Thread: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...prophecy.shtml

Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors. (The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by.) Since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively) and since the prophecies are for the most part independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it)!

[See link above for remainder of this apologetic nonsense -SW]

I've edited this post to comply with Fair Use restrictions; I've deleted the large copy/paste that is indicative of a lazy poster and I challenge the OP to offer his/her own dialog for discussion on this topic
--SkinWalker

How does ross get these probabilities and secondly they are not all independant so how does he justify just multiplying all the numbers together. Finally, the jews disagree with the entire idea that jesus was the messiah - so according to the people to whom the books mentioned belong nothing has been fufilled.

often those predictions are so inexact that they can be said to be alot of things and thereby have a large greater chance of happening.

Hugh Ross' assertions suffer from the following unresolved problems:

The alleged prophecies may/may not have been properly interpreted and are ambiguous;
In no way has Ross demonstrated that all the "prophecies" were established before they occurred;
In no way has Ross established that some of the "prophecies" weren't simply self-fullfilled -created by propagandists that "full-filled" them after they heard about the prophecies themselves. (in other words, complete bullshit just written down as if the "prophecy" was full-filled.

To summarize, Hugh Ross is full of crap and if the OP wants to defend him here, I'll be happy to refute any single point Ross has made. I'm disinterested in going through his entire list of garbage he calls "full-filled prophecies" though.