What Are The Best Examples Of Prophecies From The Bible That Have Come True? (gospel, faith)

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

I read alot of posts that talk about how detailed prophecies are coming true with the passage of time and that this gives the Bible much more credibility. Can anyone point out a passage in the Bible that makes a prediction that is so specific in it's description of the event that it couldn't possibly be confused with any other event that has actually happened? The biggest problem with biblical prophecies is the fact that they are so vague and filled with symbolism that they are virtually unintelligible. If there really was a God who is all knowing and is aware of every single detail of the future as he's instructing the authors of the Bible what to write then why wouldn't he have them write precise details of every prophecy? For example, wouldn't the Bible seem much more believable if it had a passage that stated "After the end of the Second World War and the defeat of the Nazis who persecuted and exterminated millions of Jews the state of Israel was created in 1948"? Now that would be a prophesy.

Let's see:

- The birth, life and crucifiction of Christ
- The Fall of Babylonian empire
- Rise and fall of Persian empire
- Rise and fall of Greek empire
- Rise and fall of Roman empire
- Egypt will never again be the superpower it once was
- Captivity of the Jews
- Scattering of the Jews from promised land
- Re-birth of Israel (took place in 1948)
- Return of many Jews from around the world to Israel
- After re-birth they would immediately be surrounded by enemies (sure happened)
- Israel will re-take Jerusalem (they did)
- New Israel will blossom (sure did, just compare Iseael to its neighbors)
- Those who bless Israel (US) will be blessed, and those who curse them will be cursed (Arabs live in hatred and poverty)
- And many more

One world government and one world currencies are on their way.

And of course there is the prophecy of the rise and fall of an empire which has not yet risen.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Let's see:

- The birth, life and crucifiction of Christ

Depends on the Bible for confirmation. (Circular logic).

- The Fall of Babylonian empire
- Rise and fall of Persian empire
- Rise and fall of Greek empire

All come and gone before the Book of Daniel was even written.

- Rise and fall of Roman empire

Not mentioned by name (speculation).

- Egypt will never again be the superpower it once was

Not difficult to make a prophecy that a fallen 'superpower' will never again be a superpower. Pretty obvious really.

- Scattering of the Jews from promised land

I hereby prophecise that Britons will be scattered throughout the planet - what nation isn't?

- Re-birth of Israel (took place in 1948)

Man made to 'fulfil' the prophecy.

- Return of many Jews from around the world to Israel

...but not all Jews, as the prophecy says.

- After re-birth they would immediately be surrounded by enemies (sure happened)

They always have been.

- Israel will re-take Jerusalem (they did)

Not difficult when you have a heavily armed army and want to see the prophecy fulfilled.

- New Israel will blossom (sure did, just compare Iseael to its neighbors)
- Those who bless Israel (US) will be blessed, and those who curse them will be cursed (Arabs live in hatred and poverty)

Really! Have you ever been to Kuwait?

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Rafius

You inserted it when it wasn't there.

That is correct. It doesn't not say "WAS" built.

So you consider Britannica a "scholarly work". That's good because so do I. Unfortunately, you can't get the full article without subscribing to Britannica with a credit card. No matter! As we both agree that an encyclopaedia is a scholarly work, let us look at what this scholarly encyclopaedia says:

TYRE

The most famous city of Phoenicia . It is now represented by the petty town of Sur built round the harbour at the north end of a peninsula, which till the time of Alexander's siege was an island, without water or vegetation . The mole which he constructed has been widened by deposits of sand, so that the ancient island is now connected with the mainland by a tongue of land a quarter of a mile broad . The greatest length of the former island, from north to south, is about m. and its area about 142 acres . The researches of Renan have refuted the once popular idea that a great part of the original island has disappeared by natural convulsions, though he believes that the remains of a submerged wall at the south end indicate that about 15 additional acres were once reclaimed and have been again lost .


On this narrow site Tyre was built; its 25,000 inhabitants were crowded into many-storeyed houses loftier than those of Rome; and yet place was found not only for the great temple of Melqarth with its courts, but for docks and warehouses, and for the purple factories, which in Roman times made the town an unpleasant place of residence. In the Roman period the population occupied a strip of the opposite mainland, including Palaetyrus. Pliny gives to the whole city, continental and insular, a compass of 19 Roman miles; but this account must be received with caution . In Strabo's time the island was still the city, and Palaetyrus on the mainland was distant 30 stadia; modern research, however, indicates an extensive line of suburbs rather than one mainland city that can be identified with Palaetyrus.


TYRE (Phoen. and Hebr.... - Online Information article about TYRE (Phoen. and Hebr....

Already covered.


Like it or not fella, the CITY of TYRE was on the island....on the mainland there was nothing more than a line of suburbs....as the above encyclopaedia points out.

So are you going to ignore that according to Britannica, Tyre was orginally built, (ON BOTH) the
island, and the mainland?

Tyre only existed on the island, after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland Tyre.

Do you understand that?

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

So are you going to ignore that according to Britannica, Tyre was orginally built, (ON BOTH) the
island, and the mainland?

So are you going to ignore that, according to just about every source available, the city of Tyre was on the island and the mainland consisted of a residential suburb?

Tyre only existed on the island, after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland Tyre.

So all references that that say that the city was always on the island are wrong and you are right?

Do you understand that?

I understand what you are trying to imply but as we have clearly seen....you are wrong. Frankly, I tire of this nonsense with you Campbell. You ignore every reference presented that clearly shows that the city was on the island and repeat ad nauseum that the city was on the mainland too. You blatantly ignore the fact that history and scholarly works say you are wrong and that the mainland consisted of nothing more than a handful of houses.

Carry on with your self-deception dude. Those that read this thread will decide for themselves based on the evidence presented. I'm done with beating my head against the wall.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Rafius

All come and gone before the Book of Daniel was even written.

Daniel made the prophecy before those empires were born. He made them to the king of the first empire to fall.

Not mentioned by name (speculation).

So, it's speculation unless the name is spelled out. LOL

Not difficult to make a prophecy that a fallen 'superpower' will never again be a superpower. Pretty obvious really.

No, not obvious at all. Egypt and many other countries of those times were attacked many times, and they rose and fell many times

I hereby prophecise that Britons will be scattered throughout the planet - what nation isn't?

Very few countries have seen their entire population move out.

Man made to 'fulfil' the prophecy.

LMAO

...but not all Jews, as the prophecy says

.

No it does not specify 'all'

Isaiah 43:5-6,21 - "Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, `Give them up!' and to the south, `Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth..."

Not difficult when you have a heavily armed army and want to see the prophecy fulfilled

Actually they were attacked, and took Jerusalem in the war which followed.

Really! Have you ever been to Kuwait?

Yes, some super rich people living in luxury while most eat sun dried camel shait. Look at Israel's worst sworn enemies and tell me they are doing just fine. They are not.


Either way, the prohpecies I listed were fulfilled, no matter how you downplay their significance.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Daniel made the prophecy before those empires were born. He made them to the king of the first empire to fall.

So Daniel, who is alleged to have lived in the 6th century BC, prophecised the coming of the Egyptians , who had an Empire in the 30th century,.... the Greeks, who had been around since the 20th century...the Babylonians who's Empire existed from the 13th century.... the Assyrians who's Empire began in the 9th century.....etc, etc, and you consider this 'clever'.

(Man, why do I keep getting sucked in by these people)

So, it's speculation unless the name is spelled out. LOL

Yes it is.

No, not obvious at all. Egypt and many other countries of those times were attacked many times, and they rose and fell many times

So tell us. What countries since, lets say, 3000BC, were superpowers defeated by another country and then became a superpower again.

LMAO

Yes that's what I do when I read about "fulfilled prophecies". .

No it does not specify 'all'

Isaiah 43:5-6,21 - "Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, `Give them up!' and to the south, `Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth..."

If you had 6 children and I said to you, "I will take your children to the park", would I be referring to all your children or just a few of them.

Actually they were attacked, and took Jerusalem in the war which followed.

They were NOT attacked. They made a pre-emptive strike against the Arabs in 1967.

Look at Israel's worst sworn enemies and tell me they are doing just fine. They are not.

Yes that happens when a superpower illegally occupies lands and then keeps the population in poverty.

Either way, the prophecies I listed were fulfilled, no matter how you downplay their significance.

In your dreams sunshine!!

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Rafius

So Daniel, who is alleged to have lived in the 6th century BC, prophecised the coming of the Egyptians , who had an Empire in the 30th century,.... the Greeks, who had been around since the 20th century...the Babylonians who's Empire existed from the 13th century.... the Assyrians who's Empire began in the 9th century.....etc, etc, and you consider this 'clever'.

(Man, why do I keep getting sucked in by these people)

No, I don't consider it clever at all, because I never said what you claim I said. Re-read my posts if you are having trouble following the conversation. I didn't say Daniel said anything about Egypt, only the other empires. It was who Ezekiel mentioned that Egypt will not raise back to its former status. Ezekiel didn't say anything about rise of Egypt, because Egypt was already powerful, he only talked about the fall of Egypt.

Daniel (600 BC)was talking face to face with Nebuchadnezzar (634 – 562 BC), the king of Babylon, and Daniel told him that Nebuchadnezzar's empire would be the first to fall, and it fell soon after. The Persian empire (peaks at 500 BC) came after that, then the Greek and then the Romans. Yes, sure the Greeks 'had been around', but not as an Empire. Daniel refers to Alexander Great times (356–323 BC), who defeated the Persian empire at around 330 BC. And as we know, the Roman empire fell too, but after the death of Christ.

So it is all accurate.


The question was: which biblical prophesies have been fulfilled, and I gave you a list of a few, and there are many more.

Some questions and answers:

- Were those prophecies in the Bible? Yes, they were.

- Were they fulfilled? Yes, they were.

- Are some people not happy about the way they were fulfilled, or what political reasons/motivations might have been involved? No, the Bible deniers and atheists are not, and you just proved it. Some people can't stand it when the Bible is proven accurate. The truth is that it is amazingly accurate.

The bottom line is that they were prophecies and THEY WERE FULFILLED.

It doesn't matter if Jerusalem was taken back in a defensive war, or a preemptive one, what matters is that THEY TOOK IT BACK, and the prophecy was fulfilled.

Merry CHRISTmas!!

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

No, I don't consider it clever at all, because I never said what you claim I said. Re-read my posts if you are having trouble following the conversation. I didn't say Daniel said anything about Egypt, only the other empires. It was who Ezekiel mentioned that Egypt will not raise back to its former status. Ezekiel didn't say anything about rise of Egypt, because Egypt was already powerful, he only talked about the fall of Egypt.

Daniel (600 BC)was talking face to face with Nebuchadnezzar (634 – 562 BC), the king of Babylon, and Daniel told him that Nebuchadnezzar's empire would be the first to fall, and it fell soon after. The Persian empire (peaks at 500 BC) came after that, then the Greek and then the Romans. Yes, sure the Greeks 'had been around', but not as an Empire. Daniel refers to Alexander Great times (356–323 BC), who defeated the Persian empire at around 330 BC. And as we know, the Roman empire fell too, but after the death of Christ.

So it is all accurate.


The question was: which biblical prophesies have been fulfilled, and I gave you a list of a few, and there are many more.

Some questions and answers:

- Were those prophecies in the Bible? Yes, they were.

- Were they fulfilled? Yes, they were.

- Are some people not happy about the way they were fulfilled, or what political reasons/motivations might have been involved? No, the Bible deniers and atheists are not, and you just proved it. Some people can't stand it when the Bible is proven accurate. The truth is that it is amazingly accurate.

The bottom line is that they were prophecies and THEY WERE FULFILLED.

It doesn't matter if Jerusalem was taken back in a defensive war, or a preemptive one, what matters is that THEY TOOK IT BACK, and the prophecy was fulfilled.

One thing you need to realise about your Daniel nonsense. It was written at the time of the Maccabean revolt....in the second century. It's not prophecy, it's history.

Merry CHRISTmas!!

...and a Happy Winter Solstice to you too. Now, I'm going to take a few days rest from arguing with believers. There's one hell of a bruise on my forehead and the wall is beginning to crack.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Rafius

So are you going to ignore that, according to just about every source available, the city of Tyre was on the island and the mainland consisted of a residential suburb?

So all references that that say that the city was always on the island are wrong and you are right?

I understand what you are trying to imply but as we have clearly seen....you are wrong. Frankly, I tire of this nonsense with you Campbell. You ignore every reference presented that clearly shows that the city was on the island and repeat ad nauseum that the city was on the mainland too. You blatantly ignore the fact that history and scholarly works say you are wrong and that the mainland consisted of nothing more than a handful of houses.

Carry on with your self-deception dude. Those that read this thread will decide for themselves based on the evidence presented. I'm done with beating my head against the wall.

Outside of sources I have already quoted. You have given us "Travel Lebanon", and "Atlas Tours". If those are what you deem credible, I will stick with Britannica.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Outside of sources I have already quoted. You have given us "Travel Lebanon", and "Atlas Tours".

...and you, with your propensity to 'lie for Jesus', conveniently overlook the links I gave to you in posts 148, 153, 162, 164, 166, 168, and 169. You'll make baby Jesus cry with your lies Campbell.

If those are what you deem credible, I will stick with Britannica.

.....because you think it supports what you want to be true? Why don't you present the whole article from Britannica? Let's see what it says.