Originally posted by twhitehead As I have now said twice, if you are not a believer, it is vague at best. It is no different from Nostradamus in that respect. Those who believe in Nostradamus's prophesies are also able to interpret them spiritually and 'get the sense of it' in a way that the rest of us don't.
As long as prophesy is subject to interpretation, and the interpretation is ...[text shortened]... lment in mind, it ceases to become prophesy and is rather a case of tailored interpretation.
rubbish, there is nothing vague about biblical prophesy! in the case of Babylon, there were many specifics cited, you just cannot bring yourself to the realisation, because of your prejudices. Nostradamus uttered nothing so specific, your statement is utterly without the slightest foundation! nor can you hide behind the cloak of, its open to interpretation, Babylon was destroyed, by the Medo-Persians, the river was diverted, it did fall and remains uninhabited to this day, what is there to interpret, nothing! More baseless assertions!
Originally posted by FabianFnas Wikipedia did of course not invent the the definition about 'prophecy', it just quoted it from christian sources. Do you by that mean that christian sources are wrong?
Relax, I am here to learn things. Don't you want to learn things?
(Do I always have to repeat my questions twice in order to have an answer?)
I tell you to "be nice for gods sake and ...[text shortened]... be happy". That's a prophecy and I am a prophet.
If not, then your definition is wrong.
Christian sources? we are talking of the actual Hebrew and Greek words. How close to the source do you need to go before it becomes apparent that wikipedia is talking bollocks? I gave a Biblical definition, perhaps you might like to start there, i am not repeating it again, unless you understand it, you will never understanding the meaning of prophecy and will continue to grope around in this regard. Indeed you demonstrate a common misconception, that prophecy is inherently linked with telling the future, not for the majority of cases its not, not at least in a Biblical context anyway.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie rubbish, there is nothing vague about biblical prophesy!
The piece quoted from Isiah is vague. Even you have admitted that if taken at face value it is false. You essentially said it has to be interpreted first by viewing things spiritually.
Originally posted by twhitehead The piece quoted from Isiah is vague. Even you have admitted that if taken at face value it is false. You essentially said it has to be interpreted first by viewing things spiritually.
The piece i quoted from Isaiah was specific, as was the manner of death of the Christ quoted by Manny, that they need to be looked at spiritually hardly negates this fact.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I gave a Biblical definition, perhaps you might like to start there,
You mean tht you quoted the bible itself for the definition? It was not your words? Okay. I want to read it myself, in my own language. Where in the bible can I find it?
Originally posted by FabianFnas You mean tht you quoted the bible itself for the definition? It was not your words? Okay. I want to read it myself, in my own language. Where in the bible can I find it?
you need first to look for a Hebrew interlinear and a Greek interlinear if you wish to look at specific words in their original language in the context of the Bible.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat With respect, Manny, I have to disagree - I find no difficulty whatsoever in dismissing scripture in it's entirety for the reasons outlined in my last few posts to Robbie.
You can dismiss it all you like but at least compare Isa 53 with the Gospel accounts of the way Christ would suffer and die. Who then is the Isa 53 talking about? If you think this is vague then nothing will satisfy.
Originally posted by twhitehead As I said, unless you are a believer, it is vague at best. In fact, it takes quite some interpretation to get even close to being accurate.
And this bit:
"He will see His offspring, ..."
Just doesn't fit at all. Jesus had offspring?
Also, a quick google search seems to tell me that Isaiah was written circa 700BC, yet you say "about 1000 years before". Was that creative rounding up on your part?
Sure I was off a bit I knew it was more than 500 years so I was off by 300 but I bet there is some dispute on the actually times. Example Book of Revelation between 65-90 AD but there not sure. Isaiah 53 is not vague at all.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie you need first to look for a Hebrew interlinear and a Greek interlinear if you wish to look at specific words in their original language in the context of the Bible.
So it doesn't give the definition in the bible, translatable to any language? The definition is invented later? Oh, but then any definition is a s good as another. Even mine. And yours. And the one I found in wikipedia.
JW has made saome prophecies about the last day of the earth. Every one has failed. Proving that prophecies don't work. It's against science.
Originally posted by twhitehead It is vague to me. As I have stated several times, it is not vague to you because, as a believer, you are reading between the lines.
Ok The challenge is to look at the accounts of Christ death and compare it to what Isa 53 says. If not then you really don't care to see. Don't have to be a believer to see the connection.
Originally posted by menace71 Ok The challenge is to look at the accounts of Christ death and compare it to what Isa 53 says. If not then you really don't care to see. Don't have to be a believer to see the connection.
Seeing a connection is easy. That doesn't stop it being vague.
I am sure that if I presented a passage from Nostradamus that you called 'vague at best' and a real world event that some people claim it is a prophesy for then you too would 'see a connection'.
I suspect that the writers of the gospels had read Isiah and tailored their writing to fit it, but even without that possibility, it is not clear to me that Isa 53 could only apply to Jesus nor is it clear to me that it accurately applies to Jesus. As I pointed out already some parts do not seem to apply and require special interpretation after the fact (such as the reference to his offspring).
Originally posted by twhitehead Seeing a connection is easy. That doesn't stop it being vague.
I am sure that if I presented a passage from Nostradamus that you called 'vague at best' and a real world event that some people claim it is a prophesy for then you too would 'see a connection'.
I suspect that the writers of the gospels had read Isiah and tailored their writing to fit it ...[text shortened]... and require special interpretation after the fact (such as the reference to his offspring).
Let's find a supposed prophecy of Nostradamus. They are all Vague.
The case for Adam & Eve.
26 Nov '10 15:06
Back to Top