is that if your interpretation doesn't fit with the context then we should ignore the context - when a rational person would conclude that your reading is wrong.Any truly rational person would agree that if an interpetation makes no sense when considered in context it is the interpretation which should be thrown out - not the context. No rational person would accept that Nahum 1:2 to 2:7 have nothing to do with Nahum 1:1 or 2:8. Any intepretation that insists otherwise - or, worse, any intepretation concocted to TRY to claim otherwise should be rejected. Thus there is no shortage of rationality on the part of the skeptics.

quote:

---

Remember this is a sign given to the House of David. A future tense something to watch for, etc...

​

A girl getting pregnant and having a child is not a sign but a virgin giving birth was the sign given by the Lord "himself".

---

Isaiah 8 has a similar prophecy around a completely natural birth. So why can't Isaiah 7 do the same ?If Isaiah 7 meant to describe a virgin birth then why did Isaiah not emphasise the virginity of the girl by using "betulah" instead of "almah" ?Since the sign is a sign of the end of the attacks from Israel and Aram (Syria) (7:16) then obviously the birth must come before that time. Does the Bible have any mention of a virgin birth that fits ? Surely it would be mentioned if such a thing had been predicted and actually occurred.

I note that you only address one point - and that by quoting an apologetic website - that happens to be wrong. Betulah is indeed the Hebrew word that most stongly emphasises virginity. If Isaiah had meant to emphasis virginity he would indeed have used betulah rather than almah. It is also false to claim that "almah" demands virginity. It does not.

At this point it's not that Buz doesn't have an airtight case, it's that he doesn't have a case at all. The skeptics here aren't objecting to miracles - they're objecting to Buzsaw's twisting and misrerpesentation of the Bible.

quote:

---

You people are flat out denying the imperical evidence I've produced.

---

That is untrue. You have offered no empirical evidence. All you have done is to twist the Bible to try to make it say what you want. I've explained the evidence for that - and instead of answering it you just ptry to pretend that that my responses don't exist.So your defence of your twisting of the Bible is to falsely allege that the critics are acting like you. Charming.

quote:

---

When are one of you going leave off badmouthing to admit that the names of the nations and people of the world as well as the whole world itself are being addressed with specific events/aspects applying to each and those names are not Nineveh in chapter one after the introductory mention of Ninevah in verse one?

---

I've already cited reasons to think that these points are NOT predictions - they are declaratiosn of God's power. Firstly such a reading is consistent with Nahum 1:1's declaration that the book is a prophecy against Nineveh. Secondly they are written in the present tense, if they refer to any specific time then it is logically the time of writing not the future.Worse the whole point of your reading is to deny the context of the verses - and others in Nahum 2. So it appears to not only be an obviously false interpretation but an inthentional distortion of Nahum. However such a tactic cannot work since if an interpretation conflicts with the context, then the interpretation is wrong. It's that simple. Your tactic can't work because it is going up against a basic rule of interpretation.

quote:

---

nless I've missed it, not one of you prophecy skeptics has addressed the peoples to which the events of chapter one apply by name or the nature of the events not applicable to the city of Ninevah.

---

You've missed it - or deliberately ignored it. The points I raise here were raised in Message 176 There are other responses although with less detail. Arachnophilia raises some points in Message 154 and Message 109 I raise issues in Message 118, Message 79 and Message 65 - which you replied to. Although you never addressed the points, preferring to threaten to run away on the laughable basis that I refused to address your points - when in fact you were the one refusing to acknowledge my points.So the fact is that your points have been answered. You have not addressed those answers. Your only attempt to deal with them is an outright denial that those answers exist in the first place ! It's even worse than your accusation that critics of "cancel" verses in Nahum because they refuse to "cancel" Nahum 1:1 and 2:8 !