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)?

[Elijah John]

: 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

What world events support the notion of Christ's invisable return in 1914? World War I? How does that war support an invisible return?

And yes, Russell was rightly put off by previous failed predictions. But why continue the game, and make it even more of a "let's pretend" scenario by insisting that it was to be make-believe invisible?

Why not simply refrain, and take the position of "readiness at all times, because we just don't know"?

[JehovahsWitness]

What world events support the notion of Christ's invisable return in 1914? World War I?

Yes exactly!

According to the JEHOVAH'S WITNESS interpretation Christ's invisible return (meaning Christ beginning kingdom rule in heaven) would be marked by a time of unprecedented troubles on earth. This is not to say they "predicted the war" exactly nor that they had an accurate understanding of what these events would mean for them, but for decades before that year the Bible Students had been unwavinging in announcing that 1914 would be a piviotol year in world events (which it was) and would be marked by global troubles (which it was); in that the bible students (as Jehovah's Witnesses were known at the time) were entirely vindicated.


Extract from The World Magazine, August 30, 1914










RELATED POSTS

Is it true Jehovah's Witesses accurately predicted WWI 35 years in advance?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p898913

Did Jehovahs Witnesses predict the First World War of 1914?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 67#p928267

How do Jehovahs arrive at 1914 being a pivotal year in bible chronology?
viewtopic.php?p=891124#p891124

Did Jehovah's Witnesses predict that Jesus' rule INVISIBLY before 1914?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 41#p891141

What did Jehovahs Witnesses expect to happen in 1914? [Onewithim]
viewtopic.php?p=1044836#p1044836

For more on this topic please go to other posts related to...

LAST DAYS and ...THE SECOND COMING *and ... 1914,

*The Return of Christ

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 82 by JehovahsWitness]

Not ready to concede that the troubles of 1914 were "unprescedented". In Russell's lifetime perhaps, but through the ages? Atilla sure caused a lot of trouble, the plagues of Europe in the Dark Ages, the Napoleonic wars, etc, etc.

Also, invisibly or not, is this how Christ rules? Like a neglectful parent? Heaven above, chaos below? Invisible and absent.

The WTS has some good and interesting teachings. I don't think this is one is your best, or very convincing.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 83 by Elijah John]

It matter of historical fact that 1914 the first war of its kind , which is why it is historically named the first world war (unpresidented/ unparalleled ie there hadn't been another like it previously, hence the word FIRST in the name). It is also a matter of historical fact that the bible students had been announcing that exact year decades in advance as one that would be marked by troubles on a global scale.

Is there one of the above facts that you contend?

[Mithrae]

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?

Bad biblical 'interpretation' would not somehow become retrospectively justified even if the predictions made on that basis had actually come true. But obviously they did not, as readily seen from just a few of the results found in about five minutes of Googling:

• "We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would, They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of the trouble."
  ~ Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894
  
  "Fourthly, It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor; because the "Times of the Gentiles" will be fulfilled or completed."
  ~ Charles Taze Russell, The Time is at Hand (1902), page 77
  
  "In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A. D. 1914. Then the prayer of the Church, ever since her Lord took his departure—"Thy Kingdom come"— will be answered ; and under that wise and just administration, the whole earth will be filled with the glory of the Lord—with knowledge, and righteousness, and peace (Psa. 72:19; Isa. 6:3; Hab. 2:14); and the will of God shall be done "on earth, as it is done in heaven.""
  ~ Charles Taze Russell, The Time is at Hand (1902), page 99

So... yeah... entirely vindicated, surely that's what happened I can understand the perspective that Neatras was coming from earlier in the thread, that while failed predictions are one thing, obstinate refusal to acknowledge such error is wholly dishonest and very disappointing, to say the least.

Of course that's one of the reasons why I find the particular 'signs' that I have highlighted interesting even as a sceptic: If my analysis is correct, the next seven years are unquestionably the best time since the 1st century to expect the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. When bad biblical interpretation like Russell's abuse of Daniel 4 fail, that hardly tells us anything except that it was, indeed, atrocious interpretation. But if the return of Jesus around 2025 were objectively quantified at ~99% confidence and it still does not occur, it would essentially prove that the biblical prophecies are not going to be fulfilled at all.

[Mithrae]

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).

I'm not sure I follow; I explicitly showed that the Jews' return to Judah and Jerusalem was understood and anticipated beforehand by even the likes of Isaac Newton. There's no reinterpreting after the fact there. Understanding the precise nature of the darkened sun and blood moon signs would not have been possible before 1967, granted, but that more precise understanding would not be switching from one interpretation to another and nor would it be after the fact of the 2013-15 fulfillment.

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.

You're trying to create a false dichotomy of extremes, by the looks of it: Arguing that if a passage isn't extremely precise and completely unambiguous, then we can treat it as extremely vague bordering on meaningless.

Some of the alleged predictive prophecies in the bible are very precise (eg. Daniel 11) while some are quite vague or indefinite (eg. the first prediction in the first and longest biblical book of prophecy, Isaiah 1:19-20 - "If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword"). But there's simply no reason to assume that every passage must fit one extreme or the other, and this passage we're discussing from Joel does not: Its "wonders in the heavens and in the earth" obviously are meant to be seen and recognized as such, with the darkened sun and blood moon being the most clearly and individually emphasized sign "before the great and terrible day of HaShem come."

Once-a-decade eclipse events simply do not meet the criteria implied by the passage. A once in a hundred billion years event surely would, if one occurred. You can certainly ask why it isn't much more clear and precise if you want, but I would suggest that with the blood moon tetrads unambiguously marking the returns to Judah and Jerusalem and consequently the once in three thousand years (or more) alignment of an eighth H3 solar eclipse with the eighth feast tetrad, it really is pretty clear as it stands.



For the record, arguably the more objective calculation of how likely a 'coincidental' fulfillment would be is to look at a wide range of darkened sun scenarios which could be said to fulfill it:
A) A Class 3 hybrid eclipse within a 5-year target period, which is the 8th since Christ
B) A Class 2 hybrid eclipse within a 5-year target period, which is the 8th since Christ
C) A total eclipse within a 1-year target period, which is the greatest since Christ
D) A total eclipse within a 1-year target period, which passes Israel & is the greatest in a century
E) Other possible significant eclipse scenarios, with a probability equal to C + D

My calculation of that was that combining all 5 prediction scenarios, we end up with 2 in 1204 (A and B) plus 4 in 2000 (C, D and E), or 0.00166 + 0.002 = 0.00366 (or 1 in 273). The less objective/more sceptical approach highlighted in post #2 was to take even the seven H3 eclipses which had already occurred as merely confirmation of interpretation, hence estimating only the likelihood that the next one would occur alongside the next feast tetrad. My 1 in 100 estimate for the likelihood of that arguably is being too sceptical, less objective... but ultimately, I suppose there's little practical difference between a ~99% probability that it's a genuinely-fulfilled prophecy and 99.63%!

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 85 by Mithrae]

My original comment covers the points you raised
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 267#928267

Further I'm sure you are not an expert on early Jehovahs Witness terminology was regarding the meaning they attribute to "gentle times", "tramples by the nations","kingdom" even "Jerusalem" and "Israel" (Jehovah's Witnesses currently hold both terms , especially in the Christian scripture often refer to the spiritual nation, not the physical one) ... so we'll leave the theological discussion for another forum...

However I see you have avoided making any comment regarding the success of their specifically pinpointing of the year 1914 decades in advance as being pivotal, are you contending they did not point to that year? Or warn that 1914 would be a time of trouble? Were they wrong ? did 1914 come and go without anything remarkable happening on earth?


viewtopic.php?p=1043119#p1043119




JW

[FarWanderer]

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).

I'm not sure I follow; I explicitly showed that the Jews' return to Judah and Jerusalem was understood and anticipated beforehand by even the likes of Isaac Newton. There's no reinterpreting after the fact there.

No, but it's a self-fulfilling prophecy (as I have said numerous times). It's not just some random thing that happened. The prophecy (among other things) is why Zionism exists, and the prophecy was fulfilled in large part because Zionism exists.

Understanding the precise nature of the darkened sun and blood moon signs would not have been possible before 1967, granted, but that more precise understanding would not be switching from one interpretation to another and nor would it be after the fact of the 2013-15 fulfillment.

I wasn't really talking about these parts of the prophecy. Not even the Jews have control of the Sun and Moon.

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.

You're trying to create a false dichotomy of extremes, by the looks of it: Arguing that if a passage isn't extremely precise and completely unambiguous, then we can treat it as extremely vague bordering on meaningless.

No, it's because you are making assumptions about how God would communicate. When you say that God would use a "rare" event as a sign to harbor in a new age you are going beyond the text into the mind of God.

Some of the alleged predictive prophecies in the bible are very precise (eg. Daniel 11) while some are quite vague or indefinite (eg. the first prediction in the first and longest biblical book of prophecy, Isaiah 1:19-20 - "If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword"). But there's simply no reason to assume that every passage must fit one extreme or the other, and this passage we're discussing from Joel does not: Its "wonders in the heavens and in the earth" obviously are meant to be seen and recognized as such, with the darkened sun and blood moon being the most clearly and individually emphasized sign "before the great and terrible day of HaShem come."

I thought we've decided to ignore all the other prophecies as points of reference in our effort to avoid the principle of large numbers.

Once-a-decade eclipse events simply do not meet the criteria implied by the passage. A once in a hundred billion years event surely would, if one occurred. You can certainly ask why it isn't much more clear and precise if you want, but I would suggest that with the blood moon tetrads unambiguously marking the returns to Judah and Jerusalem and consequently the once in three thousand years (or more) alignment of an eighth H3 solar eclipse with the eighth feast tetrad, it really is pretty clear as it stands.

For the record, arguably the more objective calculation of how likely a 'coincidental' fulfillment would be is to look at a wide range of darkened sun scenarios which could be said to fulfill it:
A) A Class 3 hybrid eclipse within a 5-year target period, which is the 8th since Christ
B) A Class 2 hybrid eclipse within a 5-year target period, which is the 8th since Christ
C) A total eclipse within a 1-year target period, which is the greatest since Christ
D) A total eclipse within a 1-year target period, which passes Israel & is the greatest in a century
E) Other possible significant eclipse scenarios, with a probability equal to C + D

This is all so arbitrary.

[Mithrae]

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.

You're trying to create a false dichotomy of extremes, by the looks of it: Arguing that if a passage isn't extremely precise and completely unambiguous, then we can treat it as extremely vague bordering on meaningless.

No, it's because you are making assumptions about how God would communicate. When you say that God would use a "rare" event as a sign to harbor in a new age you are going beyond the text into the mind of God.

Some of the alleged predictive prophecies in the bible are very precise (eg. Daniel 11) while some are quite vague or indefinite (eg. the first prediction in the first and longest biblical book of prophecy, Isaiah 1:19-20 - "If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword"). But there's simply no reason to assume that every passage must fit one extreme or the other, and this passage we're discussing from Joel does not: Its "wonders in the heavens and in the earth" obviously are meant to be seen and recognized as such, with the darkened sun and blood moon being the most clearly and individually emphasized sign "before the great and terrible day of HaShem come."

I thought we've decided to ignore all the other prophecies as points of reference in our effort to avoid the principle of large numbers.

I'm sorry but in both of these responses it seems very much as though you're trying to score cheap semantic points more than anything else.
Declaring that the end of the age is signified by events in every decade is absurd.
Ignoring the context of other Hebrew prophetic writings is absurd.
If I had to guess I might surmise that perhaps you are wanting to make those two types of argument which I suggested as inadmissible in the OP, but instead of actually presenting a legitimate case for why such an argument would be valid, you're apparently taking the approach of just absurdly caricaturing the reasonable points which I raised. If so I have to say that I'm not impressed.

Once-a-decade eclipse events simply do not meet the criteria implied by the passage. A once in a hundred billion years event surely would, if one occurred. You can certainly ask why it isn't much more clear and precise if you want, but I would suggest that with the blood moon tetrads unambiguously marking the returns to Judah and Jerusalem and consequently the once in three thousand years (or more) alignment of an eighth H3 solar eclipse with the eighth feast tetrad, it really is pretty clear as it stands.

For the record, arguably the more objective calculation of how likely a 'coincidental' fulfillment would be is to look at a wide range of darkened sun scenarios which could be said to fulfill it:
A) A Class 3 hybrid eclipse within a 5-year target period, which is the 8th since Christ
B) A Class 2 hybrid eclipse within a 5-year target period, which is the 8th since Christ
C) A total eclipse within a 1-year target period, which is the greatest since Christ
D) A total eclipse within a 1-year target period, which passes Israel & is the greatest in a century
E) Other possible significant eclipse scenarios, with a probability equal to C + D

This is all so arbitrary.

No, it's exactly the opposite of arbitrary. Arbitrary would be seeing the fulfillment of the various conditions in the prophecy and calculating the probability that exactly those events would occur as a matter of coincidence, yielding a result somewhere in the millions to one. Recognizing that there are a range of possible events which could legitimately be said to fulfill the prophecy and estimating the probability of any of them occurring is exactly the opposite of an arbitrary assessment. Calling black white is not exactly a persuasive argument

[FarWanderer]

If I had to guess I might surmise that perhaps you are wanting to make those two types of argument which I suggested as inadmissible in the OP, but instead of actually presenting a legitimate case for why such an argument would be valid, you're apparently taking the approach of just absurdly caricaturing the reasonable points which I raised. If so I have to say that I'm not impressed.

Of course that's not it. My objections arose in response to you claiming that God would communicate in a particular way. I have been consistent on that point, and on the point that I thought you were being internally inconsistent.

It's not that the arguments in the OP are "valid" or not, necessarily. Their applicability is simply contingent on what assumptions we are working from.

But it's turning out that you are (to my mind) reasoning based on shifting assumptions (which is normal and OK) and conflating the results (also common, but not OK).

I'm sorry but in both of these responses it seems very much as though you're trying to score cheap semantic points more than anything else.
Declaring that the end of the age is signified by events in every decade is absurd.

Under the assumption that it is the primary signal to the end of an age then I will concede the point. However, the "the sun turns to black" quite frequently, does it not? In order to make it fit, you are reinterpreting "the sun turns to black" to specifically mean "some super-rare version of the sun turning to black". Is that OK? Do we owe the prophecy that generosity?

Ignoring the context of other Hebrew prophetic writings is absurd.

I agree, but it's a logical consequence of ignoring the principle of large numbers (which is the root of the problem).

Logically speaking, the principle of large numbers is ignored by means of category disassociation. Once you ignore it, you are saying that we need to analyze THIS particular prophecy without assuming we can infer anything about it by considering the others.

Once-a-decade eclipse events simply do not meet the criteria implied by the passage. A once in a hundred billion years event surely would, if one occurred. You can certainly ask why it isn't much more clear and precise if you want, but I would suggest that with the blood moon tetrads unambiguously marking the returns to Judah and Jerusalem and consequently the once in three thousand years (or more) alignment of an eighth H3 solar eclipse with the eighth feast tetrad, it really is pretty clear as it stands.

For the record, arguably the more objective calculation of how likely a 'coincidental' fulfillment would be is to look at a wide range of darkened sun scenarios which could be said to fulfill it:
A) A Class 3 hybrid eclipse within a 5-year target period, which is the 8th since Christ
B) A Class 2 hybrid eclipse within a 5-year target period, which is the 8th since Christ
C) A total eclipse within a 1-year target period, which is the greatest since Christ
D) A total eclipse within a 1-year target period, which passes Israel & is the greatest in a century
E) Other possible significant eclipse scenarios, with a probability equal to C + D

This is all so arbitrary.

No, it's exactly the opposite of arbitrary. Arbitrary would be seeing the fulfillment of the various conditions in the prophecy and calculating the probability that exactly those events would occur as a matter of coincidence, yielding a result somewhere in the millions to one. Recognizing that there are a range of possible events which could legitimately be said to fulfill the prophecy and estimating the probability of any of them occurring is exactly the opposite of an arbitrary assessment. Calling black white is not exactly a persuasive argument

I apologize for my comment being so vague, but I was referring to the criteria as to how rare an event would have to be in order to be said to fulfill the prophecy. You are just choosing 1 year this 5 year that just so that it would be rare "enough" to meet your sensibilities. It just seems silly to me.