Post by John W <***@yahoo.com>While I agree with you in general, in specific, you are incorrect
about the Bible in this regard. If you CAREFULLY examine the book of
Daniel, (which we CAN date as pre-the events described as "prophetic",
we see Daniel ACCURATELY predicting the subsequent 3 World Kingdoms
(Medo-Persian, Greek/Alexander, and Roman. Daniel predicted these
three future world kingdoms IN MINUTE DETAIL.
He knew, during his exile in Babylon, that Babylon (Egypt) would fall
to the Medes and Persians (the famous night when the king saw the
writing on the wall). Daniel predicted that the Medo-Persian empire
would fall to Alexander, and he described details of Alexander's
empire. He also described the Roman empire in detail.
If you aren't aware of it, it's worth a look.
Here you strike to the heart of my problem with such matters. As you may
have realised, I do not believe in the notion that it is possible to know
of future events before they occur - at least not without some rational
information which will lead to a correct prediction (leave the plug in and
the tap running and common sense tells you the bathtub WILL overflow).
Such an idea has never been scientifically tested, and relies solely on
anecdotal evidence from those who, for example, were just thinking about
long-lost Uncle Whoever, and the very next minute the phone rang and...
Well, the story is a relatively well-known one, largely because it is so
often trumpeted as 'proof' of ESP.
In my experience there tend to be two kinds of prediction: those that are
simply made after the event, and those that are sketched out before the
event and then detailed in - either by the author or the audience -
afterwards. In general terms, Biblical prophecy, along with most other
fortune-telling methods, falls into the second category.
A newspaper astrologer can apply the exact same words to 'predict the
future' for a full TWELFTH of the human population, and yet he can still
convince a huge number of them that what he says actually has a bearing on
their individual lives. This is because his words are so ambiguous and
vague that each reader (and we assume that only those who are interested
in horoscopes will read them, meaning the skeptical are unlikely to be
included in the number) will actively work to interpret the words in such
a way that they appear relevant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example - just for fun - my horoscope from today from Yahoo!:
"You will be blessed with a more level head than usual today, dear
Scorpio, so take this opportunity to make rational decisions about the
most intense issues on the table. Stay grounded and concentrate on what
you need to do. Don't get caught up in the usual emotional drama.
Restriction and limitation are key themes of the day that will help you
reach the goals that you set for yourself."
Now - is there a single word in that paragraph that says anything in any
way useful or specific? No, of course not. But look - it all makes
sense! 'Make rational decisions'? Well, my work relies on my making
rational decisions - so that MUST be a reference to work, yes? Do not get
caught up in emotional drama? Well, it is strange, but one of my
colleagues is having a hard time at the moment, so this comment MUST refer
to her! And so on. If I am determined enough to believe, I can make this
nonsense fit into my life anywhere I wish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, a psychic might offer to help police by advising them that they
will find the body/the gun/the drugs stash 'near water'. Chances are that
prediction is going to turn out to be right.
Now, you tell me that the Book of Daniel accurately predicts something
BEFORE it happens. Well, I can study that book however hard you want me
to, and I am likely to come to one of two conclusions: either it can be
interpreted as an accurate prediction with sufficient effort on the part
of the reader (as in the case of Revelation), or it is so accurate and
detailed that it can only have been written after the fact, whatever the
date we might believe we 'know' it was written.
There is nothing in science which allows for the knowledge of events
before they occur. Even the famous human 'hunch' or 'instinct' - where it
is not simple suspicion and dependent on probability whether it is right
or wrong - must be attributed to the receipt of information without
conscious recognition of it.
--
Midwinter