Would you believe?

[+and-then]

The OT prophet Isaiah wrote in about 700 BCE that Damascus Syria would become a "ruinous heap" overnight and never be inhabited again. Damascus, the capitol of Syria is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities on earth so this prediction is yet future. Assad is slaughtering thousands and the world is growing impatient to stop him. He seems to be a megalomaniac and might well attack Israel if he sees himself losing his position. The scenario all seems to play out quite logically here in the 21st century. But how could some guy in about 700 BCE predict it so clearly?

So if it happens...would you believe in prophecy then?

[Habitat]

The OT prophet Isaiah wrote in about 700 BCE that Damascus Syria would become a "ruinous heap" overnight and never be inhabited again. Damascus, the capitol of Syria is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities on earth so this prediction is yet future. Assad is slaughtering thousands and the world is growing impatient to stop him. He seems to be a megalomaniac and might well attack Israel if he sees himself losing his position. The scenario all seems to play out quite logically here in the 21st century. But how could some guy in about 700 BCE predict it so clearly?

So if it happens...would you believe in prophecy then?

I'd like to see the prediction, if you can find it. And as it has yet to happen, speculating on how it could have been predicted so clearly, seems a touch premature.

[aquatus1]

So if it happens...would you believe in prophecy then?

It's really a question of perspective. Try it this way:

"The city of Damascus will someday be destroyed! (You know, like most of the other cities up to now have been.) When, you ask? Sometime between now and 2700 years from now! Possibly. Give or take a century or so."

Just seems a little open-ended.

[Rlyeh]

The OT prophet Isaiah wrote in about 700 BCE that Damascus Syria would become a "ruinous heap" overnight and never be inhabited again. Damascus, the capitol of Syria is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities on earth so this prediction is yet future. Assad is slaughtering thousands and the world is growing impatient to stop him. He seems to be a megalomaniac and might well attack Israel if he sees himself losing his position. The scenario all seems to play out quite logically here in the 21st century. But how could some guy in about 700 BCE predict it so clearly?

If what you said is correct, he didn't predict it.

[Chaserr]

If a generalized statement is a prophecy, then I'm a prophet as well

[Rlyeh]

Isaiah 17 is describing events during the Syro-Ephraimite War

http://once.cajohnsononline.com/tag/syro-ephraimite-war/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Proto-Isaiah_.28Isaiah_1.E2.80.9339.29

http://www.ccc-nl.org/mn/Syro-Ephraimite_War_in_the_Bible.pdf

[+and-then]

It's really a question of perspective. Try it this way:

"The city of Damascus will someday be destroyed! (You know, like most of the other cities up to now have been.) When, you ask? Sometime between now and 2700 years from now! Possibly. Give or take a century or so."

Just seems a little open-ended.

And an open ended time frame disqualifies what otherwise would be a pretty da*n startling prediction? When this was written it was not humanly possible to destroy a city overnight. And the fact that the city has remained continuously inhabited for longer than nearly any other city on earth would tend to verify rather than disqualify the prediction if/when the event actually happens.

[+and-then]

Isaiah 17 is describing events during the Syro-Ephraimite War

http://once.cajohnsononline.com/tag/syro-ephraimite-war/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Proto-Isaiah_.28Isaiah_1.E2.80.9339.29

http://www.ccc-nl.org/mn/Syro-Ephraimite_War_in_the_Bible.pdf

Perhaps you are aware of the concept of "duality" regarding scripture. If not then use your friend Google and you'll understand why this prior war enhances rather than disproves the prediction. As I pointed out earlier, it was impossible to destroy a city overnight back then. And Damascus has never been destroyed in sch a fashion. It has changed rulership many times but never been actually destroyed. Rage on...

[+and-then]

If a generalized statement is a prophecy, then I'm a prophet as well

The difference is that the statement must actually be borne out with proof that it occurred. Quite a few biblical predictions have done. Phoenician city of Tyre for example. The Jews creating a State on 5/18/48. The OP question is would you believe? I'll count you as a no.

[+and-then]

I'd like to see the prediction, if you can find it. And as it has yet to happen, speculating on how it could have been predicted so clearly, seems a touch premature.

Read Isaiah 17:1-14

[Rlyeh]

Perhaps you are aware of the concept of "duality" regarding scripture. If not then use your friend Google and you'll understand why this prior war enhances rather than disproves the prediction. As I pointed out earlier, it was impossible to destroy a city overnight back then. And Damascus has never been destroyed in sch a fashion. It has changed rulership many times but never been actually destroyed. Rage on...

I'm familiar with the "duality" cop out for failed prophecy. Retrofitting prophecy is one of the oldest tricks.

Would such a cheap trick convince me that it was a prophecy? No.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Stellar]

And an open ended time frame disqualifies what otherwise would be a pretty da*n startling prediction? When this was written it was not humanly possible to destroy a city overnight.

Currently, there is no humanly possible way to destroy a planet over night either. You see plenty of these kinds of stories though in sci-fi. Hell, its right in Star Wars.

Humans always imagine bigger and more destructive ways of destroying things. While it may not have been possible to destroy a city overnight back then (and I disagree, I think it was possible) I'm sure people had no problem imagining them being destroyed over night.

[bacca]

Sooooo, if a prophecy comes true will I believe? Nope! I don't think it is that easy, and I don't think that you could prove that the prophecy is accurate either...Anyone who makes enough shots in the dark is bound to hit something

[GoldenWolf]

Here's one, the Pittsburgh Steelers will win another super bowl. So it's not much of a prophecy if you get my meaning.

[vitruvian12]

And an open ended time frame disqualifies what otherwise would be a pretty da*n startling prediction? When this was written it was not humanly possible to destroy a city overnight. And the fact that the city has remained continuously inhabited for longer than nearly any other city on earth would tend to verify rather than disqualify the prediction if/when the event actually happens.

Im sure Isaiah believed his god could destroy a city overnight so he wasnt really predicting anything he didnt believe could happen in his time.

I agree with most here, a prediction with no timeline is no prediction. What good is it?

[Alienated Being]

Considering no specific date was mentioned in the prophecy, I'd hardly refer to that as being evidence of any form of mysticism or psychic ability.

[aquatus1]

And an open ended time frame disqualifies what otherwise would be a pretty da*n startling prediction?

What was so startling about it? Cities got sacked, looted, and razed to the ground on a semi-regular basis in that era. Heck, when you think about it, it was really pretty much the only way that cities ended. Who ever heard of a city just kind of fading away from lack of interest (well, not counting Detroit).

When this was written it was not humanly possible to destroy a city overnight.

Hmm...do we really need to go over the history of warfare, or can we just agree that humans are pretty damn efficient when it comes to destruction?

And the fact that the city has remained continuously inhabited for longer than nearly any other city on earth would tend to verify rather than disqualify the prediction if/when the event actually happens.

Why? How is continuous habitation till destruction a verification of a prophecy, as opposed to common sense?

It is a little bit like looking for something that you misplaced and referring to "It is always in the last place you look" as a prediction. It isn't a prediction. It's just common sense. Of course the place you found it is the last place you look for it. Who keeps looking for something after they found it?

You have to be a little cautious about supporting certain beliefs. The problem is that they can get away from you, and you may find yourself supporting it not because there is reason to support it, but simply for the sake of supporting it. When you get to the point that you are taking logical reasons for why something does not make sense and attempting to justify some way that not only do they make sense, but that they actually support a belief, you need to consider if maybe you have crossed the line from supporting an argument because it makes sense, to just trying to win an argument.

A prophecy who's timeline consists of "Y'now, whenever..." doesn't get to wait three millennia to claim "I told you so!" Especially if it is talking about the end of a city, which have never been considered all that eternal to begin with.

[+and-then]

What was so startling about it? Cities got sacked, looted, and razed to the ground on a semi-regular basis in that era. Heck, when you think about it, it was really pretty much the only way that cities ended. Who ever heard of a city just kind of fading away from lack of interest (well, not counting Detroit).

Hmm...do we really need to go over the history of warfare, or can we just agree that humans are pretty damn efficient when it comes to destruction?

Why? How is continuous habitation till destruction a verification of a prophecy, as opposed to common sense?

It is a little bit like looking for something that you misplaced and referring to "It is always in the last place you look" as a prediction. It isn't a prediction. It's just common sense. Of course the place you found it is the last place you look for it. Who keeps looking for something after they found it?

You have to be a little cautious about supporting certain beliefs. The problem is that they can get away from you, and you may find yourself supporting it not because there is reason to support it, but simply for the sake of supporting it. When you get to the point that you are taking logical reasons for why something does not make sense and attempting to justify some way that not only do they make sense, but that they actually support a belief, you need to consider if maybe you have crossed the line from supporting an argument because it makes sense, to just trying to win an argument.

A prophecy who's timeline consists of "Y'now, whenever..." doesn't get to wait three millennia to claim "I told you so!" Especially if it is talking about the end of a city, which have never been considered all that eternal to begin with.

I asked a question. Would you believe? It's been answered about as I expected. I just wondered if there was anyone on the site who could believe in something they couldn't see or touch. If there are then they haven't bothered to post yet. As far as winning an argument I'm quickly learning that this site is primarily about just that and nothing else. I didn't mean to make an argument since what I asked was a matter of opinions and not facts. This IS a spirituality section, no? In future I'll be sure not to post anything that causes one to explore the idea of faith....toodles

[aquatus1]

I asked a question. Would you believe?

For future reference, keep in mind that in a discussion forum, most people will generally do more than simply respond with a yes or a no. Some may simply post opinions, some may post arguments, but generally speaking, the general behaviour is going to lean less toward single answers and more towards...well, discussion.

It's been answered about as I expected. I just wondered if there was anyone on the site who could believe in something they couldn't see or touch. If there are then they haven't bothered to post yet.

Oh, there's plenty of those about. No, the problem here wasn't about the empirical existence regarding the argument, but rather about the logic behind it not really bearing up.

As far as winning an argument I'm quickly learning that this site is primarily about just that and nothing else.

I would submit that you are learning precisely the wrong thing.

I didn't mean to make an argument since what I asked was a matter of opinions and not facts. This IS a spirituality section, no?

It's also the Skepticism section.

In future I'll be sure not to post anything that causes one to explore the idea of faith....toodles

Supercilious attitude aside, did you notice there wasn't a whole lot of faith involved in this topic? That pretty much all of the responses referred to the disparity between the argument and the conclusion?

[+and-then]

For future reference, keep in mind that in a discussion forum, most people will generally do more than simply respond with a yes or a no. Some may simply post opinions, some may post arguments, but generally speaking, the general behaviour is going to lean less toward single answers and more towards...well, discussion.

Oh, there's plenty of those about. No, the problem here wasn't about the empirical existence regarding the argument, but rather about the logic behind it not really bearing up.

I would submit that you are learning precisely the wrong thing.

It's also the Skepticism section.

Supercilious attitude aside, did you notice there wasn't a whole lot of faith involved in this topic? That pretty much all of the responses referred to the disparity between the argument and the conclusion?

On the contrary, A1, it was entirely about faith. And the question I wanted answered, was answered. I feel no need to argue points of faith with people who've made up their minds on the subject. I just find it fascinating, the confluence of today's news with a prediction made so long ago. Perhaps that makes me a bit of a dim bulb but even the slow and stupid have their story to tell

[aquatus1]

On the contrary, A1, it was entirely about faith.

How so? When someone points out a logical fallacy or a reasonable failure, such as an open-ended prediction (no time reference) or a prediction of something which is inevitable (destruction of a city), how are those entirely (or even tangentially) related to faith?

[Habitat]

I asked a question. Would you believe? It's been answered about as I expected. I just wondered if there was anyone on the site who could believe in something they couldn't see or touch. If there are then they haven't bothered to post yet. As far as winning an argument I'm quickly learning that this site is primarily about just that and nothing else. I didn't mean to make an argument since what I asked was a matter of opinions and not facts. This IS a spirituality section, no? In future I'll be sure not to post anything that causes one to explore the idea of faith....toodles

Sure there are many sceptics, but also many who believe in the uncanny 'other' world, myself included. But that doesn't preclude disagreement about the subject matter here, which is hardly a good example of successful prophesy.

[+and-then]

Sure there are many sceptics, but also many who believe in the uncanny 'other' world, myself included. But that doesn't preclude disagreement about the subject matter here, which is hardly a good example of successful prophesy.

Hence the OP being phrased as a question. The destruction of Damascus is yet future. IF it occurred (overnight) would you believe in the prophecy foretelling that destruction in the Bible? I'm yet to find anyone who says yes and I wonder at that... maybe I really AM a dim bulb

[Habitat]

Hence the OP being phrased as a question. The destruction of Damascus is yet future. IF it occurred (overnight) would you believe in the prophecy foretelling that destruction in the Bible? I'm yet to find anyone who says yes and I wonder at that... maybe I really AM a dim bulb

Without seeing the exact wording, I wouldn't know, but I sure as hell hope it is not in the offing !

[Bluefinger]

I'm familiar with the "duality" cop out for failed prophecy. Retrofitting prophecy is one of the oldest tricks.

Would such a cheap trick convince me that it was a prophecy? No.

What if Scripture predicted 2,000 years of history?