Of course, there are, but religion does not provide us with one.  Science does.

Guess again. The Bible itself gives a test to all messages claiming to be from God, and you are to judge the merits of the message by that test. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 states:

"But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And you may say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."

This passage shows the yardstick by which all revelation is measured: prophecy. The Bible stands alone as a book stuffed with prophecy. It is the very heart of Scripture. With prophecy, God gives the faithful hope by promising better things in the future. Likewise, the wicked are warned of impending judgment if they don't change their ways. The Bible is unique from all other religious texts because it gives specific, detailed prophecies that were fulfilled just as written. Let's look at a few prophecies to demonstrate their precision.

The coming of the Jewish Messiah is the focus of the Old Testament. There are over 300 separate prophecies about the "Holy One of Israel" found there. They are so specific as to predict the city of Jesus' birth (Micah 5:2), His nature (Isaiah 7:14), His works of healing and miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6), His betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13), His suffering (Isaiah 53), His style of execution (Psalm 22) and His resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 13:35) amongst other things. These prophecies were written anywhere from 400 to 1000 years before Jesus' birth, yet they describe His life with the accuracy of an eyewitness. The odds against a living person meeting even a few of these predictions is so astronomical it is considered an impossibility.

Another prophecy given in the book of Isaiah was to the man who would conquer the city of Babylon. In Isaiah 44:27 and following the Lord says,

"It is I who says to the depths of the sea, 'Be dried up!' and I who will make your rivers dry. It is I who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd!' and he will perform all My desire. Thus says the LORD to Cyrus, His anointed, whom I have taken by the right hand, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him so that the gates will not be shut. I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor though you have not known Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God"
This prophecy was written around 690 BC. History tells us that in 538 BC a Persian general named Cyrus had devised a plan to overtake the impregnable city of Babylon. He dammed up the river running through the city and sent soldiers under the gates. When he got to the front gates, however, he found them unlocked and took the entire city without a problem. In one night the most secure empire in the world of that time was overthrown. It was described by God to Cyrus, and addressed to him by name, 150 years before he had even been born!

One other prophecy we can examine is one that has been fulfilled in modern times. Israel is an amazement sociologically. Never in the history of mankind has a nation been overthrown and obliterated for 1900 years and then come back into existence. Yet, this is exactly what has happened to the nation of Israel, and they reside in the same geographic area as they previously possessed. We turn again to Isaiah, chapter 11 which states,

"In that day the Lord will reach out His hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of His people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; He will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (vss.11-12)
Notice, that the passage in Isaiah was written before the Babylonian captivity, so it refers to a second regathering. That implies that there would be two dispersals. Yet, after the second exile, it also promises that the nation of Israel would be put back together from "the four corners of the earth", which is an unequalled feat. Just think of how many Hittites or Philistines we find today. People who are exiled for an extended period of time generally assimilate into the culture in which they're placed. In no other instance has this ever happened.

In Jeremiah 16:15, God promises that the Israelites will dwell "in the land I gave their forefathers", and Ezekiel chapter 36 describes the incredible transformation of the land itself into a major agricultural center. We still have documentary footage of how the land of Palestine was transformed from a mosquito-infested swampland to the breadbasket of Europe. It is now the sixth largest producer of fruits in the world!

When all the evidence is studied, it leads to an inescapable conclusion: the Bible must come from a source other than that of natural man. It is a reliable document that faithfully records history and in that record it documents God intervening in the lives of men.

Right.  Prophecies.  History is full of false prophets, and the prophecies in the Bible fare no better than others under objective scrutiny.  Since we do not have reliable information on when the prophecies were made, some could easily have been inserted after the fact to make it look like scripture contained accurate prophecies.  But it seems that others have been interpreted very liberally and arbitrarily by modern Jews, Christians, and Muslims. 

I personally don't concede that the prophecies were inserted after the fact. It's an old claim with little real weight, that can only be thought of as an explanation because the alternative would validate the Bible. Much like how miracles are presupposed to not be able to happen, or naturalistic abiogenisis MUST have occured. But you know what? I'm not going to argue against it. I'll concede for the sake of arguement that Isaiah didn't write Isaiah, or Daniel didn't write the book of Daniel. You find that surprising? You think I'm conceding you're right?

The fact is it's just the opposite. I'm saying I don't need to prove they were written by their respected authors. Even if the higher critics are right, even if Moses never wrote the Pentateuch, even if Isaiah never wrote Isaiah, even if Daniel never wrote the book of Daniel, the fact is that according to the Septuagint, which was the Greek translation of the Old Testament two centuries before Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which preceded Jesus by a century and a half, all of these writings predate the life of Christ. They all have these prophecies in them regardless of who wrote them. And they all show the grand design of God coming to its final culmination in the person of Jesus Christ.

And you still have the prophecy of Isaiah chapter 11 where Israel is brought back into existence after being obliterated for 1900 years. Also Jeremiah 16:15 God promises that the Israelites will dwell "in the land I gave their forefathers", and Ezekiel chapter 36 describes the incredible transformation of the land itself into a major agricultural center. We still have documentary footage of how the land of Palestine was transformed from a mosquito-infested swampland to the breadbasket of Europe.

So you can claim they weren't writen when they say they were written till your blue in the face. The fact remains they were still established years before the fact.

When all of the evidence is studied and debated, it doesn't turn out the way you think it does.  The Bible is no more reliable in its prophecies than other religious literature, and it is no more enthusiastically defended than other literatures.

Obviously there is opposition, and there always will be no matter how substantial or compelling the evidence is. The alternative of the Bible being entirely correct is just too terrible for some people. But hey, the fact is you're still wrong. You've advocated this entire thread religion never gave a yardstick, but there it is. You may not think it's a good one or satisfying, but that doesn't matter. You've proven that you're contradicting on the historical method, and to the point of dogmatic on the scientific method.

I personally don't concede that the prophecies were inserted after the fact...

Nor did I say that they were.  I gave you a reference to Farrell Till, who catalogues a wide range of techniques by which people have come to convince themselves that the prophecies were real (when, in fact, they were imaginary prophecies), that they predicted the events they are supposed to have predicted (when, in fact, they predicted events that were supposed to have happened earlier), that they were vague enough to fit a wide range of events, and so forth.  When you actually examine those prophecies critically, they constitute very flimsy evidence for your claim. 

...It's an old claim with little real weight, that can only be thought of as an explanation because the alternative would validate the Bible....

The claim that biblical prophecies were real and accurate is also an old claim that can only be thought of as evidence because the alternative would invalidate the Bible.  Read Till's exegesis of those claims, if you want a good example of how easy it is to challenge those claims.

And you still have the prophecy of Isaiah chapter 11 where Israel is brought back into existence after being obliterated for 1900 years. Also Jeremiah 16:15 God promises that the Israelites will dwell "in the land I gave their forefathers", and Ezekiel chapter 36 describes the incredible transformation of the land itself into a major agricultural center. We still have documentary footage of how the land of Palestine was transformed from a mosquito-infested swampland to the breadbasket of Europe.

Jeremiah has a bad reputation, but his prophecy was made during the Babylonian captivity.  It predicted that the captivity would end, and it did with Cyrus I's liberation of the Jews.  It was not a prophecy that needed to be fulfilled in the 20th century.  Like so many prophecies in the Bible, it referred to what was considered the near future from our current perspective.  Nor was Ezekial's prophecy about the rise of the Kibbutzes in modern times.  Otherwise, why refer to walled cities?  Are there any walled cities in modern Israel?  Israel had been devastated by war, and he was just predicting that his god would restore the land that had once been fertile.

So you can claim they weren't writen when they say they were written till your blue in the face. The fact remains they were still established years before the fact.

I never claimed that all prophecies were written after the fact.  I explicitly gave you a reference to Till for the many bad techniques that people have used to claim fulfilled prophecies.  The particular "prophecies" you cite are a real stretch when applied to the modern era and can be easily seen as applying to the near future of the time they were made.  People have applied biblical prophecies to their own times for centuries, yet here we are with deja vu all over again.  Unsurprisingly, many prophecies applied to modern times are sprinkled with archaisms such as the "walled cities" reference, which belie the claims of modern relevance.

Obviously there is opposition, and there always will be no matter how substantial or compelling the evidence is. The alternative of the Bible being entirely correct is just too terrible for some people...

Oh, come now.  It is equally true that there will be blind support for the truth of biblical prophecies no matter who compelling the counterevidence is.  The alternative of the Bible being incorrect is just too terrible for some people.

...But hey, the fact is you're still wrong. You've advocated this entire thread religion never gave a yardstick, but there it is. You may not think it's a good one or satisfying, but that doesn't matter. You've proven that you're contradicting on the historical method, and to the point of dogmatic on the scientific method.

What I think about Biblical prophecies doesn't matter to you, but you have so much riding on their being true.  The "historical method" does not corroborate your claims of biblical accuracy.  For every stretch of the imagination that allows you to claim a prophecy true, there are plenty of contradictory and anachronistic claims to cast doubt on your analysis.  The Bible is famous for its inconsistencies and self-contradictions.

Nor did I say that they were.  I gave you a reference to Farrell Till, who catalogues a wide range of techniques by which people have come to convince themselves that the prophecies were real (when, in fact, they were imaginary prophecies), that they predicted the events they are supposed to have predicted (when, in fact, they predicted events that were supposed to have happened earlier), that they were vague enough to fit a wide range of events, and so forth.  When you actually examine those prophecies critically, they constitute very flimsy evidence for your claim. 

So a real prophecy would be a prediction of future events while an imagenary prophecy would be a what? A prediction of future events? Little tip for you: there is no such thing as a 'real' or 'imagenary' prophecy. There is only a prophecy that is true or false, because a prediction about the future is still a prediction about the future. And in reading Biblical prophecies on sees they are not very vague at all. The prophecies for Messiah are not only numerious, but are specific to the point of being an eye witness account. They give place of birth (Micah 5:2), His nature (Isaiah 7:14), His works of healing and miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6), His betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13), His suffering (Isaiah 53), His style of execution (Psalm 22) and His resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 13:35) amongst other things. I guess when one isn't presupposed to dismiss them one sees something other than flimsy evidence.

The claim that biblical prophecies were real and accurate is also an old claim that can only be thought of as evidence because the alternative would invalidate the Bible.  Read Till's exegesis of those claims, if you want a good example of how easy it is to challenge those claims.

*snort* It's always easy to challenge any claim. The fact that immediately after the resurrection the Jews objected that the body was simply stolen is evidence of that (though they had to admit the tomb was empty, otherwise they could have simply produced a body). That's always the problem with thinking of alternative explanations. The fact that you can think of one or a dozen alternatives does not refute the original one.

Jeremiah has a bad reputation, but his prophecy was made during the Babylonian captivity.  It predicted that the captivity would end, and it did with Cyrus I's liberation of the Jews.  It was not a prophecy that needed to be fulfilled in the 20th century. 

I already mentioned Cyrus's liberation:

This prophecy was written around 690 BC. History tells us that in 538 BC a Persian general named Cyrus had devised a plan to overtake the impregnable city of Babylon. He dammed up the river running through the city and sent soldiers under the gates. When he got to the front gates, however, he found them unlocked and took the entire city without a problem. In one night the most secure empire in the world of that time was overthrown. It was described by God to Cyrus, and addressed to him by name, 150 years before he had even been born!

So what? Your saying because a prophecy that is 150 years old before it is fullfilled, that's not as substantiating as a prophecy that's thousand of years old before it's fullfilled? Give me a break. And you still have the problem of Jeremiah 16:15:

"but they will say, 'As surely as the Lord lives, who brought the Israelites up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.' For I will restore them to the land I gave their forefathers."

You know, that doesn't sound very vague at all. It specificlly says that the Israelites are to be scattered out of their land, then returned. Ths is also corroberated in Isaiah 11. Never in history has this ever happend. When people spread intl other lands they usually become assimilated into the culture as was the case for Hittites or Philistines. A restoration has never happened, and yet it did for Israel 1900 years after being obliterated.

Like so many prophecies in the Bible, it referred to what was considered the near future from our current perspective.  Nor was Ezekial's prophecy about the rise of the Kibbutzes in modern times.  Otherwise, why refer to walled cities?  Are there any walled cities in modern Israel?  Israel had been devastated by war, and he was just predicting that his god would restore the land that had once been fertile.

Actually if you payed attention to those little specific tidbits, you would have noticed Isaiah refers to a second regathering. Meaning two dispersals. And when you mean any walled cities do you mean the Jerusalem Walls of the old city? You know: the Gate of Zion and the Golden Gate? Yeah nice try Cop. Funny how Ezekial, Isaiah, and Jeremiah all prophecy Israel being restored by God, and here we have: Israel being restored.

I never claimed that all prophecies were written after the fact.  I explicitly gave you a reference to Till for the many bad techniques that people have used to claim fulfilled prophecies.  The particular "prophecies" you cite are a real stretch when applied to the modern era and can be easily seen as applying to the near future of the time they were made.  People have applied biblical prophecies to their own times for centuries, yet here we are with deja vu all over again.  Unsurprisingly, many prophecies applied to modern times are sprinkled with archaisms such as the "walled cities" reference, which belie the claims of modern relevance.

Like I said above, they made a prophecy about the future that was fullfilled in the future, and your quibbling over whether it was 150 years old then fulfilled or thousands of years old then fulfilled? You're grasping at straws Cop.

Oh, come now.  It is equally true that there will be blind support for the truth of biblical prophecies no matter who compelling the counterevidence is.  The alternative of the Bible being incorrect is just too terrible for some people.

Seeing how most of the counterevidence is mostly manufactured out of thin air (much like offers to explain away the ressurection) I do not find them compelling in the slightest. 

What I think about Biblical prophecies doesn't matter to you, but you have so much riding on their being true.  The "historical method" does not corroborate your claims of biblical accuracy.  For every stretch of the imagination that allows you to claim a prophecy true, there are plenty of contradictory and anachronistic claims to cast doubt on your analysis.  The Bible is famous for its inconsistencies and self-contradictions.

Seems they were true. Seems the only way one can deny them being true is if one claims they were written after the fact (no I'm not saying you're making that claim), or in your attempt say they were true, but try to refute how long it took to become true. Which in all honesty isn't really a refutation. And as I'm sure sntjohnny and many other historians would disagree about the Bible not being historically accurate. What with the Dead Sea Scrolls, the 24,000 manuscripts (43 times more than the Iliad), the Septuagint, Flavius Josephus, the Jewish Talmud, and the numerous archaeological evidence to name a few. So actually the Bible is famous for it's remarkable consistency and accuracy. It's just also famous for the numerous claims of inconsistencies and self-contradictions in order to try to refute it.

I gave you a link to Till's essay, which elaborates on all the chicanery surrounding biblical prophecies.  An imaginary prophecy was one for which there was no original scriptural basis, but that was reported as having been made when the claim of prophecy fulfillment occurred.  An example would be Matthew's claim that Christ's resurrection of the 3rd day fulfilled a prophecy.  There is nothing in scripture to validate that prophecy.  A real prophecy was one made before the fulfillment episode, whether true or not.  Matthew, it seems, played fast and loose with OT prophecies.

His example of no original scriptual basis being an example of Christ's resurrection as an imagenary prophecy seems to pointedly ignore Psalm 16:10 that prohecied the resurrection. Plus the pointed fact that Jesus himself prophecied many things about his own death and resurrection. He prophecied Judas's betrayal, Peter's denial, amoung other things. If Christ was the Messiah then his prophecies about himself are justified by his own authority. The fact that these were all made before there fulfillment suggests the opposite.

But a prediction that comes true is not always prophecy.  Sometimes the prophet predicts an event likely to happen, sometimes he is lucky, and sometimes his prediction is so vague as to apply to a wide range of possible events.  It is a true prophecy only if it derives from some kind of genuine power to know the future.

It is always a prophecy. That it may not always be true reveals if the one making it is really a legitamite prophet. That's why the test for a false prophet is to see whether all prophecies come true. If even one is missed then he is a fraud. Best 3 out of 4 doesn't cut it. "Doveryay, no proveryay" remember?  "Trust, but verify." And again, the fact that Biblical prophecies incorporates specific details puts it a cut above the rest.

I grant you that the prophecies are numerous, but I wonder if you've ever actually researched any of them.  The examples of prophecies that you give below are anything but specific.  It seems to me that an omnipotent god could do a better job of making sure his prophets didn't garble the messages so badly.

I've given you multiple examples proving the opposite. The fact that they are numerious makes them more like a giant checklist for which getting many right difficult and all an impossibility unless one was the real thing.

Nope.  Read your Bible.  "Bethlehem Ephratah" referred a person of the clan of Bethlehem, who happened to be the son of the polygamist Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah.  It did not refer to a place.  If you read the rest of Micah 5, you discover that the prophecy was not for the Messiah, but a military leader who would defeat the Assyrians.  Matthew is somewhat notorious for this kind of sloppy reference to the OT.

Actually it did. In fact when Herod asked his scholars where "the king of the Jews" was to be born they referred to this passage (Mathew 2:6), and said the small town of Bethlehem.

Virgin births caused by gods were all the rage in antiquity.  It was almost a requirement for deified humans, and Caesar Augustus himself was claimed to be the product of such a birth.  The problem here, of course, was that Joseph didn't impregnate Mary, but Jesus was supposed to have been descended from David's lineage through Joseph, according to scripture.  The problem is that the King James version mistranslates "almah" 'young woman' as 'virgin', which should have been 'bethulah' if "virgin" were the real intended meaning.

That virgin births were mirrored in other cultures means little. Josh McDowell outlines four basic fallacies that people often commit when linking Christian accounts with mystery religions in his A Ready Defense. Yours is what I believe would be an example of oversimplification. And the problem with your analysis of Christ's lineage is you interpret it as one of genetics, when it is in fact one of legality. Joseph and Mary were husband and wife. So that Jesus was born simply through Mary makes Jesus Joseph's son by legality. The same way an adoptive parent is the parent of the child they adopted.

Further both Matthew and Luke have been noted to have conflicting geneologies about Joseph. Matthew lists Jacob as Joseph's grandfather while Luke lists it as MATTHAT. However the conflict means little when one considers the fact that Joseph had two parents. Where Matthew's is the genology of his maternal side, and Luke is the paternal side.

Where do you see acts of the Jesus mentioned there?  I thought you said that the prophecies were "specific to the point of being eyewitness accounts".  Is this the kind of specificity you had in mind?

What? The "eyes of the blind being opened" and "ears of the deaf unstopped" when "...your God will come," (Isaiah 35:4) doesn't specificlly mention his healing the blind, deaf, and various others? Seems quite literal and specific.

I see no reference to Jesus here, although it appears to be another dodgy reference by Matthew to the OT.  Apparently, Matthew confused Zechariah for Jeremiah.

I find it amusing how earlier you advocated "imaginary prophecies was one for which there was no original scriptural basis", yet throughout your rebuttal decry it as Matthew referring to scripture, but simply being dodgy.

Again, I see no reference here at all to Jesus.  If it were an honest prophecy that God were conveying to Isaiah by revelation, why not be a little more specific?  For example, why not mention crucifixion or other details of Christ's future torment?

What "He was pierced for our transgressions" (53:5), naming a particular type of method and the reason for it, isn't specific enough? Not to mention Jesus himself refered to one of the "suffering servant" passages in Isaiah (Luke 4:18-19, sorry no claim of Matthew in this one for you) and said it was fulfilled through Him (Luke 4:20-21). Isaiah 49-55 has vivid scenes of Christ's suffering that were ultimately fulfilled. Not to mention being pierced was again corroberated by Zechariah 12:10. As well as the fact that Messiah's bones would not be broken (Exodus 12:46) was very unusual for crucifixtions, since that was the normal method of speeding up the condemn's death.

I saw no reference to Romans and crucifixion.  22:1 has some language used by Jesus on the cross (or put in the mouth of Jesus by others), but the remainder of the Psalm seems entirely irrelevant to the Jesus legend.

If you read carefully you'll find a lot of similarities between this chapter and Christ's execution. Including that he would be mocked and insulted. As well as those saying being rescued by the Lord. THough it's not surprising that you see no reference since you don't want to in the first place. Psalm 22:16-18 being particularly the case with being pierced by hands and feet, the bones not being broken (again), and the dividence of garments being particulars in Luke 23 and John 19. Hmm, I wonder if that has anything to do with Psalm 22 describing Christ's style of execution? Seems so.

There is no reference to a resurrection in Psalm 16:10 and Acts 13:35 references a Psalm.  So what?  I honestly don't see how you can turn that passage into a prophecy that Jesus would be resurrected.  At best, the Psalm describes an afterlife in the presence of God.

Psalm 16:10: "because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay." What you think no one else will read this? Acts 2:25-28 specificly quotes this verse as prophesying Jesus's resurrection. Because through the ressurection of Christ we could come to an afterlife in the presence of God.

On the contrary, when one is predisposed to accept them, one sees flimsy evidence as a solid foundation for belief.  You so-called "evidence" couldn't give a clearer picture of tortured interpretation of OT text.

The fact that most of your rebuttals consist little more than saying "Nuh-uh" doesn't give your arguement much weight. Especially given that your earlier assertion of Matthew having no scriptual evidence is disproven by Psalm 16:10, Psalm 17:15, Psalm 73: 24, and a collaboration of Jonah 1:17 and Matthew 12:40.

Your position is also made even more inconsistent by the fact that you admit to there being numerous prophecies about Messaih, yet when individually come up your consistent retort is that they are not prophecies for Messiah. According to Edersheim's Appendix 9, over 350 texts were interpreted as Messianic prophecies in the writings of the rabbis, yet when going over any individualisticly the most common retort you give is "these aren't prophecies" in which case there will eventually be none. But go ahead and try to assert how people removed from you by thousands of years and by vast cultural differences misunderstood their own societies' texts, whereas you understand them perfectly.

In fact, the mention of Cyrus's name is generally thought to have been redacted into the text after the events took place.  Most scholars now concede that Isaiah 40-66 was inserted by a Second or "Deutero-Isaiah".  See the Till reference I gave you for details on this.

Not surprising given that's the only "naturalistic" interpretation one can make. Not that a shred of proof exists for this -- honest skeptics (like Tim Callahan, who may be the only one out there) admit that this is an assertion beyond proof, and that both sides maintain their views by faith.

Go back and reread Isaiah 11.  You are letting your prejudices blind you to the reality of what that text was about.  There were plenty of references to contemporary conditions in that "second regathering", e.g. the tensions between the Ephraim and Judah.  You really have to squint at it funny to get such a tortured interpretation out of it. 

Pot calling the kettle black. I would suggest you look into some of James Patrick Holding's responses to Till.

[And I gave you the reference to Till.  If I am grasping at straws, so are the majority of modern scholars on the subject of Isaiah.

Bingo. Much like Dawkin's and Dennet grasping at straws with science.

Oh course you wouldn't.  You won't take an serious look at what scholars have written on the subject, so it is easy to pooh-pooh the evidence that you won't look at.

Pot. Kettle. Black. The fact that you have to decry most of this arguement as "I don't see anything." seems more proof of your unwillingness to see what's right in front of you than mine.

Sntjohnny is no historian, and no serious historian contends that the Bible is fully accurate historically.  Some of its claims have been corroborated, some not, and some disproven.  Nobody questions that it contains some historical accuracy, but the inaccuracies are enough to make any sensible scholar require corroboration before taking it too seriously.

Neither are you an historian Cop so it's useless to play that card. And over this issue you've been quite inconsistent in that historian's that contend for the Biblical accuracy you simply dismiss as Christians, then go into how the historical method is unreliable, then try to use the historical method to disprove the Bible and sight "no serious historian contends that the Bible is fully accurate historically." You should try making up your mind.