> If that is the case, the hundreds of Christians I've heard present the apologetic of "300+ prophecies in the bible have been fulfilled" are severely misguided in using this claim as justification for belief.

Not at all. Just because the nature of prophecy is in the realm of theological affirmation, and such a definition is not provable by science, is no discredit to the verifiable fulfillments of prophecy through the ages. By the same token, the statement "All truth is verifiable by science" is not provable by science. It's a philosophical statement and not subject to scientific verification.

> My point is no one can verify it. I can present to you a Muslims or Mormon or Hindu that all can say a similar thing about their god(s) speaking to them.

But the prophecies of the Bible have been fulfilled in real-time history, and that's the difference between those of Muslim or Hindu belief. Christianity is a historical religion, not just a philosophical one like Hinduism.

> It actually isn't (the Bible is to reveal God)

It most certainly is. God has a plan in history that he is sovereignly executing. The goal of that plan is for him to be in relationship with the people whom he has created. It would be difficult for people to enter into a relationship with a God whom they do not know. If his nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. In order to clear the way for this relationship, then, God has undertaken as a primary objective a program of self-revelation. He wants people to know him. The mechanism that drives this program is the covenant, and the instrument is Israel. The purpose of the covenant is to reveal God. This is what the Bible is about: The Old Testament (covenant) and the New Testament (covenant).

> What I'm trying to get you to understand is that other religions and other holy books are presented the same way.

But they're not. Christianity is unique. Now the burden of proof rests on you to substantiate your statement.

> Again, you're free to define any word any way you'd like.

I'm defining the word the way the Bible defines it, not the way Webster does.

> If we're using your definition, than I am completely baffled why I've heard hundreds of Christians use this apologetic of "fulfilled prophecy" as a reason why one should believe.

Prophecy does include predictive messages, but that's only a small portion of what prophecy is. It's truthful and right for Christians to speak of fulfilled prophecy, and that as an evidence for the truth of the message, but prophecy itself is a much broader set of messages.

> And how did the authors of the gospels confirm themselves that Mary was a virgin? You do know that the hymen can stay intact after intercourse, right?

The hymen is not at issue, but whether she had intercourse before her pregnancy. We're not stupid, and neither were they. They knew it takes intercourse to conceive a child. In those days they didn't understand sperm and ovum as we do, but they sure understood sex and pregnancy. They thought (and this idea prevailed until the 18th century) that the bodily substance necessary for a human fetus comes from the mother, while the life force originates with the father. I could go much deeper into the "science" they believed, but that's probably not productive right now. The doctrine of the virginity of Mary isn't a theological one, someone's wishful thinking, or even prophetic expectation, but on Mary's admission. The virgin birth didn't even help Matthew's case (or Luke's) that they were writing about. It was actually detrimental to what they were trying to say. But since it was true, they included it, even to their own potential embarrassment. They insist that Mary's womb was virginal, stating explicitly that she had never had intercourse. And you'll notice it's not something that is brought up ever again, not in the Gospels or in Paul. By the same token, you have no criteria by which to measure such things. You can't go back and do the science or interview the parties.

> My position is that these claims in the bible can be explained by the hypothesis that the authors of the bible were merely men with no connection to any sort of super intelligence with the ability to see the future.

This is what doesn't hold up. The weathermen in my city can't even get today's weather right sometimes, let alone a 5-day forecast. You can't predict what will happen in the stock market today or who will win the Stanley Cup. Go ahead, give it all the science you want—you can't do it. The prophecies of the Bible can't be explained by any reasonable mechanism except divine action.

> Both of your examples violate 1 or more of my 7 criteria

I really don't give any credence to your criteria.

> Your weak weak argument is essentially "it's true because the bible says so."

That was never my argument. I guess you need to re-read what I wrote, 'cause it ain't there.

> That's correct. It's a theological premise based on biblical teaching. It's the position the Bible takes, not one that is subject to scientific experiment or logical proofs.

If that is the case, the hundreds of Christians I've heard present the apologetic of "300+ prophecies in the bible have been fulfilled" are severely misguided in using this claim as justification for belief.

> Of course I can. It's the premise of the Bible: there is a God, he has spoken, and we are the receptors of his communication.

Okay, of course you can say it. My point is no one can verify it. I can present to you a Muslims or Mormon or Hindu that all can say a similar thing about their god(s) speaking to them.

> It's the whole point of the Bible—to reveal God.

It actually isn't, but I understand that that is your position. What I'm trying to get you to understand is that other religions and other holy books are presented the same way. And what's the litmus test for determining which is right, or could all of them be wrong?
We have competing religions because people to whom God has NOT spoken claim that he has spoken to them.

That's one idea. Another idea is that Islam is the one true religion and that your religion is false. Another idea is that all religions are false, and that is why there are so many competing religions.

> The point of contention is which "speakings" were legitimate.

Yes, and over my many years of being a Christian and talking to Christians, they present the supposed hundreds of bible prophecies as 1 way of determine that their religious teachings are legitimate. My original post was to tackle that subject. So far, no one has even defending the position in this thread that there are any criteria biblical prophecy meets that makes the prophecies special in the sense that they couldn't be merely the product of normal human beings.

> I'm saying that prophecy isn't about making amazing predictions. the nature of prophecy was communication of a message, not necessarily a predictive message.

Lookup the definition of "prophecy." If you want to change the definition, well, ok... that's your prerogative. If we're using your definition, than I am completely baffled why I've heard hundreds of Christians use this apologetic of "fulfilled prophecy" as a reason why one should believe.

> As I said, rather than regard prophecy as prediction, it's more accurate to understand it as plans and intent. They are subject to dynamic unfolding, not limited to narrow determination.

Again, you're free to define any word any way you'd like. This isn't how Christians are intending it when we skeptics ask them why we should believe, and they respond "fulfilled prophecy."

> Isaiah prophesied that a young maiden in the king's harem would conceive a child, and it would be a sign that the downfall of the kingdom was imminent.

This isn't an amazing prediction. It it common for women to become pregnant, and we cannot verify that something as mundane as pregnancy has some kind of meaning. It also is possible that most people were already aware of how unstable a government was, and so making a prediction about its downfall may not have required anything beyond normal human ability. We also need to verify that all of these events actually took place - the pregnancy and the downfall of some specific kingdom. If the kingdom wasn't specifically mentioned, then this isn't remarkable at all - kingdoms crumbling were somewhat common back then. You know what fits this passage in Isaiah way better as an explanation? It was just a story. Perhaps fully myth, perhaps based on a true story with some mythical components added to it.

> When Jesus was born that prophecy was said to have been fulfilled by a literal virgin giving birth to the literal son of God, the beginning of the end for those who insist on remaining in their sin.

And how did the authors of the gospels confirm themselves that Mary was a virgin? You do know that the hymen can stay intact after intercourse, right? And you do know that according to societal customs at the time Mary would have had a motive to lie to avoid death for her pregnancy, right? You see, this is why I have criteria by which to measure it. You haven't shown any of my criteria to be unreasonable, you merely assert that these claims from the bible are true without any second thought or shred of skepticism.

> Does it verify a divine source? Sure.

I wasn't asking for anyone to verify the source or cause of these amazing predictions. Just to satisfy the claim that they are indeed amazing claims. My position is that these claims in the bible can be explained by the hypothesis that the authors of the bible were merely men with no connection to any sort of super intelligence with the ability to see the future. It amazes me that you could even jump to the conclusion that if such a prediction could be verified that this would somehow imply a divine source, because it could just as easily be explained by advanced technology, or advanced alien civilizations, or even magic - not that I believe any of those are the explanation, but it goes to show your own bias to jumping to certain conclusions rather than acknowledging what other explanations are equally as plausible.

> Nothing about them is normal human behavior.

Both of your examples violate 1 or more of my 7 criteria. Pick a prophecy you think doesn't violate any of the 7 criteria OR pick new criteria and defend why your criteria are reasonable. Your weak weak argument is essentially "it's true because the bible says so."

I don't really understand what's happening, but you've grossly misunderstood, it seems, everything I'm saying.

> There is no demonstration of predictive power by prophets.

Of course there is. David prophesied the crucifixion in Ps. 22, Isaiah prophesied Christ in Isa. 53, Daniel prophesied the empires of the world, Micah prophesied Bethlehem as the birthplace of Christ, and hundreds of others.

> I thought you were claiming that it's their divine inspiration which establishes the prophetic value

I am. Divine inspiration is the only source of their prophetic words. It is the fulfillment in history that establishes that it was of God (different from what you said: "establishes the divine nature of their inspiration"), so no circular reasoning. Again, you're putting words in my mouth to set up a straw man, then claiming circular reasoning for your own contrived argument.

> It seems instead you're saying we can't know a god exists

That's not what I'm saying at all. I have no clue where you came up with this.

> since the only "evidence" is scripture

This is not true at all. There are both logical evidence, natural evidences, and historical evidences.

> because the prophecies can't be shown to be true

Of course the prophecies can be shown to be true: Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, Moses, Jeremiah—hundreds of them.

> therefore should be assume not to be of a divine nature.

Wrong again. They ARE of divine nature. We can't even predict the final score of a football game.

> That's a round-about way to deny there's any reason to accept a god exists, but seems we're agreed.

I'm not sure there's anything we have agreed about here.

> I don't buy your fix.

You don't need to "buy it". There is no demonstration of predictive power by prophets. Ergo, the only way to establish their divine inspiration, is test their ability is by way of their prophecies. I thought you were claiming that it's their divine inspiration which establishes the prophetic value, which in turn establishes the divine nature of their inspiration. That's transparently begging the question as circular.

> I was speaking to the nature of prophecy, which the OP misunderstands. He thinks prophecy is about amazing predictions, but prophecy is a much broader category than that. I never said anything about Jesus or engaged in the circular reasoning of your post. I didn't claim Jesus was divine because he said he fulfilled prophecies, etc. etc. You've built a straw man of your own making, attributed it to me, and then shot it down as circular reasoning.

It seems instead you're saying we can't know a god exists, since the only "evidence" is scripture, which has no way to be validated, because the prophecies can't be shown to be true, and therefore should be assume not to be of a divine nature....

Fair enough. That's a round-about way to deny there's any reason to accept a god exists, but seems we're agreed.

I don't buy your fix. You have misunderstood also. I was speaking to the nature of prophecy, which the OP misunderstands. He thinks prophecy is about amazing predictions, but prophecy is a much broader category than that. I never said anything about Jesus or engaged in the circular reasoning of your post. I didn't claim Jesus was divine because he said he fulfilled prophecies, etc. etc. You've built a straw man of your own making, attributed it to me, and then shot it down as circular reasoning.

"A prophet is, er, claims to have been a spokesperson "for what they claim is" God,

Fixed that for you. In context, the OP is addressing demonstration of the claim that the person the disciples/authors of the bible were speaking of was god. In other words, you're begging the question. You can't claim we know Jesus was divine because someone said that Jesus said we can know he's god because he said he fulfilled prophecies, which only showed "some understanding of the message, though possibly not of its full or future import" because they were authored by a god. Well... obviously you can, and that's known as "Christianity", but you can't expect it to be convincing.

(Everything else quoted is predicated on establishing that circular argument.)

> This is an unfalsifiable statement.

That's correct. It's a theological premise based on biblical teaching. It's the position the Bible takes, not one that is subject to scientific experiment or logical proofs.

> There isn't 1 single person in all of human history in which you could say "they speak for god."

Of course I can. It's the premise of the Bible: there is a God, he has spoken, and we are the receptors of his communication. It's the whole point of the Bible—to reveal God. It's what the Bible is. We have competing religions because people to whom God has NOT spoken claim that he has spoken to them. The point of contention is which "speakings" were legitimate.

> You are essentially saying that the prophecies of the bible don't need to be amazing predictions that come to pass in order to be labeled "prophecies."

In a sense. I'm saying that prophecy isn't about making amazing predictions. the nature of prophecy was communication of a message, not necessarily a predictive message. Often the prophets said things like, "You have been wicked. You have rebelled. God is displeased." Often they said, "The word of the Lord is for you to change your ways and return to him." You want prophecy to be all about prediction, but it's not; that's a misunderstanding of the nature of prophecy.

As I said, rather than regard prophecy as prediction, it's more accurate to understand it as plans and intent. They are subject to dynamic unfolding, not limited to narrow determination.

Now, there are amazing predictions in the Bible, but you'll notice that their fulfillment is often broader than a pinpoint. For instance, Isaiah prophesied that a young maiden in the king's harem would conceive a child, and it would be a sign that the downfall of the kingdom was imminent. When Jesus was born that prophecy was said to have been fulfilled by a literal virgin giving birth to the literal son of God, the beginning of the end for those who insist on remaining in their sin. Predictive? Sure. What you're talking about? No. Does it verify a divine source? Sure. Nothing about them is normal human behavior.

> A prophet is a spokesperson for God

This is an unfalsifiable statement. There isn't 1 single person in all of human history in which you could say "they speak for god." This is why we have competing religions and competing sects that all say they speak on behalf of god, but all claim things contradictory to what others claim.

Let me summarize your statements here. You are essentially saying that the prophecies of the bible don't need to be amazing predictions that come to pass in order to be labeled "prophecies." I think you'd be using the word "prophecy" incorrectly, but let's say I just accept your view of what the word "prophecy" means for the sake of argument.

Here is something to consider, and then I will try to make clear what my debate proposition is to you. First, it is a fact that many many Christians claim that the authenticity of divinely inspired authorship is supported by the idea that over 300 "amazing predictions" occurred in the bible, and that because normal human behavior cannot account for these predictions, this is evidence of something beyond human ability being the source of said predictions. My contention is that none of the claimed "amazing predictions" in the bible are in fact amazing and can all be explained by just plain normal human behavior. I came up with 7 reasonable criteria to demonstrate that, and I could provide predictions that (if they came true) WOULD be amazing predictions that fulfill my 7 criteria. You are free to dispute why you think my criteria are not fair or reasonable, but my counter argument to that is that I can point you to other "amazing predictions" from other religions or world views that are inconsistent with your Christian world view that meet your newly-defined set of criteria that you've come up with.
If your claim is that all of these Christians never meant "prophecy" to mean "amazing prediction" when they spoke with me, then my response to that is that they never should have brought it up in the first place to support their claim that it verifies authorship inspired by something beyond a human.

Your entire response to me was essentially a totally irrelevant tangent and has missed the entire point I was making.

Let's make this simpler for you. Do you believe there are amazing predictions in the bible? I'm not asking you to verify the source or cause of those predictions. I'm just asking if you believe there are amazing predictions in the bible beyond what normal human behavior could explain. If your answer is "yes," then my follow up question is "by what criteria are you determining that?" An additional question to you would be "if you heard another Christian make this claim about fulfilled prophecies supporting the divinely caused wording of the bible to a non-believer, would you agree with their reasoning that it is evidence of divine cause or at least super-human cause? If so, why?"

Walton & Hill, in A Survey of the OT (I just didn't want to credit myself with this answer).

"A prophet is a spokesperson for God, similar to our presidential press secretary or an ambassador to a foreign country. They are authorized to speak not on their own behalf but on behalf of the authority over them.

"Prophets were known in many countries of the ancient Near East, but there are distinct and profound differences between the prophetic traditions of Israel and those of the rest of the ancient Near East.

Each prophet came with a message from God, and it should be assumed that the prophet had some understanding of the message, though possibly not of its full or future import.

Prediction and Fulfillment. Both of these terms can lead to harmful misperceptions about the nature of prophecy.

Prediction: If someone today were to predict that the stock market would take a plunge, and then took some action that actually caused it to happen, he or she would not be praised for the ability to predict. The aspect of predictiveness is diminished by the direct link to causation.

"In the same way, the predictive element in biblical prophecy must usually be kept distinct from causation, else it ceases to be predictive. On these terms it is obvious that 'prediction' would not be the best word to describe biblical prophecy. Prophets themselves were not predicting anything, but merely giving the word of the Lord. The prophecy was God's message, not the prophet's. If predicting is understood to preclude causation, then God cannot predict, for he is the final cause of all. So in the end it must be recognized that prophecy is more interested in causation than in prediction. It is true that biblical prophecy spoke of events before they happened, but the purpose was that God would be properly recognized as having caused those events as a part of his ongoing plan.

"Rather than regarding prophecy as prediction, it is more helpful to consider it as 'God’s syllabus.' The syllabus for a course doesn't 'predict' what will happen in each class period of the term, but presents the instructor's plans and intentions for each period. The significance of the document is that the instructor is in a position to carry it out. Likewise, when a judge passes a sentence on a convicted criminal, he is not 'predicting' what will happen to that person. Rather, he is decreeing what ought to be done and is in a position to see that it is done.

"In prophetic literature, God is declaring his intentions and decreeing his judgments. Though these were still future when spoken, they could be considered prediction only in the broadest terms.

Fulfillment: The prophet did not necessarily understand all of the possibilities of the prophecies he was speaking. It was the message itself that was inspired; it was the message that was the medium of God's revelation. The fulfillment was almost incidental, though it was certainly important that it take place.

"Whether or not the interpreter is able to identify the fulfillment with confidence is open to question. There are numerous passages in the OT that, if read in the context of the time, would clearly suggest that certain things were going to happen in certain ways. As history unfolded, however, those things did not come to pass in the expected way (Examples: Isa. 11.16; Ezk. 26.5; Jonah 3). That it did not happen is not a blot on God's reputation, for who knows how the word could yet be fulfilled? But it suggests that assurance about fulfillment cannot always be achieved. Consequently, one must not become so absorbed in figuring out when and how fulfillment will take place that the message is neglected.

"What is fulfillment? It indicates an appropriate correlation between the prophetic word and the event to which it is related. When NT author suggest that some event 'fulfilled' an OT passage, he is not suggesting that the OT author was speaking or thinking of this event, but rather than an appropriate correlation can be drawn between the OT and the event."

In addition, both Jeremiah and Jonah show us the fluid nature of prophecy. Jeremiah 18.1-12 tells us clearly that despite God's prophecies about certain things, man's free will is always active and taken into considering to motivate changes in the prophetic word. The book of Jonah is a master example of the principle.

Many have raised the question of how free will can exist if God knows what we're going to do. One response is that determinism is true and compatibilism is true so there's no problem. I think the problem of evil dooms theistic compatibilism, so that response fails. But another response which I think succeeds is that God stands outside of time and merely sees everything that happens all at once without impinging on the incompatibilist freedom of anyone.

That's fine, as long as God stays outside of time. The problem comes when God enters the timeline to give prophecies. It throws a wrench in the works. And of course, many religions, including Christianity, suppose that God has given quite a bit of prophecy, so this argument is very consequential.

If God gives a prophecy, it must be correct. It can't just be likely to be correct, as if God could get lucky with prophecy. My argument is that if indeterminism was true, then people could possibly thwart God's prophecy coming true, and God couldn't know whether they would in fact thwart it unless he actually created the universe, in which case it would be too late for God to change his mind about giving the prophecy.

God cannot test out indeterministic universes to see how people will respond to his prophecies and see if the people thwart the prophecy or not. Even if he does successfully test out an indeterministic universe to see if the prophecy happens to come true, he couldn't know that it would be replicated in another indeterministic universe, because the nature of indeterminism is that things can play out differently from the same circumstances.

Suppose God creates an indeterministic universe called universe X where he gives a prophecy to someone, but upon hearing the prophecy, the people in universe X use their free will to stop the prophecy coming true. God would then be wrong. But this cannot be because God cannot be wrong.

The problem is, how could God know whether the people in universe X would thwart his prophecy unless he actually created universe X to see what they would do? He couldn't know what they would do unless he actually created them. But at that point it's too late - God has now been wrong in an actual world, even if he quickly decides to trash that failed universe in which he's been wrong.

So for any potential indeterministic universe, he couldn't know whether his prophecy would come true or not, and if that's the case he wouldn't create an indeterministic universe where he gives any prophecy because of the possibility of being wrong.

Any religion that says we have incompatibilist free will and that God has given prophecies cannot be true, because God could not create an indeterministic universe in which he gave prophecy, because his prophecy could be wrong.

If any religion asserts that God has given prophecy, they must commit themselves to determinism.