Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy

quote:

---

I would also like to be clear that this thread is not for debate on whether a prophecy was written after the event but whether the prophecy was fulfilled in the manner that the scripture said it would be fulfilled.

---

In order to avoid such debates, I would suggest looking at Isaiah, especially chapter 53.This chapter contains some fairly specific descriptions of Jesus' death. And there is no question that this was written before Christ, since the Dead Sea Scrolls included a complete copy of Isaiah.

quote:

---

Last year I found a post on another board that clearly laid out 3 points that must be met in order for something to truly be a prophecy. I agree with these and no bible policies fulfill these 3 points.

​

3 points

​

1) The prophecy must be proven to have been spoken before it was fulfilled. This is a major problem with Old Testament Prophecy. To prove that the prophecy wasn't written after the fact, one must find the earliest copy we have of a prophecy and carbon date it. That date must be sometime before the prophesied event occured. The Book of Daniel runs into this problem, as all evidence suggests it was written long after its alleged "predictions".
2) The prophecy must be specific. No vague, Nostradamus Style prophecy. The Book of Revelation runs into exactly this problem. The prophecies are so vague that they can have easily have many different "fulfillments". For instance, who is the beast of Revelation 13 (whose number is 666)? Some Fundamentalist Christians insist that it is the pope; Catholics believe it was Caesar Nero; and yet a few conpiracy theorists argue that it is Ronald Reagan! These symbloic prophecies are meaningless because they can be interpreted to fulfill anything that happens.

​

3) The prophecy must be of something that was not forseeable. For instance, a lot of people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, because they saw that it was a very unstable government. Yet we do not think of them as prophets. A prophecy must be something that few/none would have predicted when it was made.

---

Doesn't Isaiah 53 meet all of these 3 requirements? If not, where does it fail?

quote:

---

There are other doubts:

​

53:3 He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

The same Jesus who preached to huge gatherings, and was triumphantly welcomed into Jerusalem ?

---

Yes. The gospels paint the Jewish nation as fickle, first wanting Jesus to be king, and then rejecting him and wanting him to be killed. The religious leadership were against Jesus all along.So I don't see the problem. If Isaiah is describing the official reaction, or the final reaction of the people, he is correct.

quote:

---

53:9
...Because He had done no violence,

This is the Jesus who whipped the money-changers out of the Temple ?

---

Where does the Bible say that he whipped them or otherwise "did violence"?

quote:

---

In other words if you assume that Isaiah is simply ignoring the majority of Jesus' career or only talking about the religious leaders - a relatively small group of people - the problem goes away. But there's nothing in the text of Isaiah 53 to justify either assumption.
...
This sounds like a peaceful protest to you ?

---

I think you're missing the context of Is 53. It is focusing on Christ's death, not the rest of His career.

quote:

---

Obviously the 'accuracy' here is a product of your assumptions - not the text.

---

Really?? The prophecies in Is 53 are not a modern argument for Christianity. They were seen to speak of Christ since even before the founding of Christianity (Jewish rabbis saw this passage as speaking of Christ).The NT writers portray Jesus as fulfilling the prophecies in Is 53:
Re Is 53:1-- Re Is 53:3-- Re Is 53:4-- Re Is 53:5-- Re Is 53:5-6-- Re Is 53:7-- Re Is 53:9-- Re Is 53:10-- Re Is 53:12--Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No.
Start with PaulK's response in response #20. If you feel a need for more I will gladly refute anything you have to say.

---

I asked: You haven't answered my second question. Which of your three requirements does Is 53 not meet?

OOPS--I didn't see that the original message had a correction. The correction is correct, so I've hidden my rebuttal to the hidden original message.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Jesus supposedly had no offspring.

53:9-10 (Complete Jewish Bible)
... Although he had done no violence and had said nothing deceptive, yet it pleased Adonai to crush him with illness, to see if he would present himself as a guilt offering. If he does, he will see his offspring; and he will prolong his days; and at his hand Adonai's desire will be accomplished.

---

Yes, this would be a problem for someone who takes the text so literally that he ignores idioms and figures of speech.

quote:

---

No matter what translation I read, offspring and a prolonged life is part of the prophecy.

---

Then you haven't read "The Message": This translation/paraphrase takes the "offspring" as figurative.But I think the explanation in the excellent notes of the NET Bible (net.bible.org) is more likely: In other words, the phrase is probably an idiom and is not intended to be taken strictly literally, just as idioms today (e.g. "Break a leg!")

quote:

---

My response. Message 34

2) The prophecy must be specific. No vague, Nostradamus Style prophecy. The Book of Revelation runs into exactly this problem. The prophecies are so vague that they can have easily have many different "fulfillments". For instance, who is the beast of Revelation 13 (whose number is 666)? Some Fundamentalist Christians insist that it is the pope; Catholics believe it was Caesar Nero; and yet a few conpiracy theorists argue that it is Ronald Reagan! These symbloic prophecies are meaningless because they can be interpreted to fulfill anything that happens.

Are you conceding the point?

---

No, I am not conceding the point.I believe you are confusing two different issues: vagueness and genre. Yes, Nostradamus-style prophecies are vague. The classic example is the Oracle at Delphi, who predicted that if a general went into battle, a great army would fall.Biblical prophecy is often written in an apocalyptic genre, which makes copious use of symbolism and imagery. It is not a narrative, but this does not mean that it is "vague." Much of the symbolism has a well-defined, objective meaning. Many of the points are quite detailed.I have given a number of examples where NT writers referred to Is 53 as predictive of Jesus in Message 25. Please start with these, and show how they fit your claim of "vagueness."

quote:

---

Except that the the NT writers who quote Isaiah 53 appear to be using it literally.
I agree that Isaiah wrote in a poetic style, and this style of writing is creative and not necessarily literal. If Isaiah's writing is full of idioms and figures of speech of the time, that shows me that the prophecy was not meant for the distant future. Idioms and figures of speech get lost over time and over 700 years is a very long time. Not to mention that OT Hebrew is a dead language. God would know that.

---

The NT writers were native Hebrew speakers (actually Aramaic-- a Hebrew dialect) who were raised in a Hebrew culture. They would have recognized many of the OT idioms.Yes, language changes over time. If we REALLY want to understand "what the Bible really means" we need to study the language and culture of the day.

quote:

---

Also if we accept that Isaiah uses idioms and figures of speech, then that has to be taken into account for the whole writing, not just the difficult parts.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Your quote from the NET Bible doesn't really make the verse we're discussing fit Jesus either. The NT writers did not intimate that Jesus ever fell from God's favor.

---

The NT writers say this quite clearly. This is the crux of the gospel message! Jesus "fell from God's favor" at the Cross. Our sins were placed on Him, and He was rejected by God the Father.

quote:

---

Also the verse in Job doesn't really show me that Isaiah was using an idiom or figure of speech in verse 10.

---

Granted.

quote:

---

Unfortunately it is hard for us to determine if our translations have already taken into account the idioms and figures of speech.

---

True, not without study of the original language and culture.

quote:

---

Are there any other resources that show this verse is a figure of speech and not to be taken at face value, meaning actual children of his loin?

---

Excellent question. I'll try to look into this, but it might be a couple of weeks.

quote:

---

ABE: Figuratively, Isaiah could be talking about the nation of Israel.

---

That's the standard Jewish interpretation.

quote:

---

Symbolism, by definition, cannot have objective meaning. It has only what meaning human beings assign to it. Symbols are by their very nature entirely subjective - which is why alternate interpretations abound when "prophesies" make heavy use of symbolic language. What one person things the symbolism means typically changes when real-world circumstances rule out the previous interpretation, and the symbols are assigned a new meaning to keep the "prophesy" accurate.

---

I disagree. As Grant Osborne writes in "The Hermeneutical Spiral" regarding "The interpretation of symbols" (p. 283):

quote:

---

In this way your so-called "apocalyptic genre" prophesies are similarly just as vague. Revelations may have "well-known" symbols in that many people will agree on given meanings, but those meanings have changed throughout the years. Some people think the "whore of Babylon" is the Catholic Church; others believe it is the US. How many people have been accused of being the Antichrist at this point? How many interpretations of "his number shall be 666" have we seen? Does it refer to bar codes? Ronald Reagan? Nero? Will Jesus literally come in the flesh, or does he return individually for each of us when our own personal worlds end?

​

If the symbolic language had an "objective meaning," there would be no such reinterpretations. The meanings of symbols change over time because they do not have objective meaning, but rather have only whatever meaning human beings choose to interpret.
Take for instance the Jehovah's Witnesses. They've predicted the end of the world, complete with dates, several times now using the symbolic language of the Bible. In each case, when they're wrong, they "re-interpret" the "prophesies" to give a new date - this time, they are convinced, they have the correct interpretation. The accuracy of the Biblical prophesies themselves are never actually called into question, regardless of how many times they are falsified.

---

The fact that many people interpret the symbols incorrectly does NOT mean that they don't have an objective, clear meaning. The problem is that people try to interpret the symbols in isolation from the ancient language and culture.

quote:

---

What meaning does the Christian cross have to an aboriginal Australian whoo's never seen it before? What meaning does the "whore of Babylon" have?

---

irrelevant

quote:

---

What meaning does any symbol have without human beings to assign that meaning? Do squirrels recognize the meaning of your symbols?

---

irrelevant

quote:

---

Symbols have no objective meanings - that's what makes them symbols. They are used to represent ideas - and ideas are not objective, but subjective.

---

False. Ideas can be objective.

quote:

---

The same symbol can have completely different meanings, even in Biblical language, whih is the very reasnon we have so many different versions of Christianity.

---

If we are really, honestly trying to understand "what the Bible really means," (the subtitle of this forum, BTW) it is irrelevant what it means to you or to me or to an aborigine. What matters is what it meant to the original author. The original author was trying to communicate something. The task of the interpreter is to try to figure out what this was.

quote:

---

The authors of the various books of the Bible clearly had a specific meaning in mind when they used symbolic language.

---

EXACTLY!

quote:

---

That doesn't mean that the symbols have an objective meaning - they still have only what meaning human beings assign them.

---

No, they have an objective meaning, which is the meaning that human beings have assigned them.

quote:

---

There is no universal, objective meaning to the diadems on the Beast's heads - they mean different things to different people, even amongst Biblical scholars.

---

Universal, no. Objective, yes.

quote:

---

By definition they cannot have an objective meaning (in fact, the word "meaning" can only be ascribed to subjective ideas).

​

The fact that a stop sign has a specific meaning to me does not mean that the meaning is objective. It means that I have assigned a subjective meaning to the symbol based on my cultural standards. Certainly the Biblical authors did the same, but this no more gives theuir symbols objective meaning than my interpretation of a stop sign gives stop signs objective meaning.

---

We seem to be operating from different definitions of the word "objective". If you like, you can replace my uses of "objective" with "specific." Perhaps that would be clearer for you?I have been using the word "objective" in this way (from dictionary.com): With study of language, history, and culture, it is possible to know what many of these apocalyptic symbols meant to the original author. This knowledge can be gained independent of the person doing the study. Thus these meanings are objective according to the above definition.I now understand that you may be using the term in a different way, and that my usage may be confusing to you. I am not trying to argue about terminology, but to communicate ideas. So I can try to use the word "specific" to avoid confusion, if you think this is clearer.

quote:

---

So your interpretation of symbols is the correct interpretation?

---

Of course not. The point is that they DID have a specific meaning to the original author. It is this meaning which is the correct interpretation.

quote:

---

By virtue of the fact that symbols need to be interpreted shows that they do not and cannot have an "objective, clear meaning".

---

Nonsense!
Do Maxwell's equations have an "objective, clear meaning?" Yes!
Do they need to be "interpreted," especially for a non-scientist? Yes!Objectivity and interpretation are in no way contradictory.

quote:

---

Hermeneutics cannot be used as an argument for the "objective and clear meaning" of symbols. Because that is what it purports to do. It is like trying to use the bible to prove the bible.

---

That's as crazy as saying that

quote:

---

I am amazed of the audacity of people that claim they know exactly what the writer meant thousands of years ago. How can you understand what the symbolic meaning is of something from a vastly different time and vastly different culture?

---

This is EXACTLY the goal of biblical interpretation--you've described it well. If you've never studied theology, hermeneutics, literary interpretation, archaeology, history, language, etc, then yes, this sounds like a very audacious and ridiculous claim. But with the proper study of these subjects it IS possible.An aborigine would probably think it equally audacious if someone told him that the symbols in Maxwell's equations actually meant and communicated something specific and profound.

quote:

---

Maxwell's equations are laws of electromagnetism that can be proven and mathematically explained. They are a fundamental truth. You are equivocating by saying that they would need to be interpreted for a layman.

​

The symbols in the bible are not a universal truth. Different people and different groups will come up with different meanings(read interpretations)

​

Just because thay are the same word(interpret) does not mean they mean the same thing.

​

Interpret as you used for maxwell's equations, is to explain or elucidate. I do not think this is an actual correct use of this word here. Because in actuality the equations do not require an interpretation. All they require is for the person to learn physics and mathematics and they can learn why they are truth.

​

Interpret as used for the prophecies has a different meaning. Here it means :To conceive the significance of; construe. A person can not learn the ultimate intent of the writer. All they can do is make educated guesses and suppositions of what the original writer meant.

---

I really don't see much difference. In essence, to "interpret" means to "explain what something means". The symbols in Maxwell's equations have a very specific meaning, but need to be interpreted, especially for a layman. Likewise, the symbols in Scripture had a very specific meaning to the original authors. Biblical interpretation is figuring out this original meaning.In both cases, we are dealing with symbols. The symbols themselves are not "universal truth", but they communicate truth. One communicates truth from nature (God's works); the other truth from Scripture (God's Word).You keep insisting that the Bible cannot be interpreted (i.e. we can not know the meaning of the original authors). I completely disagree. Why are you even posting here? (The subtitle of this forum is "what the Bible really means".) If you take your view to the extreme, we can never interpret any communication from someone from another culture or language. We can never enter into international agreements with foreign countries. This is ridiculous.The Bible can be interpreted. We can understand what the original author was trying to communicate. Not perfectly and not uniformly, of course, but often with very high confidence. This is what we mean by "biblical interpretation" or "hermeneutics." It requires studying the language, history, and culture of the original writer. Your description of biblical interpretation as something which is subjective and culture-dependent is NOT true, scholarly biblical interpretation.

quote:

---

For the purposes of this discussion the author's intent is a minor issue at most. The question we need to answer is how much freedom of interpretation is available. This is especially important because the proponents of Bible prophecy are clearly mainly interested finding an interpretation that fits their ideas - regardless of what the original author actually meant.

---

In doing proper biblical interpretation, authorial intent is paramount. But you make a valid point; interpreting prophecy is somewhat unique. Often the original author was not completely aware of the implications of what he wrote.

quote:

---

It is quite clear that Isaiah 53 contains few, if any, precise confirmable details. It is also clear that the proposer is more interested in reporting the opinions of other writers than actually discussing the text itself - in fact doing so only to find a convenient interpretation of pieces of the the text that do not easily fit with the ideas that the author meant Jesus.

---

You say this, but NO ONE here has yet given a point-by-point response to the details I presented in Message 25, though I asked again in Message 65. All I've received are vague dismissive comments and off-topic red herrings.

quote:

---

1) Isaiah 53 isn't a convincing example of predictive prophecy.

​

2) kbertsche is not even trying to make a case for it being a convincing example of predictive prophecy (probably knowing that it isn't - I can find no other reason for such a complete failure to even attempt to make a valid case)

​

3) If it is possible to find the original author's meaning (which I doubt) kbertsche seems to have no interest in trying, preferring instead to find a meaning which fits his beliefs

---

I suppose you find it easier to make such dismissive comments than to actually deal with the details presented in Message 25? Instead, try a verse-by-verse response of what I presented there.[Note: my recent replies have been short and concise because I am extremely busy preparing papers to present at an international conference. I will have little if any time to post in the next 10 days or so. Don't take my absence as an inability to answer your questions; hopefully others will answer them in my absence.]

quote:

---

How? How can you know what some one from 2000 or 4000 years ago meant? You do not have the linguistic and cultural background to know what they meant by their symbolism. No one does. All you, or anyone, can do is interpret and try to divine what they may have meant. To declare that you can know what they meant is a huge statement of hubris.

---

One who has not studied physics or advanced mathematics could insist that the symbols in Maxwell's equations are subjective and unknowable.One who has not studied theology or biblical interpretation (you?) could insist that the symbols in Scripture are subjective and unknowable.For one who has not studied a subject to declare that the subject is unknowable, this is certainly "a huge statement of hubris!"[Note: my recent replies have been short and concise because I am extremely busy preparing papers to present at an international conference. I will have little if any time to post in the next 10 days or so. Don't take my absence as an inability to answer your questions; hopefully others will answer them in my absence.]