What to do when you question a book of scripture?

[ozzy]

Thanks for that input. Would you say that those "who attempt to break up the church" do that because they do not like the individuals? That's kinda where I was going, only because the term "anti-mormons" or "anti-christians" sounds like they are anti the person.

Hmmm, I would say it depends on how they became anti-mormon. If they are anti-mormon because they feel that we are deceived and wish to try to save our souls, then no it isn't a distaste in an individual that drives them. If they are anti-mormon because they were offended at church and have decided that to try to break apart the entire organization as a result of one persons actions, then yes it is entirely based on a distaste of individuals. Of the 2, I prefer they be anti because of a concern for our souls as I think that being anti-organizational purely because you don't like one person is rather short sighted.

I agree with previous posts. It is entirely possible, and I daresay the more prevalent case, that anti-mormons can love, and likely do love, us as people. They are simply as concerned for our souls as we are for theirs.

[ehkape]

This is my testimony, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah who atoned for our sins, the Son of the living God

Amen!

If someone loses their testimony of the Church because of something Brigham Young said or Joseph Smith did then you are in the Church for the wrong reasons in the first place

Let me think. Why am I a member of this church?

1st because I believe in Christ as my Saviour

2nd because I believe in God as my Heavenly Father and want to return to his presence

3rd because I believe God has called prophets to teach his will

etc.

What if I find out that I can't rely on these prophets 100%? Somebody posted he believes in 90+% of what they say. Thats odd to me. A prophet either speaks the will of God or he doesn't. What am I supposed to believe when he starts mingling the word of god with ideas of man? Can I start to pick what I like? Something like "...oh, the ten commandments are great, but the part about not commiting adultery must have been Moses own idea...":rolleyes: That would still be 90% correct.

Nobody would ever come up with a thought like that.

So to me it's possible to lose a testimony in a church if you find out that things were done under the mantle of a prophet that shouldn't be done. Or that prophets taught stuff that other prophets denounced as false doctrine. So the trust or faith in a church as an organisation can fall, the faith in Christ still remains firm.

So for what reason do I have to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints? Because I not only believe in Christ and Heavenly Fathers plan, but also in the prophets.

[rameumptom]

Just curious, I've always wondered this:

When the LDS say the term "anti-mormons", are they referring to people who 1) don't like mormonism and the doctrine,

or 2) don't like mormon people and the members?

I assume many people could have different answers here, but what would you say the majority means when they say this. Thx-

It would be easier if this term were in the dictionary, but it's not. I guess it would be clearer if they said anti-mormons and anti-mormonism.

Not everyone who dislikes Mormons or Mormonism are anti-Mormons. Anti-Mormons are people who seek to destroy Mormonism, using whatever tactics are available (even dishonesty). Some, like Ed Decker, have used one-off statements by Brigham Young to state Mormons believe certain things (which we don't). Yet, he ignores the vast majority of BY's teachings, which most Christians would approve of. Decker pretends our prophets are infallible, and then uses it as a strawman to make us look evil. I've actually had Decker followers tell me that I don't know what my Church believes!

Now, there are many honest traditional Christians that I've enjoyed discussions with, even though we end up disagreeing on some points. They listen and try to understand things from modern LDS perspectives. These are not anti-Mormons, regardless of whether they think I am saved or not.

[FunkyTown]

I guess what I'm really trying to ask is this.

Do you think that someone could give you "anti-mormon" literature and still love you?

Absolutely.

I'll give an example:

If Westboro Baptist people handed me literature, I'd toss it out the window. They think almost everyone is going to Hell, so they're anti-everything.

If Jack Chick handed me a Chick tract, I would thank him. I love Chick Tracts. Sure, he thinks that Catholics, LDS members, people who roleplay, people who listen to rock music, shriners and 99% of all people outside of Baptist, USA are going to Hell... But I've never gotten the feeling Jack Chick hates me.

Jack Chick is a legend who has been writing his comics for decades.

[rameumptom]

I guess what I'm really trying to ask is this.

Do you think that someone could give you "anti-mormon" literature and still love you?

It depends upon the literature. Sadly, most of the stuff out there is full of twisted innuendos or strawmen. A couple years ago, a video was sent out to hundreds of thousands of homes entitled, Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ. In it, one man who claimed to be an archaeologist/anthropologist (he isn't) stated that Daniel Peterson (a BYU professor, one of the premier Arab experts in the world) was a "liar". They used a false comparison between Jesus and Joseph, trying to show that you couldn't believe in both, just one. And they attempted to show the flaws in his life, without any balance to show the good he accomplished (on the other side of it are the faith promoting histories by some LDS, who show Joseph Smith doing no wrong).

These are hack jobs, seeking not to discuss things in a balanced and honest way, but to deceive people into thinking/believing their way.

It ends up being like the Global Warming arguments. The one side only wants their issues heard, and so Al Gore and others refuse to honestly discuss the issues with doubters. You end up hearing only one side of the story, often with twisted evidence. And unless someone hears that the University of East Anglia professors were seeking to hide data, or that the "proof" that Himalayan glaciers were all going to be gone by 2030 is really junk science, then we end up with people believing what they are told. But that doesn't make what they believe is correct. An honest dialogue is necessary.

[rameumptom]

What if I find out that I can't rely on these prophets 100%? Somebody posted he believes in 90+% of what they say. Thats odd to me. A prophet either speaks the will of God or he doesn't. What am I supposed to believe when he starts mingling the word of god with ideas of man? Can I start to pick what I like? Something like "...oh, the ten commandments are great, but the part about not commiting adultery must have been Moses own idea...":rolleyes: That would still be 90% correct.

Rameumptom: It was me. Why? Because they are over 90% correct. But there are errors that come into play. Pres Kimball stated that the Adam-God theory was wrong. Suddenly, Brigham Young is not 100% correct. But most of what he taught is. Why should I suddenly drop out of the Church, because some GAs taught that blacks would not receive the priesthood in mortality (even Elder Bruce R. McConkie said it). Should I quit the Church, as I've seen others do, simply because some GAs were wrong?

We have to separate doctrine from teaching. We also have to accept the idea that prophets are NOT infallible. I actually am glad they are not. However, they ARE called of God. It is that point that makes me continue to follow them, even when we may not always see eye to eye.

Nobody would ever come up with a thought like that.

Rameumptom: You are wrong. I did. And many LDS scholars agree with me. Try reading Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, sometime. You'll find Joseph made many mistakes, but it did not stop him from being a prophet called of God.

So to me it's possible to lose a testimony in a church if you find out that things were done under the mantle of a prophet that shouldn't be done. Or that prophets taught stuff that other prophets denounced as false doctrine. So the trust or faith in a church as an organisation can fall, the faith in Christ still remains firm.

Rameumptom: Only if you wrongly believe that the Church and its leaders are infallible. I once was with a stake president, when a member came up and turned in his temple recommend, because he felt the President selected the wrong person for building maintenance position. The president sighed and told him he would speak to him soon about it. What the man did not understand is that the president only submitted names to Facility Maintenance, and did not select the workers. In this instance, the president was not wrong, though as his stake clerk for many years, I did see him make decisions that were not according to the CHI nor were correct. One time, he made a poor decision regarding getting me my temple recommend interview (he had canceled on me several times, and I was coming up short on a temple marriage of family). He chewed me out for being insistent with him. I took the chewing out from him, even though I knew he was wrong. Why? Because he was my stake president, called of God. I wasn't going to turn in my temple recommend over such an event.

So for what reason do I have to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints? Because I not only believe in Christ and Heavenly Fathers plan, but also in the prophets.

Rameumptom: And I also believe in the prophets. But I believe in fallible men, who were called of God to the position. When they make mistakes, they are mistakes. But they are still called of God, regardless of errors. In this, my testimony cannot sink nor fail. Why? Because only God is perfect, and when He comes again, then all perfect things will be revealed to us. The prophets work on the same issues we do, using the same Holy Spirit we do. I do not believe the prophet has daily face to face discussions with Christ. It could happen, but there is no reason for it to occur. Pres Kimball and Pres Hinckley both have stated that most of their inspiration comes through the whisperings of the Holy Ghost. Same as for you and me. They still make mistakes.

A more recent example? In the 1980s, President Hinckley was involved in obtaining early Church documents from Mark Hoffman. Pres Hinckley was going to meet Hoffman in a parking garage to discuss one document that they were having problems obtaining. Hoffman was planning on murdering Pres Hinckley with a bomb, as he recently had done to two other people. The bomb went off prematurely, saving Pres Hinckley. Some asked, if Pres Hinckley were truly a prophet, why didn't he know that these documents were frauds? And why didn't Pres Hinckley not know that his life was in danger? It is because even prophets do not know everything. That he was not warned by the Spirit or the Lord in advance does not mean he was not called of God to hold keys of presidency. Were mistakes made by Church leaders in purchasing fraudulent documents? I would say yes. But that is neither here, nor there, in regards to the salvation of mankind or priesthood keys.

Edited February 22, 2010 by rameumptom

[ehkape]

I get your message. Prophets are human but they are called by god. Fair enough.

But how do I know what to believe and what not to if it turnes out that not everything is correct? It doesn't help to believe in their divine calling if there is still incorrect doctrine coming out of their mouth. Even if most of it is correct. By their fruits ye shall know them. If 90% is good or correct and the rest incorrect, how does it help? Didn't Jesus give a parable of a good tree, that cannot bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree that cannot bring forth good fruit? Didn't Jesus warn us about false prophets or wolves in sheepclothing? Not saying any of our prophets are such, but don't we HAVE to be a bit more suspicious or investigative some times with what is being said? Can I put so much blind trust in somebody else? Just questions that are on my mind when I read your position.

[marts1]

I've heard the odd thing said in general conference that in my mind dosen't quite agree with what I've been previously taught. I might have to read all day before I come across something questionable. I find not to be a problem.

[mnn727]

What if I find out that I can't rely on these prophets 100%? ..... A prophet either speaks the will of God or he doesn't.

Because I not only believe in Christ and Heavenly Fathers plan, but also in the prophets.

I sure hate to tell you this, cause I think I'm going to rock your world, but even the Prophets themselves tell you the same thing I did.

Brigham Young said that the greatest fear he had was that members of the Church would take what he said as the mind and will of God without first praying and obtaining a witness of the same for themselves.

Deseret News, 9 Dec. 1857, 317; 12 Feb. 1862, 257.

The Prophet Joseph Smith said “that a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such.” (The History of the Church, 5:265)

Here is a good article from Elder Bruce R McConkie on the subject from the Ensign

Are General Authorities human?”

Bruce R. McConkie, “Q&A: Questions and Answers,” New Era, Jan. 1973, 33

Answer/Elder Bruce R. McConkie

I suppose this is a question that is in many minds, and has been from the very beginning. It arises, in the very nature of things, because of the high regard in which we hold the offices that these brethren are called to fill.

I recall an incident from early Church history, from the days of persecutions and difficulties. Heber C. Kimball, then a member of the Council of the Twelve, found himself in circumstances where he sought hospitality from a member of the Church, a widow woman. She offered him what she had—bread and milk—and provided a room with a bed for him. He went to retire. She thought: “Here’s my opportunity. I would like to find out (and this is, in effect, the same old question: Are General Authorities human), I would like to find out what an apostle says when he prays to the Lord.” So after the door was closed, she crept quietly up to it to listen. She heard Brother Kimball sit down on the bed. She heard each of his shoes fall to the floor. She heard him lean back on the bed and then utter these words: “Oh Lord, bless Heber; he is so tired.”

There are some things of a serious and proper nature that might be said about this subject, and perhaps we can draw some conclusions and make some points that will have beneficial application to all of us. This is a subject about which people often have incorrect concepts. Many people had this same question in their minds during the time of Joseph Smith. He said: “I was this morning introduced to a man from the east. After hearing my name, he remarked that I was nothing but a man, indicating by this expression, that he had supposed that a person to whom the Lord should see fit to reveal His will, must be something more than a man. He seemed to have forgotten the saying that fell from the lips of St. James, that Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, yet he had such power with God, that He, in answer to his prayers, shut the heavens that they gave no rain for the space of three years and six months; and again, in answer to his prayer, the heavens gave forth rain, and the earth gave forth fruit. Indeed, such is the darkness and ignorance of this generation, that they look upon it as incredible that a man should have intercourse with his Maker.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 89.)

This is the view of the world generally: “If there is such a thing as a prophet, he is so ennobled and exalted that he is different from the general run of men.” They may think of John the Baptist out in the desert eating locust and wild honey, or of someone like Enoch of whom the people said, “A wild man has come among us.”

There is somewhat this same concept in the Church today. We think of the dignity and glory and greatness of the office. Then some of that feeling spills over and is applied to the individual who holds the office.

There might be a way to put this subject in better perspective. Instead of asking, “Are the General Authorities human?” let me ask you, “Is your bishop human?” What would the answer be? Or if I say to you, “Are the missionaries human?” would the answer be yes or no? It depends entirely on what we are talking about. Certainly they are human in the sense that every foible and frailty and difficulty common to the human race attends all of them and all of us. But on the other hand, the General Authorities and the bishops and the missionaries—and this extends out and includes every member of the Church—ought not to be human in the sense of worldliness or carnal pursuits. None of us should be “human” if by that is meant living as carnal men live.

When we come into the Church, we say that we forsake the world. We are supposed to overcome the world. The Book of Mormon language is that we put off the natural man and become a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord. (Mosiah 3:19.) Well, if we, all of us, lived up to our potential and raised ourselves to the standards that we ought to have, then none of us would be human in the worldly or the carnal sense. Yet with it all we would be so in the sense that we are mortal and all that’s related to it.

Under the heading “General Authorities” in my book, Mormon Doctrine, I wrote: “Some General Authorities are empowered to do one thing and some another. All are subject to the strict discipline the Lord always imposes upon his saints and those who preside over them. The positions they occupy are high and exalted, but the individuals who hold these offices are humble men like their brethren in the Church. So well qualified and trained are the members of the Church that there are many brethren who could—if called, sustained, and set apart—serve effectively in nearly every important position in the Church.” (Mormon Doctrine [bookcraft, 1966], p. 309.)

Further along in the book under the heading of “Prophets” is another statement: “With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he ‘visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that “a prophet is always a prophet”; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.’ ” (Ibid., p. 608.)

Thus the opinions and views, even of a prophet, may contain error, unless those opinions and views were inspired by the Spirit. Inspired scripture or statements should be accepted as such. We have this problem, however. Paul was one of the greatest theologian-prophets of all the ages, but he had some opinions that weren’t in complete accord with the Lord’s feelings, and he wrote some of them down in his epistles. But being wise and discreet, he labeled them as such. He said, “This is what I think.” When he got through telling that, he said, “Now this is what the Lord thinks.” Paul’s views, his private opinions, were not as perfect as they might have been.

Prophets are men, and when they act by the Spirit of inspiration, what they say is the voice of God; but still they are mortal and they are entitled to and do have private opinions. Because of the great wisdom and judgment of these men, their views may be as good as mortal men can have, but unless they are inspired, unless they are in accordance with the revelations, they are subject to error on the same basis as the views of anyone else in the Church.

We need not wonder vainly if the General Authorities are speaking by the Spirit of inspiration or not—we can discover for certain. I remind you that one of Joseph Smith’s famous statements is to this effect: “The Lord will not reveal anything to Joseph that he will not reveal to the Twelve or to the least and last member of the Church as soon as he is able to bear it.” (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 149.)

That’s perfect. That’s the same doctrine that Paul taught. Paul said, “Ye may all prophesy.” He said, “Covet to prophesy.” (1 Cor. 14:31, 39.) The whole membership of the Church, the whole body of the Church is supposed to receive revelation. It’s not reserved for a select few, the missionaries, or the bishops. We ought to get revelation. We all ought to be as the apostles and prophets.

</H2> Edited February 22, 2010 by mnn727

[JohnOF123]

I sure hate to tell you this, cause I think I'm going to rock your world, but even the Prophets themselves tell you the same thing I did.

Hey I was just wondering how you might reconcile this looser view of prophets with the Old Testament version in which the Jews were commanded by God to stone men who claimed to be prophets, but spoke of things that were not true or did not come to pass. Would some of these prophets have been stoned if they lived back then? I'm curious to what people think on this. Not trying to be confrontational, but I really do wonder how this matter is resolved in the eyes of the LDS.

Edited February 22, 2010 by JohnOF123

[CrimsonKairos]

Hey I was just wondering how you might reconcile this looser view of prophets with the Old Testament version in which the Jews were commanded by God to stone men who claimed to be prophets, but spoke of things that were not true or did not come to pass. Would some of these prophets have been stoned if they lived back then? I'm curious to what people think on this.

I'm not sure it's an apples-and-apples comparison you're making.

The fact that prophets today say or do human things is not reason enough to stone them to death.

However, if a man claims that God chose him to be a prophet and if that man speaks in God's name (Thus saith the Lord) and lies or makes things up in order to deceive people, then yeah, that's a false prophet.

The issue concerning humans being prophets isn't about "True vs. False" prophets; it's about "Fallible vs. Infallible" prophets.

[mnn727]

If Jack Chick handed me a Chick tract, I would thank him. I love Chick Tracts. Sure, he thinks that Catholics, LDS members, people who roleplay, people who listen to rock music, shriners and 99% of all people outside of Baptist, USA are going to Hell... But I've never gotten the feeling Jack Chick hates me.

We'll have to disagree on this one, and I'll leave it at that, rather than saying what I really think about Jack Chick and his "ministry'

[JohnOF123]

I'm not sure it's an apples-and-apples comparison you're making.

The fact that prophets today say or do human things is not reason enough to stone them to death.

However, if a man claims that God chose him to be a prophet and if that man speaks in God's name (Thus saith the Lord) and lies or makes things up in order to deceive people, then yeah, that's a false prophet.

The issue concerning humans being prophets isn't about "True vs. False" prophets; it's about "Fallible vs. Infallible" prophets.

I see what you're saying. I'm not doubting their fallibility, but if they spoke for God,

if something was not true, then

In Israel when a prophet's word failed to come true, they took him out and stoned him. This had cut down sharply on the number of false prophets. They were that serious about the prophetic ministry. However, now we just loosely say they were fallible. That is why I ask.

[mnn727]

Hey I was just wondering how you might reconcile this looser view of prophets with the Old Testament version in which the Jews were commanded by God to stone men who claimed to be prophets, but spoke of things that were not true or did not come to pass. Would some of these prophets have been stoned if they lived back then? I'm curious to what people think on this. Not trying to be confrontational, but I really do wonder how this matter is resolved in the eyes of the LDS.

I find it very telling that most main stream Christians tell us that the O.T. rules and the Laws of Moses were finished withs Christs atoning sacrifice, but then they like to hold on to their favorites -- not saying you personally do this, but just an in general observation.

Just a few thoughts on this and they are my personal thoughts not necessarily Church doctrines or teachings.

1. we don't hold any scripture to be the 100% infallible word of God

2. The New Testament gives a different test for Prophets

3. We have a test for anything the Prophets say, if you read both Brighams Youngs quote and Elder McConkie's article (that I posted) you'll see what that is

4. How do you feel about Jonah?

Edited February 22, 2010 by mnn727

[JohnOF123]

I find it very telling that most main stream Christians tell us that the O.T. rules and the Laws of Moses were finished withs Christs atoning sacrifice, but then they like to hold on to their favorites -- not saying you personally do this, but just an in general observation.

Just a few thoughts on this and they are my personal thoughts not necessarily Church doctrines or teachings.

1. we don't hold any scripture to be the 100% infallible word of God

2. The New Testament gives a different test for Prophets

3. We have a test for anything the Prophets say, if you read both Brighams Youngs quote and Elder McConkie's article (that I posted) you'll see what that is

Ok so are you saying that 1) you dont believe everything the Bible, 2) you think the NT contradicts the OT, 3) you have a different test than that in the OT.

I'm just trying to rephrase your statements, not put words in your mouth. But in short and very blunt answers, is this correct?

[mnn727]

Ok so are you saying that 1) you dont believe everything the Bible, 2) you think the NT contradicts the OT, 3) you have a different test than that in the OT.

I'm just trying to rephrase your statements, not put words in your mouth. But in short and very blunt answers, is this correct?

let me clairify as your interpretaion of what I said goes a bit further than my meaning

1. Do I believe that God wrote (or caused to be written) the Bible and protects it from any and all error? No

2.) I think the N.T. supercedes the O.T.

3.) I use the test Jesus Himself gave in Matthew 7

[JohnOF123]

let me clairify as your interpretaion of what I said goes a bit further than my meaning

1. Do I believe that God wrote (or caused to be written) the Bible and protects it from any and all error? No

2.) I think the N.T. supercedes the O.T.

3.) I use the test Jesus Himself gave in Matthew 7

To 1 I would say yes, but in Greek (over 5500 manuscripts to help, and dead sea scrolls only verified)

2 I would say no, but instead the NT fulfills the OT, and never contradicts it

3 I agree with Jesus, but probably see different fruit than you might, can't just disregard the old tests too though. no cherry pickin'

Edited February 22, 2010 by JohnOF123

[mnn727]

So as you see we are coming at it from different sides.

[CrimsonKairos]

In Israel when a prophet's word failed to come true, they took him out and stoned him.

What do you mean by "a prophet's word?" Sometimes Jehovah changed his mind. Remember in Isaiah 38 when Isaiah tells the ill King Hezekiah, "The Lord says you're about to die, get your house in order while there is time." But then Hezekiah prays and asks Jehovah for mercy. And the Lord sends Isaiah back with a complete reversal of his former prophecy, "Yeah, the Lord actually says that now you will live for 15 more years and to prove it, he will make the shadow on your sundial go back ten degrees."

Interesting how the Lord can reverse himself and his prophets' prophecies, yes?

However, now we just loosely say they were fallible.

There is a distinct difference between being a false prophet and being a fallible prophet.

A false prophet implies that someone is lying about their prophetic authority and intentionally saying false things to lead God's people astray.

A fallible prophet implies an imperfect man chosen to be God's mouthpiece, a man who is still entitled to his own opinions (right or wrong) on a variety of things, but who does not lead the Church away from salvation when his opinions are wrong.

Brigham Young said some confusing things about Adam-God. BUT...President Young never taught the Church to pray to Adam, or that you were going to be excommunicated if you disagreed with him. That is the difference between being fallible and false: the one is imperfect and makes mistakes, the other lies and intends to deceive.

Edited February 22, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[JohnOF123]

Too many simultaneous debates going on, lol.

I would say that God knows the future, but uses situations to teach humans. This may appear that He is "changing His mind," but He knows the future. We know He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

However, I would also say that He must keep His good name perfect and solid and will not have a profit give a false prophecy, hence His command to stone false ones. None of the former profits of old ever gave a prophecy that did not come true, or that have been proven false.

[CrimsonKairos]

None of the former profits of old ever gave a prophecy that did not come true, or that have been proven false.

How would one even begin to go about verifying that?

[JohnOF123]

How would one even begin to go about verifying that?

Simply because there are none recorded in the Bible nor in history. That's all we can go by. And the fact that God mentioned who was not a true prophet in the Bible, but it does not sound like you see any authority in those passages in the Bible. Not being condescending, just saying that my reasons for believing are probably not going to be valid with you.

[CrimsonKairos]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I certainly don't think everything important to know about the Old Testament prophets is included in the Old Testament. I think alot of interesting records simply no longer exist but in the end it will be fun to find out all the details.

[bytebear]

Actually, the idea that the Bible has no false prophecies is easily proven false. Mostly by atheists, but there are plenty of websites dedicated to disproving this false assertion.

http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.

WikiAnswers - Bible's failed prophecies

CH110: Prophecy and Bible accuracy

And there are plenty more out there.

[JohnOF123]

Actually, the idea that the Bible has no false prophecies is easily proven false. Mostly by atheists, but there are plenty of websites dedicated to disproving this false assertion.

http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.

WikiAnswers - Bible's failed prophecies

CH110: Prophecy and Bible accuracy

And there are plenty more out there.

I cannot debate all of these on one thread. Though these are biased and easily counter-argued. I could also list 3 websites that explained these particular ones.

So if these can be explained, and hundreds more prophecies can be proclaimed and not refuted by atheists, then we should be in aw-struck wonder. Look at all of the amazing prophecies we have: Tyre, Christ, Babylon, etc etc.. No man can tell the future with such striking detail and accuracy. Only one can tell the beginning from the end, and that is God.