Talk:Biblical prophecies

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too!

This article is of MID importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverbrain.png

Contents

[edit] Destruction of Egypt reference

First, reference [6] seems to have been taken down/deleted/moved etc. So can someone fix that?

It has come to my attention that reference [7] about Amasis II can not be verified, so any reference to it is invalid. I say this because the opening line on him states 'Most of our information about him is derived from Herodotus (2.161ff) and can only be imperfectly verified by monumental evidence.' In the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1959, Vol. 8, p. 62) it comments about Herodotus history of this period; 'His statements prove not entirely reliable when they can be checked by the scanty native evidence'. Is there any sturdy evidence or history records so as to justly categorize the prophecy as either failed or not? - 22:30, 29 August 2014

[edit] Rationalwikification.

Needs some introduction and more examples for Rationalwikification. Keepgoats 07:29, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Thats on the agenda. ill get to it within two years. - Icewedge 14:05, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Fine, but that means you're on a schedule now! --Kels 14:14, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] It's a Revelation!

Having never read it (& having no intent ever to), isn't Revelations bit prophetic? Keepgoats 15:44, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Reading it would be a good idea (along with, say, Leviticus), since understanding your adversary is always essential. But yeah, it's full of failed ones. Every few years, somebody will have claimed to decipher it as saying the apocalypse is imminent... but there still hasn't been an apocalypse. --ηοξιμαχονγ 15:47, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
I do read fiction, but not 2000 year old fiction. I don't particularly want to understand the adversary. I'd sooner read pictish runes. Keepgoats 15:57, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Geit.jpg! Not sure if that's Pict, but... --ηοξιμαχονγ 16:08, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Futhark, actually. That's the Nordic/Germanic system. Having access to the intertubes (and a bit curious anyhow), I looked up Pictish runes and discovered they're more inclined towards closed geometric shapes attached to lines. Like triangles, squares, etc. Interesting. --Kels 16:26, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Very nice, I haven't a clue. My pictish is slightly worse than my french & that's non-existent.

If I had to understand where every nut in the world "was coming from" I'd need an eight day week full of 48 hour days and probably a life with the duration of Noah's. You don't have to know the chemistry to know durian fruit smells bad. Keepgoats 16:22, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

I went of a C of E primary school, and I have two Bibles (and a Tao Te Ching, Dhammapada, Baghavad-gita and Aradia Gospel of the Witches, but my Quran, Origin of Species, and Popol Vuh seem to have wandered off). I'll have a look in Revelation to see what's useful here. Most of it is symbolic imagery rather than actual future-telling, so claiming its prophecies to be disproven would be a straw man. Totnesmartin 16:53, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
As a pagan, I prefer wicker men. --Kels 17:05, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Also as a pagan, I don't even need to ask which version... Totnesmartin 17:43, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
A new one every spring! --Kels 18:04, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Is that Wicca wicker or wicker wicker? Keepoff the grass 18:34, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Totnesmartin, where the heck is your Book of the Dead? --ηοξιμαχονγ 17:21, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Egyptian, Tibetan, or neil? Totnesmartin 17:43, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Ha! neil! - love it.Keepoff the grass 17:50, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Anyway, the reason I'm back instead of ploughing through The Apocalypse of John is this: Christians say that Chernobyl is Russian or Ukrainian for Wormwood, thus fulfilling this Revelation quote: And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as if it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; and the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter. the only problem being that Chernobyl literally means Black Grass, and is the local word for mugwort. Wormwood is polyn. see [this] for more.

Revelations is not a prophesy, it's apocalyptic literature, which is a very different thing. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:48, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Tell that to the literalists. Don't they know it has seven levels of interpretation, of which the literal is the most basic? I'm ahead of that and I'm not even a Christian! Incidentally AK, what's up with the Conservapedia Column? Totnesmartin 17:57, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, I'm still sort of on a CP boycot - plus I got a new job on the side that's taking a lot of time. But I'll see if I can get it revived again. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:38, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Updating section

I have accumulated a fair amount of information on biblical prophecies. I would like to expand this section with categories (retrodiction, self-fulfilled, vagueness, prophecies that weren't, etc.) and supporting arguments. Are there any objections? zieber 12:45, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Feel free to. This is a wiki, after all. Word time Phantom Hoover! 12:58, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Close to silver

With a few improvements like an image or two, this could easily be silver. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 21:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll look for some images. TyTy 21:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Got 'em. Tytalk 21:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Bump. Тytalk 01:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to bump something, don't bump it as a bot, no-one is going to notice that on RC. -- Nx / talk 09:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yet here you are. Тytalk 13:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] a BoN addition

A BoN stuck this in the "Failed to smite Jebus" section. I am still trying to figure out what it is actually saying. VOXHUMANA 05:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"15:63 Inhabitants of Jerusalem - For though Jerusalem was in part taken by Joshua before this; yet the upper and stronger part of it, called Zion, was still kept by the Jebusites, even until David's time; and it seems from thence they descended to the lower town called Jerusalem, and took it so that the Israelites were forced to win it a second time; yea, and a third time also: for afterwards it was possessed by the Jebusites, Judg 19:11 2Sam 5:6,7. Could not drive them out - Namely, because of their unbelief, as Christ could do no mighty work, because of the peoples unbelief, Mark 6:5,6 Matt 13:58, and because of their sloth, and cowardice, and wickedness, whereby they forfeited God's help. The children of Judah - The same things which are here said of the children of Judah, are said of the Benjamites, Judg 1:21. Hence ariseth a question, To which of the tribes Jerusalem belonged? It seems probable, that part of it, and indeed the greatest part, stood in the tribe of Benjamin; and hence this is mentioned in the list of their cities, and not in Judah's list; and part of it stood in Judah's share, even mount Moriah, on which the temple was built; and mount Sion, when it was taken from the Jebusites. To this day - When this book was written, whether in Joshua's life, which continued many years after the taking of Jerusalem; or after his death, when this clause was added by some other man of God. But this must be done before David's time, when the Jebusites were quite expelled, and their fort taken. ---> http://wes.biblecommenter.com/joshua/15.htm Bible Commenter Joshua 15 "

OK, I've figured it out. This text was cut and pasted from a Bible apologetics site. As per usual, it tries to dance around the contradiction using word salad. I've since rewritten the section to tighten it up. VOXHUMANA 05:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Long time lurker, first time poster blah blah blah

It seems like Strand and Father Vivian O'Blivion have been adding some... interesting editorial comments on this. Can someone with more clout than me step in and clean up? — Unsigned, by: AlvidBarza / talk / contribs

I think I understand why Fr. Vivian did what he did, and for the moment it appears to be sorted. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
"Because he wasn't paying attention." Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Happens to the best of us, as you have just demonstrated. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The IP deletion was me, it occurred to me after I did it that I may have acted in bad form and rather than compound my error I made an account and posted here. Sorry for stirring my trouble, I hope I didn’t cause too much of it. AlvidBarza (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you stab someone? Because, after what happened yesterday, you would pretty much have to track down a user and stab him in order to get noticed as a troublemaker. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Opening salvo

This is kinda picky, but accuracy in an opening paragraph matters. The Watchtower publication is not a fundamentalist publication using prophecy to prove inerrancy. "inspired of god" is not the same as "literally true". If this is such a big deal in the fundamentalist circles, then there should be something off of AGI or ICR or CMI that would be a far better example.One tin soldier (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the claim that "this section shows prophecies that are claimed to have passed", doesn't mean anything unless you find someone saying "this prophecy was fulfilled". Otherwise it reads like heresay, or a strawman - for all i don't think it *is* heresay or a strawman.One tin soldier (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Nostradamus quote

According to http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/nostradamus_2.htm , the quote from the first paragraph is a hoax. If this is the case, it should be removed. If it's true, a reliable source would be useful.

[edit] This article gets a few hits

In particular, it gets referenced a lot by readers on Twitter. What polishing could it do with further? - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The intro section could do with being a bit better: examples of the broader claims of accurate prophecy, notes on how mainstream these ideas are, specifics of narrower creationist claims, etc. - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Destruction of Tyre failed?

I fail to see how this prophecy is classed as failed,

Nebuchadnezzar II besieged the city. From a military standpoint, after many years it might have seemed futile to continue. But he persevered until Tyre fell at the end of 13 years, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that had named him as its conqueror.

It was completely destroyed, just because someone built/rebuilt a city with the name Tyre does not disprove this prophecy, it happened just as the Bible mentioned in this instance. -28th July 2014

It was not completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. And even if it had been, the prophecy stated quite clearly "you shall never be rebuilt; for I the Lord have spoken, says the Lord God" (Ez 26:14). Making the prophecy a double-fail. --Inquisitor (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
After looking into this more, it seems that there is a bit of misunderstanding as it's half taken out of context, and some missing points of the great detail that was foretold.
First of all, the first part of Ez 26:14 says 'I will make you a shining, bare rock, and you will become a drying yard for dragnets' then adds 'you will never be rebuilt'. The verses before go into detail about the destruction of Tyre, and mentions how the rubble and debris will be 'in the midst of the water.'(Ez 26:12). Which came true when Alexander built a causeway towards the island using all the rubble etc. That said, and considering the sentences directly above the words 'you shall never be rebuilt', you can see how this was true in this sense, as all the rubble and rock were taken away from the mainland and cast into the sea(so there was no basis for it to be rebuilt). It's also interesting that only that single sentence alone mentions Tyre to not be rebuilt, there are mainly two or more scriptures from separate books where prophecies, or in this instance sentences(on the same subject and related time frame), are to be taken as literal prophecies up to modern day or not(taking into account the information provided). Do you not think more harmonizing verses would also mention Tyre to never be rebuilt if it meant over a longer period of time(i.e. to nowadays)? Verses in a different alignment of context I of course mean.
In Ez 29:18 it mentions the same event, but more for Nebuchadnezzar's part. Tyre was a growing wealthy city at this time, and the latter part of that verse it mentions 'his army received no wages for the labor expanded on Tyre'. Now considering the context of that verse, and noticeably the following verse where it mentions God giving the wealth of Egypt to King Nebuchadnezzar, it's clear to make out that the 'wages' refer to the wealth or loot that raids would receive. So he was to receive nothing from his siege on Tyre(baring in mind this is a prophecy), and as prophecies genuinely have multiple verses to validate it, linking back to the COMPLETE destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, the destruction of Tyre to the extent of it all being destroyed is not what Ez 26:7-14 is prophesying. The island was where all the wealth of Tyre was, and Nebuchadnezzar didn't go to, and was never going to, capture the island to acquire the 'wage'.
Sorry for the long message, but I feel that this should be discussed properly with real insight, knowledge and meaning, and ultimately corrected via removal from the page. - 30th July 2014.
Sounds like your further research consisted entirely of reading Josh McDowell-esque apologetics. You're reading a lot into the text that isn't there. --Inquisitor (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? I do not know what you mean by 'Josh McDowell-esque apologetics' at all? My research was entirely from looking into the Bible, linking to other verses on the same subject, and it took me a fair amount of time to explain and put into words what I looked up. If the explanation above is a bit too much for you or a bit complex to ponder on, then simply do not make an unhelpful reply as you just did. If you are in question about it, the scriptures I use perhaps, then look it up and further carry on this discussion. Are the verses and reasoning I use incorrect? I use the Jehovah's Witnesses new NWT Bible, and have checked up older translations for clarification.
Please do not be rude again, I am quite surprised and offended at your claim of me, if you think I have missed something or not opened to another verse on this subject, then it would be helpful of you to reply with more depth and detail. Otherwise, I would advise you remove this from the 'failed' category or move it to a more suitable category. - 30th July 2014
Please do not feign umbrage with me again. I think that you may have the misunderstanding that I am not familiar with the Christian apologetics surrounding this topic. I am. As such, your line of reasoning appeared to me as very well-trodden ground. You have presented your arguments, and they are not persuasive. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You think I am faking my taking of offense? You fail to give me any points to reason regarding the prophecy being failed, so another non-helpful reply. By 'apologetics' I am not recommending my faith, a 'systematic' defense is definitely not a reason to brush aside a point, if you are familiar with the Scriptures I have raised, then tell me WHY it is in the wrong. This is not a defense, I am attacking this claim as it were. You mentioned it as 'well-trodden' but you still do not clarify or help my understanding of this, as you would have dealt with this plenty of times if that were the case? So it is not 'persuasive' enough for you - If you truly think that persuasiveness is the key in pointing an event to being factual or not, then the whole page declaring the prophecy as failed is just your own opinion on the matter.
Hopefully this time you will take this into account; if you cannot give me a reasonable explanation to my line of reasoning above, then do not reply. Let someone else do so. I am fed up of your ignorant remarks. I am open towards different views on my points, hence why I posted in this talk page for further points on this. But you on the other hand just seem to make short meaningless comments of your opinion and leave it as that, not providing any further evidence or proof. - 30th July 2014

[edit] Name change

I'd like to move this page to Biblical prophecies. First, because the Bible does accurately "predict" some things, and this way we don't need to inaccurately file them under "failed". Second, because renaming it makes the article appear less biased from the beginning. Third, because it fits with the rest of similar ideas that we rebut, such as Biblical scientific foreknowledge, Biblical inerrancy, etc. If nobody objects within a day or two, and I remember, I'll move the article. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a potentially excellent idea. How good a survey of prophecies in toto is it? It'd need to be a half-decent one - David Gerard (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as we only have 21 prophecies, and there are hundreds of claimed prophecies, this article isn't a good survey of all Biblical prophecies. However, seeing as many of the prophecies given here are pretty strong indictments of the Bible, this article makes a good case for the errancy of the Bible. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any lists of the most commonly-used ones. I have sat in a mainstream Church of England Christmas service and heard a lay reader seriously put forward Mark's point-by-point echoing of Isaiah as strong evidence of prophecy and thus the divinity of Jesus and not, e.g., the author of Mark sitting down with a copy of Isaiah to hand - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Isaiah predicts the Nile drying up, Sea draining

"In Isaiah 19:1-8 Isaiah tells us the Nile will dry up, ocean drains in the time of pagan Egypt." Ocean? It said sea. Then what sea is he talking about? Mediterranean? Red Sea? I guess if the waters failed from the sea the ocean would also have to have a low water level. User000name (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] city of tyre

In 586 BC (confirmed by secular sources as the 11th year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah), "Ezekiel" predicts the fall of mainland Tyre to the Babylonian armies of Nebuchadnezzar. 5 The text further describes the siege against the island fortress of Tyre (a half mile off the coast of mainland Tyre) hundreds of years later. Ezekiel's prophecy describes how the future invaders would tear down the ruins of mainland Tyre and throw them into the sea. They would "scrape her dust from her and leave her as the top of a rock". 6 "They will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water." "I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets." 7

Secular history records that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the great mainland city of Tyre about a year after Ezekiel's prophecy. The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "After a 13-year siege (585-573 BC) by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonian suzerainty." 8 When Nebuchadnezzar broke through the city gates, he found it nearly empty. Most of the people had moved by ship to an island about a half mile off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573 BC (Ezekiel's first prediction), but the city of Tyre on the island remained a powerful city for several hundred years.

Secular history next records that "Alexander the Great" laid siege to the island fortress of Tyre in 332 BC. His army destroyed the remains of mainland Tyre and threw them into the Mediterranean Sea. As Alexander's army constructed a causeway to the island, they scraped even the dust from the mainland city, leaving only bare rock. Historian Phillip Myers in his history textbook, General History for Colleges and High Schools, writes, "Alexander the Great reduced Tyre to ruins in 332 BC. Tyre recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now as bare as the top of a rock -- a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry — Unsigned, by: 198.232.223.248 / talk / contribs

[edit] Apologist reply in the wild

[1] May be rubbish, but the claimed refutations are being used in the wild and need addressing - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Started on it. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 13:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Israel will be unbeatable

We say:

In Exodus 23:27 God tells Moses that he will defeat every enemy he encounters:

I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. (NIV) However, history indicates many defeats suffered by the Israelites. Note that most believers will pull a no true Scotsman and claim that the defeats happened only at times when the Israelites weren't pious enough.

Oates says:

Exodus 23:27 says Israel shall never be defeated, but how does that explain Assyria and Babylon….. I do not even know what RationalWiki is talking about here. Just read the passage in question for yourself. It is a prophecy of the time when the Jews conquered parts of Canaan at the time of Joshua. This passage does not say anything LIKE Israel will never be defeated for all time. It is a prophecy that at the time Joshua and the Jews enter Canaan, God would send confusion into the Canaanites, allowing the Jews to conquer much of the area. Just read this passage. It says that the Jews only would conquer the Promised Land gradually. The very passage RationalWiki is claiming is a false prophecy that Israel will never be defeated implies that Israel would only conquer the Promised Land quite slowly, which clearly implies some defeats, which is in fact exactly what happened. This is further reason to take what RationalWiki is saying with a massive grain of salt. From here the supposed contradictions get even less believable.

Exodus 23:29-30 says:
I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.

Oates seems kind of right. Can we move the passage to a "fulfilled but really vague prophecies" section? Or could this section be changed to fit the actual passage? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Oates "forgets" some of the other promises in the same context which clearly didn't come true, e.g. Exodus 23:25-26 where YHWH promises to "take sickness away from the midst of thee. There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil." (KJV, in the NIV it's "I will take away sickness from among you, and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.").
I think the problem is that the current RW text extrapolates from YHWH's promise about (slowly) driving the Israelites' enemies out and promising the Israelites victory to YHWH promising that the Israelites will not suffer defeats.
Another bit of context that Oates conveniently "forgets" is the subsequent promise in Exodus 23:31 where Israel's borders is set at the Red Sea (which Israel has rarely reached) and the Euphrates river (in modern day Iraq, a border which Israel to my knowledge has never reached at any point in history).
So yes, I suggest changing the text to better match the promises and emphasise those that are categorically untrue, rather than the current version which is far too open to "gotcha criticism".
Also, if the Hittites in Exodus[wp] are the same as the historical Hittites,[wp] then YHWH didn't drive them slowly from the Levant - instead the Hittite Empire rather suddenly disappeared in the Bronze Age collapse.[wp] ScepticWombat (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin birth

My major question is how we use Isaiah 8:3. We say:

Per Isaiah 7:14-16: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. (NIV) Could this passage have been intended to refer to Jesus? It appears merely to be about people living at the time, and in fact in Isaiah 8:3 a male child is born.

But Isaiah 8:3 doesn't seem to fit. The kid's name is Mahershalalhashbaz, not Immanuel. The kingdoms aren't destroyed before curds. Is it wrong? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the argument being made. But as Jesus pretty obviously wasn't the result of a virgin birth isn't arguing about what the prophecy "really means" a bit of a waste of time?
On the other hand, if the argument is that the prophecy is that a young woman will give birth then you've got to hand it to them. That prophecy certainly came true. Indeed young women continue to give birth to this day.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This one's interesting, because Isaiah as true prophecy is quite commonly used today. So find good citable examples of people who do so in practice, and refute their claims. (The objection linked above tends to the sophisticated theology rather than the stuff people actually use.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The virgin birth article's been updated, and I think it does a decent job, will add more later.
My question here is, is (as we say) Isaiah 8:3 truly the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14-16? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The version by Oakes is so hilariously "have your cake and eat it too" in its argumentation in favour of both the reference to a virgin birth and that Isaiah 7:14-16 being a genuine prophecy that I think it merits repetition here:
The virgin (literally young woman, almah) will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (literally God among us). It is true that the Hebrew here is alma which means young woman, and not necessarily a virgin. However, for a married woman to give birth to a son is certainly not a sign. The prophecy states that this birth will be a miracle. Given that a miracle is prophesied, the most reasonable interpretation of the Hebrew is a virgin, not simply a married young woman. Add to this the fact that when the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek about 250 years before Christ, they used a Greek word which is definitely for a virgin. This proves that the Jews understood this to be a prophecy of a virgin birth before Jesus was born. Either way, in what way is this evidence that the Bible has an error? Even if the prophecy is not of a virgin birth, in any case, Jesus was born of a young woman. So, how does this prove that the Bible cannot be trusted? Why do these critics even mention this when in absolutely no way does this undermine biblical accuracy? Hmmm…
Oakes being unintentionally funny
Note the logic here:
  1. Oakes agree that the Hebrew actually refers to a(ny) "young woman", not necessarily a "virgin", and
  2. Oakes agrees that a young woman giving birth is not an earth shattering miracle, but then that must mean that it can't just refer to such a mundane event, and that
  3. the authors of the Septuagint must have been divinely inspired to choose the Greek word "virgin", which means that
  4. the Jews realised that this really was a prophecy (but just forgot to tell anyone, apparently...), and anyway
  5. even if the correct translation is "young woman", the bible isn't technically] wrong. So there...
Just, wow! You've gotta hand it to biblical inerrantist literalists that they perform some impressive mental gymnastic to make the evidence fit the interpretation. Anywho, contrary to Oakes' claim, no Jews claimed that Isaiah 7:14-16 was a prophecy about anything else than Isaiah 8:3 prior to the advent of Christianity (and those who remained Jews have stuck to this straight forward interpretation). That Christians started claiming that Isaiah predicted the birth of Jesus is yet another example of the reinterpretation/retconning of Old Testament texts by Christians (I think Muslims have done similar things with both the OT and NT) who suddenly found all kinds of prophecies post facto. It's a sort of "If you squint in just the right way you can almost make it look like a deformed elephant"-approach which also involved the gospel writers (who got the ball rolling by relying on the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew versions of the OT and invented spotted the "prophecy" in the first place). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice review. I might steal it... 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Is done

All the criticisms have been largely responded to. What to do now? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It kind of bothers me that the article entitled "Can you explain all the unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies listed at RationalWiki?" doesn't actually explain all the unfulfilled prophecies, just 10. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
What to do now? Take a well deserved rest! :-)
As for your second observation, given how Oakes messed up his attempt to rescue the 10 failed prophesies, I think he should count himself lucky that he didn't try to tackle any more of them. Still, if Oakes returns to his hilarious efforts, I suggest creating a separate page for RW rebuttals and link to it from this article to avoid it ending up being as long as LogicMaster's talk or user page... ScepticWombat (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're feeling super-restless, email Mr Oakes, tell him we took his critiques seriously and attempted to address them, and ask him if he has any further concerns - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support