Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Will Tanakh/Old Testament predictions occur?


rakovsky

Do you believe Tanakh/Old Testament prophecy is for real and if something is predicted to definitely occur, then it will?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe Tanakh/Old Testament prophecy is for real and if something is predicted to definitely occur, then it will?

    • Most likely Yes
    • Most Likely No
    • Other/N.A.


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Podo said:

Untrue. As I've said, if someone was able to predict something very specific that came to pass, I'd give it credibility. Per my original post though, all "prophecy" has been vague, similar to cold-reading. That isn't good enough.

I gave you several examples of how prophecy and dream prediction often works: The person has a vision, it contains certain elements, and theoretically the elements have meanings.

In one example, a person shovels snow, it tires them, and then in their dream they shovel weights. So there is a correlation in meaning. That is how a dream works. In a predictive dream, the same operation occurs, but the causal direction is reversed. To demand absolute perfect matches is not how dreams work.

Postdictive or predictive dreaming is not the same kind of thing as cold reading where a person randomly, consciously and deliberately makes guesses based on probability and then based on the probability it matches.

With postdictive or predictive dreaming, there is an actual, fully unconscious relationship between the events and the dream.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that postdictive dreams typically don't perfectly describe something that happened, you still give postdictive dreaming credibility.

Therefore, the issue is not whether a dream correlates with an event, or that predictive dreams are in any way at all less correlated or specific to postdictive dreams. Rather, the stumbling block for you is the issue of causality, which you are convinced operates in only one direction. You place such a high burden on predictive dreaming that it is impossible to verify even by the normal standards used for dreams.

 

4 minutes ago, Podo said:

False. If that actually happened, I'd explore it and talk with him about it. It doesn't mean that I'm going to throw up my hands and declare that prophecy is real, but I'll consider it. IF my bddy told me about it beforehand, anyway. It is really easy to have something happen and then gasp OMG I DREAMED THIS. If the thing was declared ahead of time, you bet your butt that'd make me pause. But it hasn't, and I doubt it will. I'm fine to be wrong about that, though. Introduce me to someone who can do such things.

 

Yes, that is entirely unverified. It's interesting, but the only way to truly verify a prophecy is to announce the parameters ahead of time, and then have them come to pass.

Not for you. Based on what you said in the first line, even if the parameters of the dream were announced ahead of time, and then they came to pass, you will still treat it as "unverified". It would only be something to explore, talk about, consider, pause, not actually something to consider as "verififed".

Why? Because for you, retrocausality is impossible. It is not possible to "verify" the "impossible", especially with a phenomenon like dreaming, which is by its very nature unconscious and typically symbolic, even if predictive dreaming were real.

This is why it is meaningless for you to say "I'll believe it when it is verified".

4 minutes ago, Podo said:

My argument isn't necessarily that it definitely isn't possible. I don't think it is, but that's not really the point. It's more that there is no evidence pointing to it being possible, at the moment. Even if it IS possible (for argument's sake), there is still no good evidence on the contrary, thus making assuming that it is possible an illogical conclusion. I'm perfectly willing for that to change, but I suspect that if it was doable, someone would have done so by now.

Published studies would normally be considered "good evidence", mainstream news reports would be considered "good evidence", the teachings of a leading, foundational psychologist like Carl Jung would normally be "good evidence", centuries of reports and accounts by millions of people going back to likely prehistoric times would normally be considered good evidence.

However, in your case, none of what would normally count as "good evidence" meets your own standard when it comes to predictive dreaming. Why is this issue any different than normal? Because you "don't think it is" possible.

The reason it is not "doable" is because of the super-precise standard you have set for symbolic dreams to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what you consider impossible due to your rejection of retrocausality.

Normal "good evidence" for you like published studies and famous psychologists counts as "no good evidence".

A personal account that fully met the high standards you gave (a dream where a jar falls at 3:22) would only give you "pause" for "consideration" and would not be considered verified.

In other words, it's practical impossible to verify what you consider practically impossible, whether it were true or not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
11 minutes ago, rakovsky said:

how prophecy and dream prediction often works:

How you assume they work. Don't forget that prophecy is not a proven thing.

 

11 minutes ago, rakovsky said:

or predictive dreaming, there is an actual, fully unconscious relationship between the events and the dream.

So you believe.

 

11 minutes ago, rakovsky said:

Nonetheless, despite the fact that postdictive dreams typically don't perfectly describe something that happened, you still give postdictive dreaming credibility.

Yes, I do, because they happen. They're our brains doing weird stuff while we sleep. There is nothing weird about that, since the brain can process things that it has experienced. Equating a dream about a past event and a dream with a future event makes no sense, because there is no reason to believe that a brain can access future events. The two things are not equal, no matter how hard you try to reduce them to being similar.

 

11 minutes ago, rakovsky said:

Rather, the stumbling block for you is the issue of causality, which you are convinced operates in only one direction.

Yes, because there is no reason to think that it doesn't, since it never has, because humans can't see the future.

 

11 minutes ago, rakovsky said:

Not for you. Based on what you said in the first line, even if the parameters of the dream were announced ahead of time, and then they came to pass, you will still treat it as "unverified". It would only be something to explore, talk about, consider, pause, not actually something to consider as "verififed".

Why? Because for you, retrocausality is impossible. It is not possible to "verify" the "impossible", especially with a phenomenon like dreaming, which is by its very nature unconscious and typically symbolic, even if predictive dreaming were real.

This is why it is meaningless for you to say "I'll believe it when it is verified".

Because a single person doing something like that isn't a scientific test. If a thing isn't repeatable and testable, it can't be proven. That doesn't mean that a thing can't be true, only that it can't be provable. If someone was to predict something flawlessly once, that's worth examining. If they do it repeatedly, over and over? ****, son, that's proof. A single occurrence of something is not.

 

11 minutes ago, rakovsky said:

Published studies would normally be considered "good evidence", mainstream news reports would be considered "good evidence", the teachings of a leading, foundational psychologist like Carl Jung would normally be "good evidence", centuries of reports and accounts by millions of people going back to likely prehistoric times would normally be considered good evidence.

However, in your case, none of what would normally count as "good evidence" meets your own standard when it comes to predictive dreaming. Why is this issue any different than normal? Because you "don't think it is" possible.

The reason it is not "doable" is because of the super-precise standard you have set for symbolic dreams to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what you consider impossible due to your rejection of retrocausality.

Normal "good evidence" for you like published studies and famous psychologists counts as "no good evidence".

A personal account that fully met the high standards you gave (a dream where a jar falls at 3:22) would only give you "pause" for "consideration" and would not be considered verified.

In other words, it's practical impossible to verify what you consider practically impossible, whether it were true or not true.

The exact same thing can be said for you, though; you are unwilling to not believe in premonitions and nonsense of this sort, so nothing will change your mind. The difference is that, despite your hand-waving, nobody has ever been able to demonstrate precognition to a structured scientific body. You can cry all you want, but it hasn't happened. When that changes, come see me. Until that, I guess we're both left with our biases.

Edited by Podo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Podo said:

Yes, I do, because they happen. They're our brains doing weird stuff while we sleep. There is nothing weird about that, since the brain can process things that it has experienced. Equating a dream about a past event and a dream with a future event makes no sense, because there is no reason to believe that a brain can access future events. The two things are not equal, no matter how hard you try to reduce them to being similar.

My point was that it is not the vagueness of the predictive dreams that is the obstacle to proving to you belief in those dreams, it's related to your belief that you put in italics above that they are impossible.

So if you have a car accident at 3 o clock and dream that you had one at 3 oclock, you won't say "It's too vague to prove a link, it's just like cold reading".

But if you have a dream of a car accident at 3 oclock and then the next day it happens, you will say it's too vague and nonspecific for proof, and at best it gives you pause.

The reason for the difference in your conclusions is not actually that dreams are "vague" (car accident + 3 o'clock is specific), it's that you don't believe they are possible.

Why as a matter of scientific principles do you believe that the brain cannot directly access future events subconsciously? The normal reason given why people have trouble believing this is because of the principle of forward causality, that only past or present events affect the future, not the other way around.

Since you are holding an inherently symbolic means of information to the standard of proving the impossible, there is practically no proof that will satisfy you. So saying that "prophecies are just vague cold reading and unverifiable" becomes a meaningless statement, as it doesn't reveal your real logic. What you should just say is: "I believe retrocausal or retrochronological transmission of information is impossible, and dreams by nature are symbolic, therefore practically no evidence will ever satisfy my standard of proof."

 

20 hours ago, Podo said:

.Because a single person doing something like that isn't a scientific test. If a thing isn't repeatable and testable, it can't be proven. That doesn't mean that a thing can't be true, only that it can't be provable. If someone was to predict something flawlessly once, that's worth examining. If they do it repeatedly, over and over? ****, son, that's proof. A single occurrence of something is not.

Are postdictive dreams repeatedable? Yes, but only if you allow for symbolism and certain vagueness in your testing.

Same thing with predictive dreaming. It is repetitious and repeatable. The same people have had numerous times where they experienced dreams that they believe correlated to next-day events. The problem is that like postdictive dreams, predictive dreams use symbolism, and so they don't pass the test when they are held to a standard of [roving the scientifically impossible.

20 hours ago, Podo said:

The exact same thing can be said for you, though; you are unwilling to not believe in premonitions and nonsense of this sort, so nothing will change your mind. The difference is that, despite your hand-waving, nobody has ever been able to demonstrate precognition to a structured scientific body. You can cry all you want, but it hasn't happened. When that changes, come see me. Until that, I guess we're both left with our biases.

This is an interesting claim you make. I am not certain about the reliability of prophecy, and this is why I made the thread in the first place. One reason for my skepticism about prophecy is similar to the underlined reason that you gave, which I may have mentioned in the OP. Namely, the scientific community does not have a consensus in favor of it and in fact is very skeptical.

Of course, it would be an overstatement to say "nobody" has "ever" displayed what any "scientific structured body" considered to be evidence of precognition.

There have been studies claiming evidence for precognition published in peer reviewed scientific journals. One example is Prof. Bem's peer reviewed study which was done at a university and which a skeptic of precognition considered to have used high standards of testing.

Feeling The Future: Is Precognition Possible? (https://www.wired.com/2010/11/feeling-the-future-is-precognition-possible/)

I do believe that the phenomena is real, one reason being the published cases I cited to you earlier, like the lady who saved her baby from a chandelier crash that occurred at the same time as it did in her dream, and Carl Jung's experience of timing with a death associated with his wife that I described. I see major precision in these predictions, and there were enough times that I dreamt something that resembled closely enough something that happened the next day that I find there to be something real in the claim. I don't hold it to the same high standard of proving practically the impossible, since I don't have an absolute understanding of how physics works.

I gave Quantum Entanglement and Retrocausality as two examples. Existence really is on a time space continuum so that the past and future are not totally nullified. We just are observing directly only our own one moment in time at any given moment. It looks like the past is gone and the future is totally nonexistent, but I believe that how reality appears to us is different than how it actually is.

I admit that disproving a negative is hard, but that doesn't mean that theoretically one couldn't. The basis for your high standard is that you believe retrocausality is impossible, so analysis would really have to start there. In my view, Quantum entanglement and retrocausality are probably possible because as I mentioned, reality exists on a time continuum, so I suppose that theoretically a future event could affect a past event, even though we would not consciously observe it that way. Our conscious observation of reality generally only works in a forward direction (excepting for cases like dejavu, which are often considered brain malfunctions).

The other thing is that I believe in nonmaterialistic phenomena like the existence of a soul (part of the mind-body problem). That is, what we call the "soul" is not just the brain firing off electrons, and that some "observer" actually exists who is distinct from the body. AFAIK, there is no way to prove the "soul" in terms of our material methods of proof, nor is there a way for me to directly observe any other person's soul. As far as things normally consciously directly look to me, there are only physical talking material bodies, not conscious "souls" in other people distinct from their material bodies. But based on personal awareness of my own soul, I do believe that they have them.

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems someone has never heard of self-fulfilling prophecy, confirmation bias, and cognitive bias. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2017 at 11:18 PM, rakovsky said:

Hello Daimond.

I did not understand your sentence. Please explain more.

What do you mean:

"Everybody has the ability to predict like the black cloud there would be rain".

 

Yes everybody has the abelity to predict  to seer or to see a glimsp of future as i said, it depend how your sharpenel yourself.

Just begin from simple way like there blackcould full of water they would eventualy fall to earth to become rain, some maybe would change to ice stone, just realize and understanding like understanding  water cycle in scienses

Same as others knowledge like mathematic,  biologi, language, arsitecture, geomancy and others; practise make you perfect and give you insight or sight eventualy

In Budhsim there life and death cycle, water cycle in science are more simply way and more easy to understand than from life and death cycle in Budhism, so in the universe there many cycles unnotice, there many pattren in earth and heaven

Edited by Daimond25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this thread, even though I don't understand it, because Rakovsky and Daimond have two of the cutest avatars. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Daimond25 said:

Yes everybody has the abelity to predict  to seer or to see a glimsp of future as i said, it depend how your sharpenel yourself.

Just begin from simple way like there blackcould full of water they would eventualy fall to earth to become rain, some maybe would change to ice stone, just realize and understanding like understanding  water cycle in scienses

Same as others knowledge like mathematic,  biologi, language, arsitecture, geomancy and others; practise make you perfect and give you insight or sight eventualy

In Budhsim there life and death cycle, water cycle in science are more simply way and more easy to understand than from life and death cycle in Budhism, so in the universe there many cycles unnotice, there many pattren in earth and heaven

OK, I understand that in science there is a teaching that black clouds are full of water and will rain soon. Practically everybody with an education knows this fact.

How is this a step to becoming "a seer" prophet with miracle visions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎14‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 5:43 AM, rakovsky said:

I. Jews and Christians agree that in Tanakh/the "Old Testament", there are predictions of a future resurrection of the dead.

For example, Isaiah 26 (Judaica Press Tanakh translation) says:

  • 19 Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise--awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust--for Thy dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the shades. {P}
  • 20 Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee; hide thyself for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.
  • 21 For, behold, the LORD cometh forth out of His place to visit upon the inhabitants of the earth their iniquity; the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.

In philosophy, the mind-body problem has never been resolved (although there are many who like to believe they are nothing more than complex machines). Robots dont have free will, aren't conscious, cannot exhibit true probabilistic behaviour, don't have psychological needs, don't have emotions, and cannot co-evolve with their environments. A robot is quite literally just a machine executing lines of computer code written to mimic humans behaviour and actions. And that isn't the same thing as being a human.

Now we've got that out of the way, thanks to modern scientific advancements will are now capable of finally solving the mind-body problem. Take one deceased human, capture a stem cell still alive, either clone them from it or in 50 years time re-grow them from it. If the mind exists at any level outside of the brain then once that human remake becomes conscious we will soon know.

Yes, I 100% believe in the Old Testament predictions. I predict we can bring people back from the dead with 1 cell complete with the same personality and memories. And for those who are too decayed I predict when they can re-animate dead cells the same for them. And I predict the 2nd coming of Christ will occur from a search of cruxification relics for one of his cells. He will get brought back from it using the above technique.

And if you research the mind-body problem you may be surprised at how people (who haven't had NDEs) arrive at the conclusion that the mind in part exists outside your head.

Edited by RabidMongoose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

In philosophy, the mind-body problem has never been resolved (although there are many who like to believe they are nothing more than complex machines). Robots dont have free will, aren't conscious, cannot exhibit true probabilistic behaviour, don't have psychological needs, don't have emotions, and cannot co-evolve with their environments. A robot is quite literally just a machine executing lines of computer code written to mimic humans behaviour and actions. And that isn't the same thing as being human.

Now we've got that out of the way, thanks to modern scientific advancements will are now capable of finally solving the mind-body problem. Take one deceased human, capture a stem cell still alive, either clone them from it or in 50 years time re-grow them from it. If the mind exists at any level outside of the mind then once that human remake becomes conscious we will soon know.

Yes, I 100% believe in the Old Testament predictions. I predict we can bring people back from the dead with 1 cell complete with the same personality and memories. And for those who are too decayed I predict when they can re-animate dead cells the same for them. And I predict the 2nd coming of Christ will occur from a search of cruxification relics for one of his cells. He will get brought back from it using the above technique.

And if you research the mind-body problem you may be surprised at how people (who haven't had NDEs) arrive at the conclusion the mind in part exists outside your head.

Thanks for sharing your interesting thoughts.
By the way, do you know that your avatar is a dead stuffed mongoose? I found it in the Fun with Taxidermy gallery:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/24488391693870733/


I think normally a rabid animal would be foaming at the mouth. Rabies is quite deadly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rakovsky said:

Thanks for sharing your interesting thoughts.
By the way, do you know that your avatar is a dead stuffed mongoose? I found it in the Fun with Taxidermy gallery:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/24488391693870733/


I think normally a rabid animal would be foaming at the mouth. Rabies is quite deadly.

Yeah, thats where I got it from lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.