No, Viv, what I mean is, I understand prophecy to mean "a prediction of something to come" (Webster).
OK, so, by definition, a prophecy could never come true because then it wouldn't be "something to come". Maybe you want to re-think that?
However, you are asking for names, events, and places. I think you are confusing the evidence of Biblical prophecy and evidence given in a Court of Law.
Then you need to explain in a reasonable way why evidentiary standards should be different.
You want to apply scientific method to history. Good luck with that, observing something that happened 2000 years ago, and accumulating first-hand knowledge.
The scientific method is extensively used in history. It's would be required to even know if a prophecy came true or even what a prophecy said. The thing you reject, if you truly rejected it, would prevent you from even knowing what a prophecy said.
Can you prove that all prophecies were given after the fact?
I allowed that some were written prior. Strawman, much?
We discussed Daniel as a case in point. Even with a late date Daniel, certain future predictions were made that did in fact come true.
Daniel is known for a fact to be an almagamation of early and late writings. Nothing was predicted.
Even with Dan. 9 with its names, events, and places, you can't see it, because you don't want to see it. That's what I mean when I say, we can agree not to agree.
Christians argue amongst themselves what prophecy means. You can't even agree internally. Don't blame me for your group's lack of consistency and scholarship. If you are looking for who you disagree with, collectively go look in a mirror.