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)?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 30 by Tcg]

My statements are all expressions of FAITH, and are not presented as evidence of truth. My only assertion is that is what I as one of Jehovah's Witnesses BELIEVE to be true lead by holy spirit. That is the only additional information I will be offering you as to why I believe what I do.

There is no rule that says anyone has to prove anything. If someone insists you must prove something, challenge them where is it a requirement on the forum that something needs to be proved.

JW

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 25 by Mithrae]

A question then. If 2025 rolls around, and it turns out the world hasn't ended, does that mean, therefore, that the coincidences you pointed out... turned out to be just coincidences?

If they turn out to be just coincidences despite your fervent 7 year obsession, how might we use your experience to point out flaws in future numerologist claims of conspiracy or grand design?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 30 by Tcg]

My statements are all expressions of FAITH, and are not presented as evidence of truth. My only assertion is that is what I as one of Jehovah's Witnesses BELIEVE to be true based on holy spirit.

There is no rule that says anyone has to prove anything. If someone insists you must prove something, challenge them where is it a requirement on the forum that something needs to be proved.

JW

I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked why you think the passage you claimed to be symbolic is symbolic.

I asked you about your opinion. If you don't have one or don't care to share it, then so be it.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 33 by Tcg]

Holy spirit.


That is why.


Have a good day,


JW

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 33 by Tcg]

Holy spirit.


That is why.


Have a good day,


JW

This doesn't address my question. I asked you about your opinion, not what you claim is the source of your opinion.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 35 by Tcg]

I asked you about your opinion

My opinion is the verse is symbolic.

I asked why you think the passage you claimed to be symbolic is symbolic.

Why do I think the verse is symbolic? I think it is symbolic because the holy spirit told me that the verse is symbolic. That is the reason why I think it is symbolic.

Why do you think it is symbolic ?

Because the spirit communicated to me that the verse in question is symbolic, so I believe it.

Anything else?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 35 by Tcg]

I asked you about your opinion

My opinion is the verse is symbolic.

Yes. you have explained that.

I asked why you think the passage you claimed to be symbolic is symbolic.

Why do I think the verse is symbolic? I think it is symbolic because the holy spirit told me that the verse is symbolic. That is the reason why I think it is symbolic.

Once again you are explaining what you think the source of your opinion is. I am interested in why you think it is valid.

Why do you think it is symbolic ?

Because the spirit said to me, it's symbolic, so I believe it.

In what manner did "the spirit" say this to you?

Anything else?

Sure. How do you know the voice you hear isn't a demon or even Satan himself?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 37 by Tcg]

I think its valid because I judge any leadings by holy spirit to be valid.

Sure. How do you know the voice you hear isn't a demon or even Satan himself?

I did not say I heard a voice. The holy spirit can communicate something without the person literally hearing a voice. It cannot be proven (I undersstand you are not asking for proof just saying..) it has to be experienced. I am not presenting this as anything but faith based personal experience.

Anything else.

In what manner did "the spirit" say this to you?

That is personal I do not feel inclined to share that with you .

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 37 by Tcg]

I think its valid becauss I judge any leadings by holy spdit to be valid.

You ignored my most important question. How do you know these leadings are from the "holy spdit" and not from a demon or Satan?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 37 by Tcg]

I think its valid because I judge any leadings by holy spirit to be valid.

In what manner did "the spirit" say this to you?

That is personal I do not feel inclined to share that with you .

Every thing you share is personal. I certainly understand you desire to avoid this question.