Poster | Thread |
Compton Member
Joined: 2005/2/24 Posts: 2732
| Re: | | YIMG,
Thanks for the honesty and bless you for giving the matter further consideration!
As far as the feedback you requested on these links... this fellow is practicing some sleight of hand to use Ninevah's repentance, or the Lord extending Hezekiah's life, as examples of failed bible prophesy.:roll:
Have a great weekend!
MC _________________ Mike Compton
|
|
2005/9/10 10:29 | Profile |
| Re: | | Like most teachers/preachers. I don't believe everything they say.
But hold fast to what is in the word. See how they say what they are saying, and see if it aligns itself with everything in the ENTIRE word of God, all in context of course.
I'll probly TRY to comment in the future on that verse in Isaiah about a false prophesy (sounds fishy, but still COULD be right). |
|
2005/9/10 21:59 | |
crsschk Member
Joined: 2003/6/11 Posts: 9192 Santa Clara, CA
| A Different kind of "Prophecy" | | [url=http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/]Gone With the Water[/url]
Take note of the date in the upper right corner. _________________ Mike Balog
|
|
2005/9/11 0:31 | Profile |
| Re: A Different kind of "Prophecy" | | october of last year??? wow. thats crazy, i read about half, i got the main idea of it.
Wow. |
|
2005/9/11 14:22 | |
dohzman Member
Joined: 2004/10/13 Posts: 2132
| no disrespect meant | | That's a man centered prophesy. It really doesn't exalt the Lord Jesus at all. The Holy Spirit's job was to exualt Christ, not Christ's servants.To much man in that prophesy, sorry :-( _________________ D.Miller
|
|
2005/9/11 16:42 | Profile |
Compton Member
Joined: 2005/2/24 Posts: 2732
| Re: no disrespect meant | | I don't think Mike meant that the National Geographic article word was an actual "prophesy" in a biblical or even precognitive sense. The article was a possible scenario described by some informed experts that ended up playing out in history.
The Geographic's prediction was based on an important contributive factor that I was really not aware of; namely the geological or hydrological features of the area had been changed in the past century for the worst. These changes led researchers to conclude that inevitably a hurricane would overwhelm the levee system and flooding would destroy the 80% of New Orleans that was below sea level. From another article dated Nov. 2004."The loss of the coastal marshes that dampened earlier storm surges puts the city at increasing risk to hurricanes. Eighty years of substantial river leveeing has prevented spring flood deposition of new layers of sediment into the marshes, and a similarly lengthy period of marsh excavation activities related to oil and gas exploration and transportation canals for the petrochemical industry have threatened marsh integrity."
That the Red Cross decided to move their own people out of Orleans for any hurricane greater than a category 2 shows that they understood that a levee failure was imminent should the marshland, river and lake areas swell.
Here are some exerpts from this other prediction article (Nov. 2004) with quotes from the Red Cross after the near miss last year by Hurricane Ivan. (Ivan hit Mobile Alabama instead...)
"Residents who did not have personal transportation were unable to evacuate even if they wanted to. Approximately 120,000 residents (51,000 housing units x 2.4 persons/unit). do not have cars... Should this disaster ( a hurricane in New Orleans) become a reality, it would undoubtedly be one of the greatest disasters, if not the greatest, to hit the United States, with estimated costs exceeding 100 billion dollars. According to the American Red Cross, such an event could be even more devastating than a major earthquake in California. Survivors would have to endure conditions never before experienced in a North American disaster."
The full article...
[url=http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/nov04/nov04c.html]Another agency warning from 2004[/url]
MC _________________ Mike Compton
|
|
2005/9/11 18:09 | Profile |
dohzman Member
Joined: 2004/10/13 Posts: 2132
| Re: | | I was refering to the original prophesy posted for us to view at the top. _________________ D.Miller
|
|
2005/9/11 22:00 | Profile |
crsschk Member
Joined: 2003/6/11 Posts: 9192 Santa Clara, CA
| Re: | | Thanks MC,
That is correct, wasn't trying to be clever in that sense, probably could have emphasised "kind".
The article did bring out a whole number of things that I had never heard about either. There is just so much that needs to be taken into consideration, in many areas of this life. _________________ Mike Balog
|
|
2005/9/11 22:25 | Profile |
crsschk Member
Joined: 2003/6/11 Posts: 9192 Santa Clara, CA
| Re: | | And thanks Dozmahn,
Almost missed that, that you were referring to the original posting here. _________________ Mike Balog
|
|
2005/9/11 22:29 | Profile |
PTywama3 Member
Joined: 2005/3/1 Posts: 156 Tacoma, WA
| Re: | | YeshuaIsMyGd,
Thanks for finding that link.
This is an interesting point, whether or not these people's prophecies were not fulfilled.
To the best of Isaiah's knowledge, Hezekiah probably was going to die. When that was confirmed by way of the LORD's commandment, Hezekiah was released to pray. God's pity on him was shown and an immediate subsequent prophecy was fulfilled. This one was more apparently difficult, even. Context, here, would show that the prophecy wasn't false - or even fully future related, but a confirmation of present conditions.
Jonah's prophecy wasn't yet false, either. His main job was to tell the people of Nineveh what was going wrong, and that God was indeed very unhappy with them. When God grew the gourd and destroyed it, it was a bit of an emphasis to Jonah on what God's plan was. Why did Jonah run in the first place? Because he probably had a pretty good inkling that if he persued God's judgement, that this town of perceived enemies would be let live. Notice in the book how Jonah mearly states he is afflicted in the belly of the great fish, but insists that he needs to die when Nineveh is let live? Context on this point shows something slightly other than a direct contradiction to prophecy.
Notice that both of these prophecies are actually events currently in commission. In Jonah (3:4 Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,) there is no set answer that God would be the one *directly* overthrowing the city. In Isaiah, the king is sick to the point of death and Isaiah says he won't recover. For the purpose of overthrowing a city, an incredible quantity of planning and preparation is needed.
Sorry for my somewhat random ordering. I'm attempting to argue that there is a plausable explanation that these particular "false" prophesies were actually more readily descriptions of current affairs and not false at all. The argument is much weaker (unsupportable) in Jonah's case. Isaiah's second prophecy for Hezekiah was more along the lines of stuff that shouldn't be false (or else.)
Also, please note that the release of these prophecies is limited in scope. Jonah went through Nineveh crying out... yet all we know is that one line he said. To convince a crowd, I bet he had to have more specific information than just that.
**Edited* _________________ David Reynolds
|
|
2005/9/12 0:45 | Profile |