The great and awesome Day of the Lord

[Mithrae]

As y'all know despite being raised as one I'm no longer a Christian and haven't been for over a decade: I don't accept core Christian doctrines (eg. I'd only guess ~70-90% probability for the existence of some kind of 'God' and consider it significantly more probable than not that Jesus didn't rise from the dead), and more importantly I don't even adhere to the teachings of Jesus (to sell what you have and give to the poor, don't worry about tomorrow but trust in God's provision, stop working for money and start working for the kingdom of God).

But I try to keep an open mind, and over the past ten months or so I've been troubled by the topic of biblical prophecy. It actually began all the way back in 2011, when one prophecy enthusiast came to the forum with all kinds of fallacies and arbitrary conclusions, claiming that his pet theory had only 112 trillion to one odds of being false. So in response I did a more objective assessment, and came up with something like 100 to one instead; which is not mind-blowing or miraculous, but is still somewhat intriguing.

I've privately gnawed on that issue at times over the years, but never managed to falsify it to my own satisfaction and even found a couple of additional points worth considering too. So hopefully the rest of you can help prove me wrong.

As I see it, if a prediction has been made and parts of it had already come true, that's either coincidence or it's indicative of genuine foreknowledge. Hence the likelihood that the rest will come true is the inverse of the likelihood that the first part was coincidence. (Plus the likelihood that it would happen anyway, prophecy or no, but in the case of biblical prophecies that's basically zero and therefore irrelevant.) That is absolutely critical to my reasoning, but I can't find a fault with it: Either the fulfillment of the first part was coincidence or it was indeed foreknown, and if it was foreknown then the rest of it presumably is foreknown also; so the likelihood that the first part was not coincidence is roughly the same as the likelihood that the whole prophecy is genuine.

Thus we have -
Prediction: Prophecy and interpretation
Confirmation: Signs and complete fulfillment

The biggest problem I've found with many Christian prophecy enthusiasts is that they tend to include their interpretation as part of the 'sign,' like that fellow from 2011 (and with some particularly enthusiastic folk, simply make up what constitutes a sign from whole cloth!), and that's a key error I've tried to avoid in my reasoning. In each case I've tried to justify an interpretation of biblical prophecy as legitimate, not arbitrary, and only then begun to consider how likely it is that the 'sign' which came to pass is mere coincidence. I will try to be as brief as possible with the signs I've been interested in, but I'll still put them in another post because this is already getting on the long side for an OP. However I'll briefly comment on two of the most obvious objections first:

1 - Biblical prophecies are too vague
It's a fair point, but firstly, that is why I've tried to specifically quantify the likelihood of a fulfillment or 'sign' being mere coincidence, distinct from and after establishing a legitimate interpretation; and secondly, what would the alternative be? If a prophecy were very specific then anytime since 400 CE or so basically any 'fulfillment' would be subject to the criticism that it was engineered by Christians to match the existing prophecy. Some miraculous exceptions which could not possibly be engineered by humans might apply (though not for any of the ones below), but then there's the endless debate over whether there's good reasons why a deity would not openly and universally reveal himself in such a manner. Criticisms on those grounds are not particularly valid to my mind, since they simply assume certain things about what 'God' or prophecy should be like, rather than addressing the actual data available.

2 - Seemingly fulfilled prophecies, even remarkable ones, are still coincidental products of large numbers; many many prophecies and thousands of years of history
The charge that some biblical prophecies are obviously false prophecies (eg. those of Ezekiel or those that 'Matthew' put in Jesus' mouth about his return) falls more into this category than being a valid objection in its own right, I think; after all on its own, it amounts to nothing more than the absurd 'some prophecies are false therefore they all are.' However the more nuanced recognition of how large numbers interact with the notion of coincidence is important, and is potentially valid, if it can be shown that that the real probability of a 'fulfillment' is in fact other than what I have calculated. I have tried to be careful in considering other scenarios, other possible 'fulfillments' in my estimations of probability, so I don't consider it a valid objection to blithely state that it simply must have been more probable than I've concluded.



Questions for debate:
Is the reasoning above valid, particularly the section in blue?
And if so, are the assessments of probability for the prophecies/signs in post #2 correct (or at least reasonable)?

[Mithrae]

Arguably there's something far more remarkable than calling four aces in the bible; the prophecy of Persian and Greek rulers in Daniel 11 which can be literally aligned almost verse by verse with history recorded elsewhere. Of course in that case we run headlong into the circularity that if it appears to be so supernatural, it mustn't be, and must have been written later (despite all the difficulties with that hypothesis).

I'm afraid I'm already quite stretched thin just engaging you as much as I am.

No worries I appreciate it!

As you suggested, for coincidence to be a really plausible explanation, he'd need to have tried his trick thousands of times. Furthermore, if he also had a fairly consistent track record of doing much less impressive 'tricks' successfully - declaring that he was going to pull a number card, for example - however unimpressive they might be individually, they'd hardly reduce the likelihood that there was something going on behind the scenes. The bible has plenty of vague/unimpressive predictions which have been 'fulfilled,' and a few which are arguably quite impressive: I'm not sure the relatively few which are unequivocally false are up to the task which you're expecting of them.

The more I've continued this discussion the more I have been gaining an impression that you are vastly underestimating the ambiguity of these prophecies.

I can understand why you initially would have thought that, but I'm not sure how you've got that impression from the previous post. The prophecy that "I shall bring back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem . . . . whom they have scattered among the nations" is hardly ambiguous. Since it was written (probably around the 8th century BCE) there've been only two times when Judah and Jerusalem were scattered among the nations - after the Babylonian conquest and after the Jewish-Roman wars - and hence really only two times in which one could say that the criteria of fulfillment for that part of the prophecy were met. The various other parts of the prophecy - chiefly "I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh," "I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth" and "the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood" - could reasonably be considered vague or ambiguous in themselves, in isolation, but as part of the whole they only add to the specificity of the passage. I don't think anyone supposes that the outpouring of God's spirit on all flesh occurred before or anywhere near the first return from captivity, for example, but the view that it began in the 1st century is a common one (and, arguably, reached "all flesh," all the peoples of the world by the 20th).

It's expressed as a sign - this will happen before that happens. The preceding verse talks about "wonders in the heavens and on earth." The assumption that a fulfillment must be something supernatural is unwarranted, but that it must be rare enough to be noteworthy is obvious.

I disagree. A couple posts ago you said that we shouldn't be making assumptions about how God would express prophecy. Now you are doing exactly that by saying it must be "noteworthy".

I also disagree that a "normal" eclipse isn't rare enough to be "noteworthy".

And there's no reason to think Joel wasn't writing about something yet more incredible than these scientifically-understood eclipses. I mean, if the Moon literally turned into blood tomorrow, then yeah I might reach for a Bible to get a grasp on the situation.

A once in 100 billion years event certainly could be said to serve as a sign for the coming of the Day of the Lord, yes. A once per decade event could not; such an event simply could not serve the function required by the passage. Acknowledging that fact is not declaring arbitrary limitations on God, it's simply recognizing the nature of communication. As it is, the reality seems to be a once in three thousand years (if not more) alignment of darkened sun and blood moon, hot on the heels of events and circumstances which apparently match the various other conditions suggested by the passage.

I didn't discuss it in my brief initial comments, but there's a bit more context to the passage which could be helpful here. I'll use a Jewish translation of the Tanakh (which makes no difference besides starting a new chapter at 2:28; I just don't like depending too heavily on Christian translations):

• Joel 2:28/3:1
  And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions;
  2 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out My spirit.
  3 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
  4 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of HaShem come.
  5 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of HaShem shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as HaShem hath said, and among the remnant those whom HaShem shall call.
  3:1/4:1
  For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
  2 I will gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat; and I will enter into judgment with them there for My people and for My heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and divided My land. . . .

OK, so 3 and 4 go together. It's a progression of chaos that leads up to the "great and terrible day". The Sun going dark and the Moon going blood are the culmination of the buildup (they are the greatest of the "wonders in the heavens and earth" that God will show us).

Christians believe that God began pouring out his Spirit - and not just on Jews but on "all flesh" - in the 1st century CE, and that Pentecost story is obviously the biggest reason for Peter's reference to Joel in his alleged sermon. You and I might take that story with a grain of salt, so I'm not sure how helpful it is in terms of interpretation. I would suggest that the clearest predictive element in the passage is the declaration that there would be a noteworthy darkened sun and bloody moon before the 'day of the Lord.' But also quite prominent is the reference to Judah (and seemingly Judah alone) returning to their land and to Jerusalem.

Perhaps, but the order is wrong since in Jerusalem was formed before the eclipses happened.

Moreover, those 1949/50 and 67/68 feast tetrads had been preceded by decades exemplifying what anyone from prior centuries would unequivocally agree were "wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke": Aeroplanes, global warfare on unprecedented scale and nuclear detonations.

You left out the subject and verb from that sentence: "I will show". Presumably "I" is God.

It doesn't seem to say "after those days" or "then I shall bring back the captivity of Judah." Thematically the passage moves on into judgement of the nations, particularly for what they're said to have done against God's people, so it makes sense that Judah's return is mentioned alongside reference to their dispersion and captivity.

You're right that "I will show" makes it a marginally less easy fit for planes, global war and nuclear detonations, but those scientific advances can be attributed ultimately to God. For comparison I don't think anyone would insist that the part saying God would bring back Judah precludes that it should happen through processes which are proximately natural, human activities. Alternatively, it would be extremely difficult to imagine that the discoveries of modern astronomy and geology don't constitute "wonders in the heavens and on earth" even more obviously in line with things being shown by God. Either way, the point is that starting from the 8th century BCE and moving forwards, it's the past century when wonders consistent with the description have been most unequivocally seen: In isolation it's a fairly vague verse which could be said to have been matched by events in virtually any century, but when the best match-ups happen to have occurred around the same time as Judah's return, it adds to the picture of a largely-fulfilled prophecy which in its entirety is really not so vague at all.


So the questions I ask are A) what would be the penultimate 'sign' or part of the prophecy to really clinch the matter and B) by assessing the probability that penultimate 'sign' was not mere coincidence, how likely is the final fulfillment of the Day of the Lord? The answers seem to be a) a similarly noteworthy darkened sun aligning with the next blood moon 'feast tetrad' which had marked the returns to Judah and Jerusalem and b) somewhere in the order of 99%.

[Elijah John]

Day and hour, maybe, but Matthew thought he knew a pretty clear time-frame for it, and put his words in Jesus' mouth:
"Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." ~ Matthew 10:23
"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." ~ Matthew 16:28

Was Jesus wrong, or is it just Matthew's error? The 'cities of Israel' bit is not found in any other gospel, and Matthew 16:28 is a distorted version of Mark's original "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power" (Mark 9:1). So it seems probable that it's Matthew who was wrong in putting those words in Jesus' mouth, not Jesus himself (though "this generation" in Mark 13 is a debatable point).

Even as an orthodox believer, I have never been obsessed with the "2nd coming" the book of Revelation or Bible prophecy in general, but the verses from Matthew that you quote here were enough for me some time ago to realize that "Jesus" was indeed wrong. Or, as you suggest, Matthew. And I was a "true believer" RC when those verse disrupted my faith.

Verses like those caused me to lose my faith in Bible inerrency, and eventually, in the Divinity of Jesus. (though I still believe in YHWH, God the Father).

If Jesus was wrong, then he cannot be "God". If the Gospel Evangelists were wrong, there is no reason (that I can see, anyway) to believe that Jesus is God.

In short, Jesus could not be the Messiah either. He did not usher in Israel's pre-eminance amoung the Nations, establish world peace or perpetuate the universal knowledge of YHWH, as the Messiah was supposed to have done.

Jesus did not usher in the Messianic age the first time around, and was wrong about the timing of his "2nd time around".

By your post here, you seem to acknowledge that Jesus (or Matthew) was wrong. (we agree) And so we must conclude that either Jesus or the Bible is not innerrant. I guess the other books could be, but ...I don't see infallibility there either.

If the Bible is not infallible, then that indeed is a weak foundation upon which to build any statistical analysis of prohecy, no matter how sound your subsequent methodology.

Not exactly certain how you got there, but I doubt 2025 will be any more accurate about Jesus return than the original mistaken prediction, made by Jesus himself. I am willing to acknowledge that your calculations may be correct, but still...with a foundation so shakey (false premise) then your conclusion is probably false as well.

There is a lot to digest in this thread, and I may well have missed it. But did you allow for the probability that some of the "prophecies" were written in hindsight? (the destruction of the Temple by the Romans) and or were self-fulfilling prophecies? (Jesus riding on the donkey for passover)

At the risk of being dismissive, how can we rely on any open prophecy from the Bible, except for the general notion that God is in His Heaven, and good will eventually triumph over evil?

And those which seemed to have come true, (regarding Israels various captivities etc) were also probably written in hindsight, post-exilic.... So what's left?

[FarWanderer]

The prophecy that "I shall bring back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem . . . . whom they have scattered among the nations" is hardly ambiguous.

Given Israel's political history I don't find this passage all that impressive as a prophecy, except perhaps as a self-fulfilling one (the tenacity of the Jewish religion/tradition is quite remarkable).

Since it was written (probably around the 8th century BCE) there've been only two times when Judah and Jerusalem were scattered among the nations - after the Babylonian conquest and after the Jewish-Roman wars - and hence really only two times in which one could say that the criteria of fulfillment for that part of the prophecy were met. The various other parts of the prophecy - chiefly "I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh," "I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth" and "the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood" - could reasonably be considered vague or ambiguous in themselves, in isolation, but as part of the whole they only add to the specificity of the passage.

As would everything leading up to "And it shall come to pass afterward..." in 2:28. How well does that part fit with history?

It's expressed as a sign - this will happen before that happens. The preceding verse talks about "wonders in the heavens and on earth." The assumption that a fulfillment must be something supernatural is unwarranted, but that it must be rare enough to be noteworthy is obvious.

I disagree. A couple posts ago you said that we shouldn't be making assumptions about how God would express prophecy. Now you are doing exactly that by saying it must be "noteworthy".

I also disagree that a "normal" eclipse isn't rare enough to be "noteworthy".

And there's no reason to think Joel wasn't writing about something yet more incredible than these scientifically-understood eclipses. I mean, if the Moon literally turned into blood tomorrow, then yeah I might reach for a Bible to get a grasp on the situation.

A once in 100 billion years event certainly could be said to serve as a sign for the coming of the Day of the Lord, yes. A once per decade event could not; such an event simply could not serve the function required by the passage.

Sure it could, since you're arguing that it's contextualizing another event.

Acknowledging that fact is not declaring arbitrary limitations on God, it's simply recognizing the nature of communication.

God is not subject to any "nature of communication". He can beam knowledge into our heads if he so wishes.

The only question is whether a 'normal' solar eclipse can be what is meant by "the Sun turning to black", and I do not see why not.

[Mithrae]

Day and hour, maybe, but Matthew thought he knew a pretty clear time-frame for it, and put his words in Jesus' mouth:
"Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." ~ Matthew 10:23
"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." ~ Matthew 16:28

Was Jesus wrong, or is it just Matthew's error? The 'cities of Israel' bit is not found in any other gospel, and Matthew 16:28 is a distorted version of Mark's original "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power" (Mark 9:1). So it seems probable that it's Matthew who was wrong in putting those words in Jesus' mouth, not Jesus himself (though "this generation" in Mark 13 is a debatable point).

Even as an orthodox believer, I have never been obsessed with the "2nd coming" the book of Revelation or Bible prophecy in general, but the verses from Matthew that you quote here were enough for me some time ago to realize that "Jesus" was indeed wrong. Or, as you suggest, Matthew. And I was a "true believer" RC when those verse disrupted my faith.

Verses like those caused me to lose my faith in Bible inerrency, and eventually, in the Divinity of Jesus. (though I still believe in YHWH, God the Father).

If Jesus was wrong, then he cannot be "God".

An interesting point: I myself am sceptical of the notion that god can do no wrong. Take this how you will, but apparently we've got a pub down in Sydney that god likes to drink at, or at least used to and may still for all I know (The Whitlams - God Drinks at the Sando). I don't live in Sydney so I've never been in to talk to him, but I knew someone a while back - an intelligent person, a doctor - who said she had and was pretty impressed by his credentials... reading her mind and knowing all sorts of details about her personal life, that sort of thing. Maybe The Whitlams song is tongue in cheek and my friend was just yanking my chain, I dunno: But apparently one of the things he said to her was that "I'm an imperfect god of an imperfect world," and that's kind of stuck with me since then. Seems to me that even if there is a god, the all-perfect omni- omni- omni- God of Christianity is at least as likely to be the creation of worshipful adoration as an observationally precise description of reality: I would guess that most likely nothing that we do or even possibly can conceive would match the reality of god.

If the Bible is not infallible, then that indeed is a weak foundation upon which to build any statistical analysis of prohecy, no matter how sound your subsequent methodology.

Not exactly certain how you got there, but I doubt 2025 will be any more accurate about Jesus return than the original mistaken prediction, made by Jesus himself. I am willing to acknowledge that your calculations may be correct, but still...with a foundation so shakey (false premise) then your conclusion is probably false as well.

No scientific text is infallible either. The point of my approach is to try and figure out if the given prophecy was indeed a result of genuine foreknowledge, as the inverse of the likelihood that the fulfillment was mere coincidence, rather than assuming it to be false or genuine from the get go. If there's a very high probability that the passage involved genuine foreknowledge of what's been fulfilled so far, then there's a very high probability that the rest will be fulfilled also - infallible or not.

There is a lot to digest in this thread, and I may well have missed it. But did you allow for the probability that some of the "prophecies" were written in hindsight? (the destruction of the Temple by the Romans) and or were self-fulfilling prophecies? (Jesus riding on the donkey for passover)

At the risk of being dismissive, how can we rely on any open prophecy from the Bible, except for the general notion that God is in His Heaven, and good will eventually triumph over evil?

And those which seemed to have come true, (regarding Israels various captivities etc) were also probably written in hindsight, post-exilic.... So what's left?

None of the three 'signs' I've highlighted could've been written in hindsight - they've only occurred in the past century or so, after all! The second one does kind of depend on a Christian interpretation of Daniel 9 (which I think is the best interpretation), but even critics proposing a late date of authorship still concur that it was written some 160 years before Jesus was born.

As for the plausibility of prophecy, even aside from my attempts to assess the non-foreknowledge/'coincidence' explanation in the case of these three signs, and even aside from the preservation and eventual return/flourishing of the Jewish nation, another intriguing example can be found in the fates of Nineveh and Babylon. In the 8th century BCE they were already ancient cities which were quite literally two of if not the greatest cities in the world both in terms of population and geo-political influence; one the capital of both the Old and Neo-Assyrian empire, the other former capital of the Old Babylonian empire, always a powerful city-state and later capital of the Neo-Babylonian empire. There've been literally dozens of cities which have survived with more or less continuous habitation for more than three thousand years - and at least nine which have lasted more than 5000 years - but Nineveh and Babylon were the capitals whose respective empires destroyed Israel and Judah, and in the 8th century BCE Isaiah predicted God's judgement on Assyria and the desolation of Babylon (ch. 10, 13 & 14). The latter probably in response to Assyrian king Tiglath Pileser conquering and proclaiming himself king of Babylon. More specific prophecies about Nineveh's fall and desolation were made by Nahum and Zephaniah.

Jerusalem still stands. Cities like Athens, Jericho, Byblos and Argos have stood for more than seven thousand years! But Nineveh and Babylon are no more. In each case it's even plausible that there were some specific details of the prophecies matched in the historical record, though that's a more involved (and more questionable) issue. It could just be one more 'coincidence' of course, but even as a sceptic I find the coincidence 'explanation' to be stretched pretty thin in some of these cases.

[Mithrae]

The prophecy that "I shall bring back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem . . . . whom they have scattered among the nations" is hardly ambiguous.

Given Israel's political history I don't find this passage all that impressive as a prophecy, except perhaps as a self-fulfilling one (the tenacity of the Jewish religion/tradition is quite remarkable).

In the face of all the persecution they've endured, it certainly is. But mere tenacity in the face of oppression and dispersion is one thing: Returning to their historic homeland, surviving the early decades of determined extermination attempts by their much larger neighbours and ultimately even flourishing, becoming prosperous and a formidable power in their own right goes beyond 'quite remarkable,' I would say.

Remember that after the centuries under oppression from Roman Catholic Christendom, Martin Luther's publication of On the Jews and Their Lies suggested that even the Reformation wasn't likely to herald a great improvement for them. Marlowe's The Jew of Malta and Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice give some insight into the attitudes of Elizabethan and Jacobean England. Yet Isaac Newton in his interpretation of prophecy likewise reached the conclusion that somehow, at some time the Jews must return to their land - even though he couldn't comprehend how it would come to pass:

• "This part of the Prophecy being therefore not yet fulfilled, I shall not attempt a particular interpretation of it, but content myself with observing, that as the seventy and the sixty two weeks were Jewish weeks, ending with sabbatical years; so the seven weeks are the compass of a Jubilee, and begin and end with actions proper for a Jubilee, and of the highest nature for which a Jubilee can be kept: and that since the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem, precedes the Messiah the Prince 49 years; it may perhaps come forth not from the Jews themselves, but from some other kingdom friendly to them, and precede their return from captivity, and give occasion to it; and lastly, that this rebuilding of Jerusalem and the waste places of Judah is predicted in Micah vii. 11. Amos ix. 11, 14. Ezek. xxxvi. 33, 35, 36, 38. Isa. liv. 3, 11, 12. lv. 12. lxi. 4. lxv. 18, 21,22. and Tobit xiv. 5. and that the return from captivity and coming of the Messiah and his kingdom are described in Daniel vii. Rev. xix. Acts i. Mat. xxiv. Joel iii. Ezek. xxxvi. xxxvii. Isa. lx. lxii. lxiii. lxv. and lxvi. and many other places of scripture. The manner I know not. Let time be the Interpreter."
  
  ~ Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel, 1.10

As an interesting point of trivia, while researching all this last year I learned that since its formation in 2006 the UN Human Rights Council "has resolved more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined" - despite the fact that even groups such as Australian Aborigines and Native Americans have similar quality of life statistics to the Palestinians, under conditions of far less self-governance and autonomy... to say nothing of various non-democratic countries' track records! Being on par with countries like Australia and the US is surely blameworthy, but it seems that there's a whole lot more going on when it comes to attitudes toward Israel, and some vague notion of worldwide 'antisemitism' doesn't seem to cut it as an explanation. It really does make me wonder whether there's something deeper in play there.

Since it was written (probably around the 8th century BCE) there've been only two times when Judah and Jerusalem were scattered among the nations - after the Babylonian conquest and after the Jewish-Roman wars - and hence really only two times in which one could say that the criteria of fulfillment for that part of the prophecy were met. The various other parts of the prophecy - chiefly "I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh," "I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth" and "the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood" - could reasonably be considered vague or ambiguous in themselves, in isolation, but as part of the whole they only add to the specificity of the passage.

As would everything leading up to "And it shall come to pass afterward..." in 2:28. How well does that part fit with history?

Quite well, since it's about events contemporary for the author. There's two main themes or sections to the book of Joel; the first part (1:1 to 2:27) about a plague of locusts afflicting the land described with some quasi-apocalyptic imagery, and the rest transitioning to more clearly eschatological themes. As I've noted, in the Jewish numbering a new chapter is begun at 2:28. Even critical scholars see a clear enough change of theme for some to speculate that surely a single author could not write about two different things

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_J ... rpretation
  
  "Most modern interpreters, however, see Joel speaking of a literal locust plague given a prophetic/ apocalyptic interpretation.[7] The traditional ascription of the whole book to the prophet Joel was challenged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by a theory of a three-stage process of composition: 1:1"2:27 were from the hand of Joel, and dealt with a contemporary issue; 2:28"3:21/3:1"4:21 were ascribed to a continuator with an apocalyptic outlook."

[PinSeeker]

A thousand years in God's sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night to us, as Psalm 90 says. Peter refers to this when he writes "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day" (2 Peter 3:8). In other words, "soon" to Him may be a really, really long time to us. God's just not hemmed in by (and captive to) linear time as we are.

So all time, with no delineation, is considered part of the "end times." So it's a meaningless term.

Certainly not. The end times began with Jesus atonement for sin on the cross.

Which leads me into the discussion regarding Matthew 24:34, where Jesus says, "...this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Over the years, this verse has been hotly debated not just by unbelievers but by Christians, too. The wrinkles can be ironed out with just a little investigation and word study.

Some Christians argue that this generation refers back to the people being addressed in the previous verse " so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. (v33) And thats grammatically possible; in that case, Jesus would be saying that the generation that saw the signs beginning would see the whole thing come to its fruition -- its tied to His comment, For the elects sake those days shall be shortened. (v22) But the critic would say -- and I would certainly see his point -- that understanding leads to a nonsensical conclusion, that Jesus would then just be saying that the generation alive at that time would be alive at that time. It seems we should all agree that in Matthew 24:34, Jesus appears to be speaking of the endurance or continuation of this generation, not merely some future generation yet to come. So, that brings us back to examining the words themselves, along with their context, in order to really understand what Jesus was saying. The resolution of the matter has to do with how we treat the word generation.

A proper Biblical exegesis of Matthew focuses on what the original Greek words meant, how they were used, and how the translators understood the English words they used to represent the original Greek words. Such is the case with the word generation. In years past, it had a much wider scope of meaning than is assumed today. By "generation" here, Jesus means the whole human race, and Jews in particular (see NOTE below).

NOTE: "Jews," as used here, does not mean just ethnic Jews, but true Jews, in the sense that Paul refers to them at the end of Romans 2, which is to say all members of God's Israel, which is to say all believers in Christ -- which includes some (not all) ethnic Jews, but also people of all ethnicities.

What I am saying here about "generation" in particular is that it employs the meaning of the Greek word "genea," which, at the time of the writing of the Bible, meant "future offspring of a common ancestor." And that makes sense when you consider the etymology of the Greek word. Genea is the same word that lies at the root of the word genealogy. The root word points to types, such as types of people, or commonality in production. So, generation originally denoted people of common ancestry. And this points us all the way back to the promise of God to Abraham and to all of his descendants by faith -- which includes ALL believers and number as the stars of heaven.

In like manner, we could consider Mark 8:12, where Jesus "sighed deeply in His spirit, and said, 'Why does this generation seek after a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given unto this generation.' Was Jesus accusing only the people living at that moment of seeking a sign? Well, isnt that indictment just as true of people today who insist that they want evidence of Christ or God before they will believe? Or course it is. So no, He wasn't accusing only those living at that moment, but of all those of common descent regardless of time, namely -- in this case -- unbelievers.

The most Biblical and historically consistent understanding of Matthew 24:34 is that Jesus was declaring the ongoing existence of God's Israel (which again, is all believers and not just ethnic Jews) until all the things He had prophesied came to their completion. And, no surprise, Hes right! To this very day, as we await the fulfillment of His words, God's Israel remains and true Jews, the spiritual offspring of Abraham, are present on the Earth.

In other words, far from being an example of Biblical error or a "mistake" by Jesus, when its rightly understood, Matthew 24:34 is a shining example of Gods faithfulness to His own Word. Just as all of the Old Testament prophets said of Israel, Jesus was saying that God will continue to protect them until the day of their gathering and restoration. And it's still -- still -- true.

[FarWanderer]

The prophecy that "I shall bring back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem . . . . whom they have scattered among the nations" is hardly ambiguous.

Given Israel's political history I don't find this passage all that impressive as a prophecy, except perhaps as a self-fulfilling one (the tenacity of the Jewish religion/tradition is quite remarkable).

In the face of all the persecution they've endured, it certainly is. But mere tenacity in the face of oppression and dispersion is one thing: Returning to their historic homeland, surviving the early decades of determined extermination attempts by their much larger neighbours and ultimately even flourishing, becoming prosperous and a formidable power in their own right goes beyond 'quite remarkable,' I would say.

The whole point is that it is self-fulfilling prophecy. The Jews have been aiming for this for literally thousands of years, and the harder they've worked at it, the weaker it is as proof of divine foreknowledge.

Remember that after the centuries under oppression from Roman Catholic Christendom, Martin Luther's publication of On the Jews and Their Lies suggested that even the Reformation wasn't likely to herald a great improvement for them. Marlowe's The Jew of Malta and Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice give some insight into the attitudes of Elizabethan and Jacobean England. Yet Isaac Newton in his interpretation of prophecy likewise reached the conclusion that somehow, at some time the Jews must return to their land - even though he couldn't comprehend how it would come to pass:

• "This part of the Prophecy being therefore not yet fulfilled, I shall not attempt a particular interpretation of it, but content myself with observing, that as the seventy and the sixty two weeks were Jewish weeks, ending with sabbatical years; so the seven weeks are the compass of a Jubilee, and begin and end with actions proper for a Jubilee, and of the highest nature for which a Jubilee can be kept: and that since the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem, precedes the Messiah the Prince 49 years; it may perhaps come forth not from the Jews themselves, but from some other kingdom friendly to them, and precede their return from captivity, and give occasion to it; and lastly, that this rebuilding of Jerusalem and the waste places of Judah is predicted in Micah vii. 11. Amos ix. 11, 14. Ezek. xxxvi. 33, 35, 36, 38. Isa. liv. 3, 11, 12. lv. 12. lxi. 4. lxv. 18, 21,22. and Tobit xiv. 5. and that the return from captivity and coming of the Messiah and his kingdom are described in Daniel vii. Rev. xix. Acts i. Mat. xxiv. Joel iii. Ezek. xxxvi. xxxvii. Isa. lx. lxii. lxiii. lxv. and lxvi. and many other places of scripture. The manner I know not. Let time be the Interpreter."
  
  ~ Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel, 1.10

While this is all quite interesting, it does not support the argument for divine foreknowledge in any way (if that is your intent). The only question is how likely it was to come to pass given what the writer knew at the time of writing. Whether that apparent likelihood changed along the way is irrelevant to the problem.

[Mithrae]

In the face of all the persecution they've endured, it certainly is. But mere tenacity in the face of oppression and dispersion is one thing: Returning to their historic homeland, surviving the early decades of determined extermination attempts by their much larger neighbours and ultimately even flourishing, becoming prosperous and a formidable power in their own right goes beyond 'quite remarkable,' I would say.

The whole point is that it is self-fulfilling prophecy. The Jews have been aiming for this for literally thousands of years, and the harder they've worked at it, the weaker it is as proof of divine foreknowledge.

Remember that after the centuries under oppression from Roman Catholic Christendom, Martin Luther's publication of On the Jews and Their Lies suggested that even the Reformation wasn't likely to herald a great improvement for them. Marlowe's The Jew of Malta and Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice give some insight into the attitudes of Elizabethan and Jacobean England. Yet Isaac Newton in his interpretation of prophecy likewise reached the conclusion that somehow, at some time the Jews must return to their land - even though he couldn't comprehend how it would come to pass:

• "This part of the Prophecy being therefore not yet fulfilled, I shall not attempt a particular interpretation of it, but content myself with observing, that as the seventy and the sixty two weeks were Jewish weeks, ending with sabbatical years; so the seven weeks are the compass of a Jubilee, and begin and end with actions proper for a Jubilee, and of the highest nature for which a Jubilee can be kept: and that since the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem, precedes the Messiah the Prince 49 years; it may perhaps come forth not from the Jews themselves, but from some other kingdom friendly to them, and precede their return from captivity, and give occasion to it; and lastly, that this rebuilding of Jerusalem and the waste places of Judah is predicted in Micah vii. 11. Amos ix. 11, 14. Ezek. xxxvi. 33, 35, 36, 38. Isa. liv. 3, 11, 12. lv. 12. lxi. 4. lxv. 18, 21,22. and Tobit xiv. 5. and that the return from captivity and coming of the Messiah and his kingdom are described in Daniel vii. Rev. xix. Acts i. Mat. xxiv. Joel iii. Ezek. xxxvi. xxxvii. Isa. lx. lxii. lxiii. lxv. and lxvi. and many other places of scripture. The manner I know not. Let time be the Interpreter."
  
  ~ Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel, 1.10

While this is all quite interesting, it does not support the argument for divine foreknowledge in any way (if that is your intent). The only question is how likely it was to come to pass given what the writer knew at the time of writing. Whether that apparent likelihood changed along the way is irrelevant to the problem.

Well we're running headlong into the issue I raised in the OP here, that if a prophecy were very specific then anytime since 400 CE or so basically any 'fulfillment' would be subject to the criticism that it was engineered by Christians to match the existing prophecy

I'm not sure it's true that Jews have been striving at this for thousands of years though; to a large extent the religion and culture necessarily adapted to the likely-irreversible diaspora situation under centuries of Roman rule after the three Jewish-Roman wars of 67-135CE. According to Wikipedia in the 16th century Joseph Nasi made efforts to resettle Portuguese Jews in first Cyprus and then Tiberias, but "Between the 4th and 19th centuries, Nasi's was the only practical attempt to establish some sort of Jewish political center in Palestine."

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
  "Modern Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in Central and Eastern Europe as a national revival movement, both in reaction to newer waves of antisemitism and as an imitative response to other exclusionary nationalist movements."

The fact that widespread opposition to Jewish identity and culture remained strong in that period - the 1930s and 40s were obviously the worst period for Jews in perhaps their entire history and certainly since the 2nd century - and apparently (if the UNHRC voting record is anything to go by) remains very much alive and well today makes it even harder to imagine that the establishment of Israel was an inevitable or even probable culmination of long-term pressure and planning... let alone its survival and flourishing!

In any case this is a point of discussion not so much because of its evidentiary support for biblical prophecy (though to my mind it does at the least suggest its plausibility, even while falling shy of absolute proof), but because it highlights the overall specificity of Joel's prophecy:
- The return to Judah and Jerusalem
- God's Spirit poured out on "all flesh"
- Wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke
- Sun turned to darkness and the moon to blood

The former unambiguously fulfilled in the 20th century; the second and third disputable or vague, but most unequivocally fulfilled in the 20th century also; and the nature of the blood moon sign highlighted by the 'coincidence' of those feast tetrads marking the return to Judah and Jerusalem.

You've suggested that it would be reasonable to suppose that a mere once-in-a-decade darkened sun fulfills the prediction, but I'm sorry, that's just absurd. It is essentially impossible that Joel or his source of inspiration meant that something so common would be the sign of the end of the age, judgement of the nations and so on: A point which is confirmed when we learn that the blood moon sign is a seven in 2000 years phenomenon!

[FarWanderer]

In the face of all the persecution they've endured, it certainly is. But mere tenacity in the face of oppression and dispersion is one thing: Returning to their historic homeland, surviving the early decades of determined extermination attempts by their much larger neighbours and ultimately even flourishing, becoming prosperous and a formidable power in their own right goes beyond 'quite remarkable,' I would say.

The whole point is that it is self-fulfilling prophecy. The Jews have been aiming for this for literally thousands of years, and the harder they've worked at it, the weaker it is as proof of divine foreknowledge.

Remember that after the centuries under oppression from Roman Catholic Christendom, Martin Luther's publication of On the Jews and Their Lies suggested that even the Reformation wasn't likely to herald a great improvement for them. Marlowe's The Jew of Malta and Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice give some insight into the attitudes of Elizabethan and Jacobean England. Yet Isaac Newton in his interpretation of prophecy likewise reached the conclusion that somehow, at some time the Jews must return to their land - even though he couldn't comprehend how it would come to pass:

• "This part of the Prophecy being therefore not yet fulfilled, I shall not attempt a particular interpretation of it, but content myself with observing, that as the seventy and the sixty two weeks were Jewish weeks, ending with sabbatical years; so the seven weeks are the compass of a Jubilee, and begin and end with actions proper for a Jubilee, and of the highest nature for which a Jubilee can be kept: and that since the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem, precedes the Messiah the Prince 49 years; it may perhaps come forth not from the Jews themselves, but from some other kingdom friendly to them, and precede their return from captivity, and give occasion to it; and lastly, that this rebuilding of Jerusalem and the waste places of Judah is predicted in Micah vii. 11. Amos ix. 11, 14. Ezek. xxxvi. 33, 35, 36, 38. Isa. liv. 3, 11, 12. lv. 12. lxi. 4. lxv. 18, 21,22. and Tobit xiv. 5. and that the return from captivity and coming of the Messiah and his kingdom are described in Daniel vii. Rev. xix. Acts i. Mat. xxiv. Joel iii. Ezek. xxxvi. xxxvii. Isa. lx. lxii. lxiii. lxv. and lxvi. and many other places of scripture. The manner I know not. Let time be the Interpreter."
  
  ~ Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel, 1.10

While this is all quite interesting, it does not support the argument for divine foreknowledge in any way (if that is your intent). The only question is how likely it was to come to pass given what the writer knew at the time of writing. Whether that apparent likelihood changed along the way is irrelevant to the problem.

Well we're running headlong into the issue I raised in the OP here, that if a prophecy were very specific then anytime since 400 CE or so basically any 'fulfillment' would be subject to the criticism that it was engineered by Christians to match the existing prophecy

It is not as though being a vague prophecy means human beings can't work to fulfill it. So why don't they? Because fulfillment of a vague prophecy would be weak evidence to begin with.

You basically have to assume that the prophecy would be fulfilled in a way no one anticipated, but then to confirm its fulfillment you have to reinterpret it after-the-fact which makes it a failure as any kind of communication (if that's what you are assuming a prophecy is).

You've suggested that it would be reasonable to suppose that a mere once-in-a-decade darkened sun fulfills the prediction, but I'm sorry, that's just absurd. It is essentially impossible that Joel or his source of inspiration meant that something so common would be the sign of the end of the age, judgement of the nations and so on: A point which is confirmed when we learn that the blood moon sign is a seven in 2000 years phenomenon!

You can believe that but then you are making inconsistent assumptions:

Some miraculous exceptions which could not possibly be engineered by humans might apply (though not for any of the ones below), but then there's the endless debate over whether there's good reasons why a deity would not openly and universally reveal himself in such a manner. Criticisms on those grounds are not particularly valid to my mind, since they simply assume certain things about what 'God' or prophecy should be like, rather than addressing the actual data available.

You can take one stance (that prophecy is meant to be understandable and meaningful to humans) or the other (that we shouldn't assume what prophecy should be like), but you are playing both sides.

If we are to assume it's meant as communication understandable and meaningful to humans, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask why it isn't more clear; more precise.

[JehovahsWitness]

: How easy it often is to debunk the date-setters of the past, even the most famous ones.


Charles Taze Russell/JWs - 1874 and 1914
Description: I'm not sure about his 1874 prediction, but from a link Jehovah's Witness provided earlier in the thread, it seems that JWs count forward 2520 years from the ascension of Nebuchadnezzar in ~607 BCE, based partly on Daniel 4.
Problem/s: Daniel 4 is quite unambiguously about a supposed seven year madness of Nebuchadnezzar; nothing to do with eschatology at all. JWs turn those seven years into 2520 days (seven years of 360 days), and then turn those 2520 days into 2520 years!

Seen you suggesting that the Jehovah' Witnesses were not entirely vindicated in their interpretation of Daniels prophecy or are you unfamiliar with the world events of 1914?





JW



Did bible prophecy really pinpoint 1914 as a turning point in world history?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 159#891159