by Viviane 250 Replies latest watchtower bible
This is where prophetic interpretation comes in. It’s great fun, you should try it:
So you still have an unfulfilled prophecy that you have to make up stuff and add to it to make it "fit".
Not one prophecy from the Bible can be shown to be fulfilled.
Vidqun - Any idea were we can get a copy of the TDOT on line, I can't find one? I think you'll find that most scholars agree that the city in Isa 19:18, is Heliopolis, as the oldest xisting text of Isa read city of the sun. The change to destruction is presumed to be a typical hebrew play on the word "Sun" and "Destruction".
I do not agree with you that there is no historic fulfilment of either Isa 17 and 19. Damacus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser III between 738 and 732BCE, and Egypt was invaded by Esarhaddon, all these events are recorded on ABC 1 (BM 92502), as well of the sacking of Babylon by Elam in 694, which makes Isa 20 refer to this even and not the later defeat by Cyrus.
Viviane - Are we restricting the use of a post written prophetic/ History or did you rule that out in the OP?
I do not agree with you that there is no historic fulfilment of either Isa 17 and 19. Damacus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser III between 738 and 732BCE, and Egypt was invaded by Esarhaddon, all these events are recorded on ABC 1 (BM 92502), as well of the sacking of Babylon by Elam in 694, which makes Isa 20 refer to this even and not the later defeat by Cyrus.
Just show me the scriptures that refer to these specific people, events and dates and I will agree also.
Viviane - Are we restricting the use of a post written prophetic/ History or did you rule that out in the OP?
I don't understand what you mean.
Bart, first the good news. It’s possible with a minor change in one of the letters. This is the footnote in NET: tc The Hebrew text has ('ir haheres, "City of Destruction"; cf. NASB, NIV) but this does not fit the positive emphasis of vv. Is. 19:18-22. The Qumran scroll 1QIsa a and some medieval Hebrew MSS read ('ir hakheres, "City of the Sun," i.e., Heliopolis). This reading also finds support from Symmachus' Greek version, the Targum, and the Vulgate. See HALOT 257 s.v. and HALOT 355 s.v. II.
I personally believe the MT to be reliable in this instance, after comparing it with Is. 1:26. Zion will be called “city of righteousness,” whereas one of the cities in Egypt would be called “city of destruction,” but after being rebuilt (spiritually restructered) “city of righteousness” (according to the reading of LXX) in line with Jer. 1:10.
Now the bad news. The fifteen volume TDOT are not available online or as part of software programs (Logos, BibleWorks, Accordance). It can be bought from Amazon in printed form, or accessed at a University (Theological) Library.
Viviane, we can only agree to disagree. Perhaps what Bart means, can he present a historical prophecy, one that came true in the time that it was written, as predictive prophecy?
Bart, first the good news. It’s possible with a minor change in one of the letters.'
So prophecy is possible if you change it to fit after the facts?
Viviane, we can only agree to disagree
Not really. Can you point to a specific prophecy with names, events and dates that has been fulfilled? It's a yes or no question. Where is the disagreement?
Perhaps what Bart means, can he present a historical prophecy, one that came true in the time that it was written, as predictive prophecy?
Let's let Bart speak for himself, literally exactly what we should do with the Bible.
Viv, Isa 19:23-25 spiecifies that Assyria are the agreesors working as the hand of God, also in Isa 20:3-5 shows that the King of Assyria is at some time after Sargon who is speciefied in 20;1.
Isa 17 does not spiecify by whom or when, however if you apply the same standard as used to asert historical facts then it can only apply to Assyria. In 17:3 implies that Damacus and Syria become as Israel. The chornicle states that at the time Damacus/Syria exiled so was Samaria. Again we can only apply the same standard of proof to this as to secular history.
I am saying that as it has been argued in the discussion about Daniel a late date appears to used to dismiss it as prophetic are we applying the same rule to the rest of prophecy because if that is the case there is evidently no prophecies as we can not date the last redaction of the texts before the oldest copies we have.
BB
Viv, Isa 19:23-25 spiecifies that Assyria are the agreesors working as the hand of God, also in Isa 20:3-5 shows that the King of Assyria is at some time after Sargon who is speciefied in 20;1.
Isaiah 19:23-25 is failed prophecy. Isaiah 20:1 is history. How does that add up to a specific prophecy with names, dates, events, etc.?
Isa 17 does not spiecify by whom or when, however if you apply the same standard as used to asert historical facts then it can only apply to Assyria.
That's you adding into the text, not a specific prophecy with names, dates, etc., within the text.
I am saying that as it has been argued in the discussion about Daniel a late date appears to used to dismiss it as prophetic are we applying the same rule to the rest of prophecy because if that is the case there is evidently no prophecies as we can not date the last redaction of the texts before the oldest copies we have.
Daniel is known for a fact to be an amalgamation of early and late stories. You are correct, there are no "prophecies" that can be dated to prior to the events. I was letting that slide, but since you brought it up, you are correct. There is no way to prove any of these things were written before the events happened.
No, Viv, what I mean is, I understand prophecy to mean "a prediction of something to come" (Webster). 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. You want to apply scientific method to history. Good luck with that, observing something that happened 2000 years ago, and accumulating first-hand knowledge. For this you need a time machine, and we're not there yet. Can you prove that all prophecies were given after the fact? 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. 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.
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.
Not my definition of prophecy, Viv. That's from Webster Dictionary. Perhaps you should write them and inform them of the new definition. A straw man with straw in the eye. No, even if I could come up with pinpoint chronology, names, places, and events in fine detail, you and most modern scholars will reject the evidence. Why? Because you do not believe in predictive prophesy. Nothing, and nobody is going to change that. End of story. If a dog bit you in the bum, you will not believe it. You would reason: It could have been a hyena or a shark in disguise. So, straw man and changing the goal posts indeed...
