Bible Prophecies

[DeletedUser]

Not making a second version of Bible Answers, this is more of way to talk to Eli Makepeace and Desi.

But im sure JR will find his way in here.

Starting with one of my favorite, and one of the most obvious, straight-foward prophecy of a falling world power. Cyrus the Persian's destruction of Babylon.


The Bible book of Isaiah was written in 732 B.C.E.
Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E. (as you know, B.C. times count downward as time goes foward)

Isaiah 45:1
New World Translation:
"This is what Jehovah has said to his annointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut"

KJV (I shall use both my prefered translation and that of King James so that you guys do not think the New World Translation is interpreted to fit my beliefs)
"Thus says the LORD to His annointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held- To subdue nations before him And loose the armor of kings, To open before him the double doors, So the gates will not be shut:"


About two hundreds years later, Cyrus the Great destroyed Babylon. But the question remains, how can we know that these were the same Cyrus's?

For one, Babylon was surrounded by the Euphrates River, and the only way into the city was past this river, and through a gate. Cyrus circumvented the water of the Euphrates until it was almost empty at Babylon.

Although that is not mentioned in the prophecy, this part is; Normally, the gates and double doors to the City were always kept shut, but strangely, on the night Cyrus attacked Babylon, the city was in such a festival, they did not close the gates and double doors to the city, and archaeological discoveries have proved this.

From the double doors being opened, even to Cyrus's name, this was prophesied nearly two-hundred years before it took place.

 

[DeletedUser8950]

I would request you use more then 1 bible translation, as the new world translation, though accurate, is tailored to the JW belief system, and inserts "Jehovah" 200-something times in the new testament, when it shouldn't actually be there. It's good you're also using KJV, but use a few more.
Anyway, Imma grabbing my popcorn for a one-sided debate:laugh:

 

[DeletedUser]

I Agree with this, but I don't really see a debate. Are we supposed to find faults or anything in prophecies? I'm really confused.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you're so closed minded that you choose to deny them despite their truthfulness, then go ahead.

And DN5, How do you know where God's name is and where it isn't?

The New World Translation has been acclaimed as the most accurate Bible Translation.

Not in arrogant terms, but the only reason is simply because of its being more recently done since the KJV.

The King James Bible was formed in 1611 A.D. which at that time, the manuscripts and copies of the Bible books did not go back very far, and as we all know, the more times a book is copied, the more scewered it can get.

But the NWT was translated from the oldest copies of Bible books that have been discovered, The KJV was only done with the more newer copies because that was the only copies that were avaliable, but now we have older, more accurate copies of these Bible books. And the oldest copies were translated into modern english and therefore brought the NWT.

If you can, please name a contradiction between the two translations that you say is tailored for my belief.

 

[DeletedUser8950]

What Blondie asketh, blondie will recieve...eth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurios

Kyrios/Kurios does not equal "Jehovah."

 

[DeletedUser]

That's because when the Bible was translated, there was a fear of blasoheming God's name, therefore, in order to avoid that, all those in charge of translating the Bible, were to replace any occurance of the Divine name with the Greek word, Kyrios/Kurios (Lord).

The same with replacing Yahweh, with adonai. In the Hebrew translations.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thank you for providing chapter and verse. I googled and quickly found this link: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2ross96.html

For those who don't wish to follow the link, part of the page says:
"Biblical scholars have suspected for at least 800 years that Isaiah did not write the last half of the book bearing his name, but in making the unlikely claim that a king was mentioned by name 150 years before his birth, Ross said nothing about the widely held critical view that the part of Isaiah that mentions Cyrus was written well after Cyrus had become king of Persia. Ross has resorted to the familiar fundamentalist tactic of depending on the ignorance of his audience not to know any better than to believe an outrageous claim. What is really sad is that the tactic works, because most Christians lack the incentive to check such claims. "

I don't have a pre-conceived notion of whether something is true or not before I look at it, but I do adopt a healthy scepticism of incredible-sounding claims. For the Isaiah claim to stand it must be established that the prophecy genuinely antedates the events it predicts. What independent (ie non-Biblical) evidence is there that the text in question has been transmitted unchanged from the 8th Century BC? Our earliest written texts are from much later so how do we know that what we have now has not been modified? 'Cyrus' is not a Persian name for instance, but a Greek version of one, so changes there clearly have been.

Another point that puzzles me is that even if a Biblical prediction or miracle were proven to be true why would anyone take that as vindication of the whole corpus of texts that has come down to us as the Bible? I've seen some amazing stage magic and I literally cannot conceive of how the effect is produced but I don't think "Wow, there must be a God after all". Even if Isiah had verfiable, accurate visions of the future I don't see why that would mean that I ought to get myself circumcised. If the Delphic oracle made an accurate prediction would that mean that the Greek Gods actually existed?

Whether my brain arrived through evolution or divine benevolence, I will not turn it off.

 

[DeletedUser8950]

That's because when the Bible was translated, there was a fear of blasoheming God's name, therefore, in order to avoid that, all those in charge of translating the Bible, were to replace any occurance of the Divine name with the Greek word, Kyrios/Kurios (Lord).

The same with replacing Yahweh, with adonai. In the Hebrew translations.

Convienient, however I would like to see you excuse the following:

• Stauros is translated to "stake" which is based off the belief system.
• Enoch didn't know the name Jehovah, but read Jude 11-15
• Regular inserts to promote nontrinitarianisim
• Changing "is" to "means" in Matthew 26:26

There are more, and even though generally accurate, most critics will agree it is bias.

Edit:You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Eli Makepeace again.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thank you for providing chapter and verse. I googled and quickly found this link: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2ross96.html

For those who don't wish to follow the link, part of the page says:
"Biblical scholars have suspected for at least 800 years that Isaiah did not write the last half of the book bearing his name, but in making the unlikely claim that a king was mentioned by name 150 years before his birth, Ross said nothing about the widely held critical view that the part of Isaiah that mentions Cyrus was written well after Cyrus had become king of Persia. Ross has resorted to the familiar fundamentalist tactic of depending on the ignorance of his audience not to know any better than to believe an outrageous claim. What is really sad is that the tactic works, because most Christians lack the incentive to check such claims. "

I don't have a pre-conceived notion of whether something is true or not before I look at it, but I do adopt a healthy scepticism of incredible-sounding claims. For the Isaiah claim to stand it must be established that the prophecy genuinely antedates the events it predicts. What independent (ie non-Biblical) evidence is there that the text in question has been transmitted unchanged from the 8th Century BC? Our earliest written texts are from much later so how do we know that what we have now has not been modified? 'Cyrus' is not a Persian name for instance, but a Greek version of one, so changes there clearly have been.

Another point that puzzles me is that even if a Biblical prediction or miracle were proven to be true why would anyone take that as vindication of the whole corpus of texts that has come down to us as the Bible? I've seen some amazing stage magic and I literally cannot conceive of how the effect is produced but I don't think "Wow, there must be a God after all". Even if Isiah had verfiable, accurate visions of the future I don't see why that would mean that I ought to get myself circumcised. If the Delphic oracle made an accurate prediction would that mean that the Greek Gods actually existed?

Whether my brain arrived through evolution or divine benevolence, I will not turn it off.

Yeah, whatever, im supposed to believe every stupid way people have been trying to discredit the Bible? That is absolute bull. It has not been proven, and until it is, Im not going to be swayed by conspiracy theories.

 

[DeletedUser8950]

Yeah, whatever, im supposed to believe every stupid way people have been trying to discredit the Bible? That is absolute bull. It has not been proven, and until it is, Im not going to be swayed by conspiracy theories.

Maybe he can't prove it, but you can't disprove it.
That is by no reason a rational way to argue, but I will point it out anyway.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah, whatever, im supposed to believe every stupid way people have been trying to discredit the Bible? That is absolute bull. It has not been proven, and until it is, Im not going to be swayed by conspiracy theories.

......and this from the man who calls himself 'open-minded'!!!!!

Anyway, 'grats on cleaning up your sig.

 

[DeletedUser]

Convienient, however I would like to see you excuse the following:

• Stauros is translated to "stake" which is based off the belief system.
• Enoch didn't know the name Jehovah, but read Jude 11-15
• Regular inserts to promote nontrinitarianisim
• Changing "is" to "means" in Matthew 26:26

There are more, and even though generally accurate, most critics will agree it is bias.

Edit:You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Eli Makepeace again.

1.The greek word, "Stauros" does translate to, "Stake"
http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/cross.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081122054224AAiuI3g

2.Where do you get that he didn't know the name Jehovah? Is it from
Exodus 6:3?

Think about this, Enoch was the sixth decendant of Adam. Adam and Eve knew God's name, since she says it in Genesis 4:1 "In time she gave birth to Cain and said: "I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah" NWT
Eve was probably told God's name by Adam or Jehovah himself

It was 622 years after Adam was created when Enoch was born, and Adam lived to be 930 years old. Adam or eve no doubt told their children God's name and then they told their children and so on. But there is no contradiction.

God did not make known the meaning of his name to his servants before Moses. He told his name, but not that it meant, I AM WHO I AM, or I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE, or to be more specific, HE CAUSES TO BECOME.

Al; mean and insinuate the same thing. It means God can, and will be whatever is necessary to carry out his will. Whether it be a God of Justice, a God of Love, a God of Vengeance, a Comforter, a Sheperd, etc.

With a little cross-examination and some research, you will find, that the Bible has no contradictions.

3.Example by comparison of the two translations?

4.the Greek word used for “is” is e·stin, in the sense of signifying, importing, representing

......and this from the man who calls himself 'open-minded'!!!!!

Anyway, 'grats on cleaning up your sig.

Not to seem that way, but i said i would believe it when it's proven to me. With clear, logical, and factual reasoning, my friend.

Maybe he can't prove it, but you can't disprove it.
That is by no reason a rational way to argue, but I will point it out anyway.

I appologize for my triple posting but i haven't tinkered with this thing long enough to quote certain parts from different people in one post.


I only believe what can be proven, and what cannot be disproven.

Evolution has not been proven, and what they have theorized can be disproven.

The Bible can be proven true, and not disproven, once enough study and a lot of time has been put into it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I only believe what can be proven, and what cannot be disproven.

.....

The Bible can be proven true, and not disproven, once enough study and a lot of time has been put into it.

Well, if you have PROOF then out with it.
You may object that I would be too stupid to recognise it, so I will make things easy for you. We have been discussing Isaiah, so just use your proof to get the wikipedia entry under that heading changed to agree with your argument and I will defer to your wisdom. If you have real proof that should be relatively simple.
Until then I reserve the right to treat your claim as ridiculous nonsense.

 

[DeletedUser13113]

I only believe what can be proven, and what cannot be disproven.

Evolution has not been proven, and what they have theorized can be disproven.

The Bible can be proven true, and not disproven, once enough study and a lot of time has been put into it.

That kind of hurts your position, since God and the Bible cannot be "proven". That's where faith and choice comes in.

Evolution cannot be fully disproven, otherwise it wouldn't be a valid theory anymore. But it still is, so unless evolutionists are very good at burying things we are stuck with the hypothesis of evolution.

Your statement about the bible is only derived by your faith. You believe that eventually the bible will be proven true. But you have no facts to back up that claim, and since parts of the bible can be disproven (at least for the time being) you are believing in something that cannot be proven at this time, therefore you believe in something that can't be proven and are contradicting yourself.

To evolutionists, they can take your phrase "The Bible can be proven true, and not disproven, once enough study and a lot of time has been put into it." and replace the words "The Bible" with the word "Evolution" and use it and it would be true TO THEM.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you believe everything Wikipedia says then you'll be up crap creek without a paddle. The entries on Wikipedia are written by everyday people like you and me. So long as it isn't ridiculously unbelievably, they'll let it stay written there.
I deeply hope that anything you've learned about Jehovah's Witnesses isn't from the internet or someone who's not a Witness.

And since it would be pointless to make wikipedia change anything, ill go to another prophecy.

Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great was born in 356 B.C. and died 323 B.C.

The book of Daniel was written in 537 B.C. http://www.harvardhouse.com/Daniel_date-written.htm

In Daniel 8:3-8, 20-22
NWT
"In the third year of the kingship of Bel·shaz′zar the king, there was a vision that appeared to me, even me, Daniel, after the one appearing to me at the start. 2 And I began to see in the vision; and it came about, while I was seeing, that I was in Shu′shan the castle, which is in E′lam the jurisdictional district; and I proceeded to see in the vision, and I myself happened to be by the watercourse of U′lai. 3 When I raised my eyes, then I saw, and, look! a ram standing before the watercourse, and it had two horns. And the two horns were tall, but the one was taller than the other, and the taller was the one that came up afterward. 4 I saw the ram making thrusts to the west and to the north and to the south, and no wild beasts kept standing before it, and there was no one doing any delivering out of its hand. And it did according to its will, and it put on great airs.

5

And I, for my part, kept on considering, and, look! there was a male of the goats coming from the sunset upon the surface of the whole earth, and it was not touching the earth. And as regards the he-goat, there was a conspicuous horn between its eyes. 6 And it kept coming all the way to the ram possessing the two horns, which I had seen standing before the watercourse; and it came running toward it in its powerful rage.​

7​

​

And I saw it coming into close touch with the ram, and it began showing bitterness toward it, and it proceeded to strike down the ram and to break its two horns, and there proved to be no power in the ram to stand before it. So it threw it to the earth and trampled it down, and the ram proved to have no deliverer out of its hand.​

8​

​

And the male of the goats, for its part, put on great airs to an extreme; but as soon as it became mighty, the great horn was broken, and there proceeded to come up conspicuously four instead of it, toward the four winds of the heavens.​

20 “The ram that you saw possessing the two horns [stands for] the kings of Me′di·a and Persia. 21 And the hairy he-goat [stands for] the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it [stands for] the first king. 22 And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from [his] nation that will stand up, but not with his power.

KJV:
Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.

8:4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.
8:5 And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.
8:6 And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power.
8:7 And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

8:21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. 8:22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.


In this case, the prophecy interprets itself, the only thing that i'll really elaborate on is that not only did it say he was from Greece, but that as soon as he became mighty, he was cut down, and as soon as Alexander pretty much finished his conquest, he died, and four generals stood up in his place, but not with his power, just as the four horns stood up in the place of the mighty horn, but without its power.
​

​

​

 

[DeletedUser]

To evolutionists, they can take your phrase "The Bible can be proven true, and not disproven, once enough study and a lot of time has been put into it." and replace the words "The Bible" with the word "Evolution" and use it and it would be true TO THEM.

Exactly, this statements can apply to almost anything. It is the ignorant that choose to deny it.

 

[DeletedUser]

That kind of hurts your position, since God and the Bible cannot be "proven". That's where faith and choice comes in.

Evolution cannot be fully disproven, otherwise it wouldn't be a valid theory anymore. But it still is, so unless evolutionists are very good at burying things we are stuck with the hypothesis of evolution.

Your statement about the bible is only derived by your faith. You believe that eventually the bible will be proven true. But you have no facts to back up that claim, and since parts of the bible can be disproven (at least for the time being) you are believing in something that cannot be proven at this time, therefore you believe in something that can't be proven and are contradicting yourself.

To evolutionists, they can take your phrase "The Bible can be proven true, and not disproven, once enough study and a lot of time has been put into it." and replace the words "The Bible" with the word "Evolution" and use it and it would be true TO THEM.

Even though im against evolution, i would have to half-way agree with you. the only i disagree with, is that even if something can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it can always be denied. In some way, shape, form, or fashion.

If you don't want to accept, you won't, even if it seems to be undeniable. Which is how i feel about my beliefs, and you feel abouts yours, about that, you are as correct as it gets

 

[DeletedUser]

So long as it isn't ridiculously unbelievably, they'll let it stay written there.

Exactly! I've made it sooooo easy for you.

Btw, I think Darius unified Media and Persia before Alexander the Great, so there would have been one king not two. Maybe someone who knows could confirm this or not, but I get the feeling that if there weren't 2 kings you would somehow try to fit another interpretation rather than accept that the biblical text was in error. Would that be a fair assumption?

 

[DeletedUser]

No, with full respect, which I have for you, Media and Persia were a dual World Power, very similar to the American/British World Power the exists today. Unified and one are two very different things. That is why they were symbolized as a Ram having two horns, which, obviously, is what every normal Ram has.

 

[DeletedUser]

So you're definitely saying that Media and Persia each had their own king at the time A the G invaded, which is what the biblical text alludes to?

I don't know whether they did or not, but it would be interesting to see if the Bible got this one right or whether there's a frantic rustling of papers while a new spin is found.