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)?

[Tcg]

Will the planet and all life be burnt up at ARMAGEDDON?

Absolutely not!

The bible Armageddon is NOT the destruction of the planet but only of the incorrigibly wicked.

Then how do you explain this verse?

2 Peter 3:10: The day of the Lord will come as a robber comes. The heavens will pass away with a loud noise. The sun and moon and stars will burn up. The earth and all that is in it will be burned up.

Not the term at the end, "it will be burned up." Note also that this is referring to the earth.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 19 by Mithrae]

Would you wager your free time determining the number of atoms in the Andromeda Galaxy? Just because others aren't foolish enough to waste their time in something doesn't mean they leave it up to "faith" when they don't recklessly believe anything they're told. Shouldn't you do a better job substantiating your position with some evidence of actual, physical happenings that suggest an "awesome day of the lord" is even possible, much less likely?

My lack of acceptance of your reaching numerology is no more "faithful" than a present acceptance that life goes on.

You know what really grinds my gears? That every single person who has ever come to this forum and claimed, with absolute certainty, that the world will end sometime in the future... When that date came and went, none of them admitted they were wrong.

I don't put any stock in what you say because let's face it, you can't demonstrate that it will have any impact beyond weak associations, and the null case is still apparent: the world hasn't ended despite thousands of claims by numerologists.

I don't care what you label as "faithful" or "dogmatic," because your vernacular is so self-serving that it sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself that I'm this ignorant nay-sayer, when what I'm saying is quite clear: I want a written apology for your fear-mongering when the date comes and nothing of note happens.

[JehovahsWitness]

Then how do you explain this verse?

2 Peter 3:10: The day of the Lord will come as a robber comes. The heavens will pass away with a loud noise. The sun and moon and stars will burn up. The earth and all that is in it will be burned up.

Not[e] the term at the end, "it will be burned up." Note also that this is referring to the earth.

The JEHOVAH'S WITNESS view is that above verse is not to be taken literally, it is symbolic: a symbolic "earth"
and a symbolic "burning up" (see below).


SOURCE: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... destroyed/

JW



RELATED POSTS

Does not 2 Peter 3:7 say the planet earth with be burned up?
viewtopic.php?p=927158#p927158

Why is it both unscriptural and god-dishonouring to teach God will destroy his own planet earth? [
viewtopic.php?p=988356#p988356

Will God burn up this our planet earth?
viewtopic.php?p=853097#p853097

Will our planet earth ever be empty of human life?
viewtopic.php?p=909495#p909495

FURTHER READING Will the Earth Be Destroyed?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... destroyed/

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

ARMAGEDDON, THE PLANET EARTH and ... [ EVERLASTING LIFE

[Tcg]

Then how do you explain this verse?

2 Peter 3:10: The day of the Lord will come as a robber comes. The heavens will pass away with a loud noise. The sun and moon and stars will burn up. The earth and all that is in it will be burned up.

Not[e] the term at the end, "it will be burned up." Note also that this is referring to the earth.

The JEHOVAH'S WITNESS view is that above verse is not to be taken literally, it is symbolic.

How convenient. You seem to use this excuse to ignore anything the Bible clearly teaches that conflicts with what you are told you must believe.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 19 by Mithrae]

Would you wager your free time determining the number of atoms in the Andromeda Galaxy? Just because others aren't foolish enough to waste their time in something doesn't mean they leave it up to "faith" when they don't recklessly believe anything they're told.

If someone tells me the number of stars in a galaxy my response would be "Oh? Cool. Maybe." You're not saying maybe, you are declaring that what I've presented is false: You "guarantee" that it "ain't happening," that it's "nonsense." But you have shown no basis whatsoever for your claims.

Shouldn't you do a better job substantiating your position with some evidence of actual, physical happenings that suggest an "awesome day of the lord" is even possible, much less likely?

I have, in a number of ways:
- the 'coincidence' of the world's most famous messiah dying 69 sevens after the biblically-recorded decree to build Jerusalem, as prophesied centuries beforehand
- the 'coincidence' that after eighteen centuries of dispersion and often brutal persecution, against all odds a Jewish state with control of the temple region has flourished, as prophesied millennia beforehand
- the 'coincidence' that the most positive years in the development of this Jewish state were marked by exceedingly rare astronomical phenomena
- the 'coincidence' of over a dozen intriguing parallels in political history between the other country with the most Jewish population and the period of Israelite history bookended by quasi-eschatological figures

These (and others) are pretty clear 'proof of concept' that future may be described in the writings of the past. Using proof in a rather loose sense of course, because they may yet be proven wrong or inadequate: But you have not proven anything, just shaken your head and declared it simply cannot be.

You know what really grinds my gears? That every single person who has ever come to this forum and claimed, with absolute certainty, that the world will end sometime in the future... When that date came and went, none of them admitted they were wrong.

Fair enough. I guess while we're on the subject what grinds my gears is that for all the perpetual declarations that there is "no evidence" for miracles and the like, each time I've shown that there is at least some plausible basis for questioning the materialist paradigm, the responses have generally been mediocre (if not non-existent), at best baldly asserting that the evidence simply isn't good enough... and then in the next threads the "no evidence" rhetoric begins anew.

I don't care what you label as "faithful" or "dogmatic," because your vernacular is so self-serving that it sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself that I'm this ignorant nay-sayer, when what I'm saying is quite clear: I want a written apology for your fear-mongering when the date comes and nothing of note happens.

Feel free to wish away. As I said in the opening post, I may well be wrong; I want to be proven wrong. If you are unable to do so, that's fine.

But this supercilious tone you're taking is laughably irrational. I have submitted my musings for others' critical review: That's one of the fundamental components of the very scientific method which has driven the progress of recent centuries. But you're so caught up in the presuppositions you've brought to the table that you're acting as though it is somehow bad or wrong to even think about the subject seriously, let alone seek others' critical input!

So yes, it's pretty clearly a dogmatic attitude that you are advancing here. Unintentionally so, I am sure - from what I've seen your posts on some other subjects have been more enlightened.

[Tcg]

The JEHOVAH'S WITNESS view is that above verse is not to be taken literally, it is symbolic: a symbolic "earth"
and a symbolic "burning up" (see below).

How do you explain away this verse?

Revelation 21:1 - Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,�for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

[JehovahsWitness]

Revelation 21:1 - Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,�for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

Did you note see that Revelation 21 is referred to and explained in my post above? Here is the LINK to my earlier answer that also covered this scripture.

LINK (Look right of the end of the sourced (quoted) material in the white box)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 158#927158


JW

[Tcg]

Did you note see that Revelation 21 is revered to and explained in my post above? (Look towards the end of the post after the last arrow)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 158#927158

No I didn't. Please explain it to me in your own words.

[JehovahsWitness]

No I didn't. Please explain it to me in your own words.

Symbolic "new earth" and a symbolic "new heavens".



JW




RELATED POSTS

Does not 2 Peter 3:7 say the planet earth with be burned up?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 158#927158

Armageddon [Q&A]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 178#917178

FURTHER READING: What is the battle of Harmageddon?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... rmageddon/

[Tcg]

No I didn't. Please explain it to me in your own words.

Symbolic "new earth" and a symbolic "new heavens".

This doesn't explain why you think it is symbolic. This is simply a repetition of an unsupported assertion.

Why do you think it is symbolic ?