What would make the Tanakh's/Old Testament's prophecies reliable?

[rakovsky]

The Tanakh has prophecies about the resurrection of the dead (Isaiah 26), about the date for Messiah's arrival (Daniel 9), and about his death (Isaiah 42, according to Rabbi Maimonides; Zech 11-13 according to Christians) and resurrection (Psalm 22 according to Christians). What would make these prophecies objectively reliable?

For the prophets to have this ability, it seems like this ability would have to objectively exist (at least in the case of the Biblical prophets), but that it is the Lord's guidance that makes its use by the prophets to be reliable. It was said even in the Bible that there were non-Israelites like Balaam who were legitimate prophets. It's well known, also said in the Bible, that false prophets and false prophecies exist, so in the New Testament discernment is recommended.

Oswan Craton writes that while the Chaldean magicians (Babylonians) claimed to have paranormal dream-interpreting abilities, it was only Daniel whose abilities were legitimate:

In Daniel’s case it was the Chaldeans who claimed such superior abilities for themselves, but they were unable to discern either the king’s dream or its interpretation. The ability (if we want to call it that) came directly from God...

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 offer a... criterion [ for testing legitimacy of prophecy]: “And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken, when a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
...
(cf. Leviticus 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:10-12; I Chronicles 10:13; Jeremiah 29:8-9). From these passages alone (and there are many others) we may conclude with Kurt Koch in Between Christ and Satan that “at no period in the history of the children of Israel were fortune-tellers recognized.
...
Compare also what is said about prophecy in Genesis 41:14-15 and 25, and Daniel 2:28-29a. Here the point is twofold: (a) no “wise man” can know the unknown by himself; and (b) God alone reveals the future and only to whom and in the manner He chooses to do so.
The Christian and the Paranormal

Craton is referring to Genesis 41:

15 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I have dreamed a dream, and there is none that can interpret it: and I have heard say of thee, that thou canst understand a dream to interpret it.
16 And Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, It is not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace.

Pharaoh tells Joseph the dream, and finishes saying:

24 And the thin ears devoured the seven good ears: and I told this unto the magicians; but there was none that could declare it to me.
25 And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do.
... the seven empty ears blasted with the east wind shall be seven years of famine.
...
28 This is the thing which I have spoken unto Pharaoh: What God is about to do he sheweth unto Pharaoh.

So the dream was God showing his plans to Pharaoh, and Joseph said "it is not in me" to reveal the dream, but it was something God revealed through Joseph.

Craton himself doesn't believe that fortune-telling, apart from rare instances of divine gifts, is legitimate.

Jeane Dixon who claimed to be a modern-day prophet. Some of her predictions — though relatively few — were in fact accurate, and she gained many followers during her lifetime. But she led many of her followers into astrology and occultism, violating the first sign of a true prophet.
...
I believe the primary reason God does not want us involving ourselves in these things is because He doesn’t want us trusting in magic — that is, trusting in something that is false. He wants us to place our complete and total trust in Him (cf. Psalms 16:1-2; 37:3; 56:4; 31:14-15a). Jesus told us not to worry about the future (Matthew 6:34).
The Christian and the Paranormal

Dixon told people things to occur, but they sometimes turned out false even though she said otherwise.

Two difficulties I have with reliability of Biblical prophecy are that science is very skeptical of paranormal predictions and also because a person's status as a moral inspired activist doesn't make his predictions necessarily true. If a moral peace activist and who followed God said we will have world hunger ended in ten years, I would still be skeptical of their claim despite the fact they could be moral and have belief in God and pro-peace inspiration from God.

Time magazine makes an interesting observation about the relationship of the brain to external stimuli:

The brain is our instrument in focusing and organizing our consciousness. Just like a prism will take a white light with all these different frequencies and separate it so you can see the different colors of the spectrum. Rather than us experiencing everything that's happening all at once, our brain focuses us on the here and the now. It uses our sensory organs as guides as to what we should be focusing on. Experiments have shown that most psychic experiences occur when are sensory organs are muted, like when we're dreaming or having a near-death experience.
...
There are also cases where people haven't had any psychic abilities until they've suffered head traumas. What's common is that these people who've had this head trauma, the structure and function of their brain has been changed. They're often not able to function very well in the real world because they don't know how to use the analytical side of their brain.
...
If you stop thinking of time the way those in the Newtonian age thought of time as an arrow, and you start thinking of time as the way that Einstein thought of it as a space-time continuum, the future already exists. Just like the entire globe of the earth is all there even though I'm not currently seeing it all here in Southern Oregon. Our brain only allows us to experience time as a series of recurrent moments. What Einstein's saying is that when we're talking about time we're really talking about a psychological construct. Time is like any other dimension in that it isn't limited.

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

 

[rakovsky]

This skeptic article points out that lottery numbers are rarely predicted by psychics like they would be if the powers were real:

Psychics give various answers for why they do or don’t win the lottery. The reasons are inconsistent. First, they say they don’t want to exploit such a gift. Yeah…

Making someone money (except for themselves) is supposedly bad karma. It’s not to be used to help oneself. And then there are descriptions regarding energy and waves and mystical supernatural stuff. It’s all nonsense.

Then they say that the numbers are randomly chosen so it’s not predictable because psychics can’t predict the future, only what MIGHT happen. Nice cop out. I could tell you what MIGHT happen too and be just as accurate.
...
Recently, in Widnes, a man was the target of a psychic’s scam to reveal lottery numbers for a fee. A few people will fall for such scams if they are desperate and can’t think their way through to why this is a very bad idea.

If psychics had real powers, we would have seen the affects of it by now. The fact that the world is not run by the people who claim such powers and that these skills aren’t put to everyday use in that we could OBSERVE things occurring beyond chance shows that this power does not exist.

How come psychics don’t predict lottery numbers? Maybe because they end up dead. | Doubtful News

I would rely like scientific studies and explanations than solidly show the reliability of prophetic gifts, rather than statistically weak experiment results, anecdotal evidence, or claims by fringe "scientists" who teach the moon affects prophetic gifts.

The How Stuff Works site is skeptical too:

the theory doesn't jibe with what we know about ourselves and the universe. In most reported cases of telepathy, ESP works totally independent of distance. That is, the power of the "signal" is the same whether the transmitting mind and the receiving mind are in the same room or on opposite sides of the earth. No other form of energy behaves this way, skeptics point out, so it doesn't make sense that "psi waves" would either. Furthermore, it seems strange that we haven't found any unexplained sense organs in the body that might pick up on this energy, nor any evidence of the energy waves themselves.
...
Like the concepts of God or an afterlife, the hypothetical reality would not rely on the physical laws of the universe. It would depend on the existence of a soul of some sort.
...
Most of us encounter extraordinary coincidences now and then, and there are many well-documented cases of apparent precognition and clairvoyance. For example, in 1898, Morgan Robertson published "Futility," a novel about a huge luxury liner called the Titan. The story allegedly came to him in a sort of trance. In the novel, the ship zips through dense fog late one April night, crashes into an iceberg and sinks, killing hundreds of people. Fourteen years later, the Titanic, similar in size and structure to the fictional ship, did exactly this, at the same time of year, under the same conditions. For both the fictional ship and the real ship, the casualties were high because there weren't nearly enough lifeboats on board.

How ESP Works

The Titanic liner's coincidences and conspiracy theories are weird.

Skeptics Who See Things: The Curious [Vision] of Mark Twain
In one story that haunted Twain for much of his life, he and his younger brother Henry secured jobs on the steamboat Pennsylvania in 1858. On the night before they went aboard, Twain dreamt that Henry was dead, lying in a metal casket wearing his older brother’s suit. In his hands was a bouquet of white roses with a single red rose in the middle. The steamboat’s journey commenced, but due to a disagreement with the pilot, Twain was transferred to a different boat while Henry stayed on the Pennsylvania. Shortly after, the boiler exploded, killing Henry. The women who worked at the funeral home were so moved by young Henry’s innocence and beauty that they gave him the most expensive metal casket and a borrowed suit. When Twain entered the viewing room to see his dead brother he was shocked by the uncanny resemblance to his dream. Then, as he mourned, a woman came in and placed a bouquet of white roses on Henry’s chest, then pulled out a red rose and placed it in the center of the bouquet.

This seemingly paranormal experience led Twain into the pseudoscientific world of “dream precognition.” In fact, he was one of the first people to join the Society for Psychical Research in hopes that it could provide him with some answers about his prophetical dream.

https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2014/features/skeptics-who-see-things

I disagree with some of Farrell TIll's criticisms of Biblical prophecy, but I think he might be making some good points in his skeptical essay on prophecy (Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled) He seems to quote a promise by God to drive out all the peoples in the promise land.

Joshua repeated the promise: So Joshua said to the children of Israel, "Come here, and hear the words of Yahweh your God." And Joshua said, "By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites, and the Jebusites: " (Joshua 3:9-11).

And then Till quotes the Bible as suggesting this happened:

So Yahweh gave to Israel ALL the land of which he had sworn to give to their fathers; and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. and not a man of ALL their enemies stood against them; Yahweh delivered ALL their enemies into their hand. NOT A WORD FAILED OF ANY GOOD THING WHICH YAHWEH HAD SPOKEN TO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. ALL CAME TO PASS (Josh. 21:43-45).

But then he says the peoples were still around:

Joshua 16:10 says, "And they did not drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites to this day and have become forced laborers." But the Canaanites were specifically listed as one of the seven nations that would be utterly destroyed.

Till also asks: "if Joshua had indeed taken 'the whole land, according to all that Yahweh had spoken to Moses,' as claimed in Joshua 11:23, how could it be said later that "very much land" remained to be possessed?"(Joshua 13:1-6).

 

[Debi]

Even theories change

Accepted theories are the best explanations available so far for how the world works. They have been thoroughly tested, are supported by multiple lines of evidence, and have proved useful in generating explanations and opening up new areas for research. However, science is always a work in progress, and even theories change.
________________________________________

Those who put their "faith" only in science, and believe it to be the bottom line of everything, delude themselves, IMO. It's ever changing, and subject to current knowledge of a subject, which can be limited, and the tools needed to measure some things are currently not even invented yet. It's good to be skeptical of things, but we also have to be open minded on the fact science is not the know all be all that many ascribe it to be.

With quantum physics and new science making leaps and bounds in researching some of the previously ignored questions of how the mind could work, we're entering a time of discovery again. To prove something, ANYTHING, as absolute is almost impossible these days. Too many new discoveries are being made and who knows what proof may emerge on either side of this question.

As another member recently said, "When one has faith, no proof is necessary. When one has no faith, no proof is ever enough."

 

[rakovsky]

Even theories change

Accepted theories are the best explanations available so far for how the world works. They have been thoroughly tested, are supported by multiple lines of evidence, and have proved useful in generating explanations and opening up new areas for research. However, science is always a work in progress, and even theories change.
________________________________________

Those who put their "faith" only in science, and believe it to be the bottom line of everything, delude themselves, IMO. It's ever changing, and subject to current knowledge of a subject, which can be limited, and the tools needed to measure some things are currently not even invented yet. It's good to be skeptical of things, but we also have to be open minded on the fact science is not the know all be all that many ascribe it to be.

With quantum physics and new science making leaps and bounds in researching some of the previously ignored questions of how the mind could work, we're entering a time of discovery again. To prove something, ANYTHING, as absolute is almost impossible these days. Too many new discoveries are being made and who knows what proof may emerge on either side of this question.

I agree.

I am confused how you relate that to the following quote:

As another member recently said, "When one has faith, no proof is necessary. When one has no faith, no proof is ever enough."

You mean when one "puts their "faith" only in science", they don't need proof, but when they have no faith in science, no proof of something is ever enough?
That is confusing.

Or you mean that if someone lacks Christian faith, no Christian proof is enough ? That doesn't make sense either, because sometimes average nonChristians get shown signs that lead them to the religion.

Basically, I am an open minded person. I want to think the prophecies must come to pass, but would like to have a sense of reliability for this. Do you know what I mean? It's not just a matter of wanting them to happen and then having faith that they will just because I want them to or only because the words on some random page say they will happen.

This is why I asked about scientific reliability of foretelling.

 

[Debi]

You mean when one "puts their "faith" only in science", they don't need proof, but when they have no faith in science, no proof of something is ever enough?
That is confusing.

Or you mean that if someone lacks Christian faith, no Christian proof is enough ? That doesn't make sense either, because sometimes average nonChristians get shown signs that lead them to the religion.

This statement is often used to refer to Spiritual Faith. I'm a Wiccan, and I have "faith" as do others of other faiths, in what our belief systems tell us or prophecy. What it comes down to is either you believe because of spiritual faith and would ask for no further proof because of that faith, or if you don't have that spiritual faith, nothing I could say or do would give you that proof to your satisfaction.

Science isn't "old" enough or advanced enough to give anyone "proof" of prophecy. Heck, they don't want to even acknowledge it as a real thing.

 

[rakovsky]

This statement is often used to refer to Spiritual Faith. I'm a Wiccan, and I have "faith" as do others of other faiths, in what our belief systems tell us or prophecy. What it comes down to is either you believe because of spiritual faith and would ask for no further proof because of that faith, or if you don't have that spiritual faith, nothing I could say or do would give you that proof to your satisfaction.

I understand, Debi. However, this begs the question of why one would have faith in a particular system, such as Judaism or Christianity.
Faith means trust, belief, loyalty, confidence. Of course, if you have faith in Judaism, or faith in their prophets, you will believe their sayings.
However, the question I am raising in the OP is why you would have faith in those prophecies. What reliable basis is there for that faith in the first place.

Maybe you mean that a person feels this or knows it in the heart. But this raises the question of whether if you feel something strongly or know it in the heart it must be factually true. For me, this is uncertain. For you, Wicca must be feeling right in your heart or you feel it strongly. For my part, something about Wicca "feels" wrong to me.
So for example, you gave the Wiccan Rede: "An if it harm none, do as ye will." The underlined part sounds good. It sounds like the basic principle of bioethics: "First, do no harm". But there is a problem. The second part of the Rede sounds like the underlined part of Satanist Aleister Crowley's rule of Thelema "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." The association gives me an unpleasant feeling.
There could be very good reasons for some prohibitions, even when someone wants to perform prohibited actions and doesn't consider them harmful. One danger is that a person could believe something prohibited is not harmful, like heavy drug use, and then he/she does it according to the "do as ye will rule", but then the action turns out in reality to be a harmful temptation.

My point is that feeling something inside or knowing something in the heart are useful indicators, but I am skeptical how reliable it is to see if something is factually and objectively correct.

Science isn't "old" enough or advanced enough to give anyone "proof" of prophecy. Heck, they don't want to even acknowledge it as a real thing.

If prophecy was real and reliable, it seems to me that maybe science could test it. If precogs claim that they can predict events, it seems that they could show this in a laboratory. They could guess what sides of a coin will show when the coin was flipped or which team will win a game.
Or they can make predictions in written form and then when the event occurs or is excluded (eg if a deadline passes), the accuracy can be checked.

 

[Debi]

However, the question I am raising in the OP is why you would have faith in those prophecies. What reliable basis is there for that faith in the first place

What you propose is a bit of circular logic, my friend. You cannot define or prove faith itself with the sole use of science. You either have it or you don't. Reliable basis? Deductive reasoning is the closest you can get. Even science is based on deductive reasoning. Science can't be used to prove itself.

First, do no harm". But there is a problem. The second part of the Rede sounds like the underlined part of Satanist Aleister Crowley's rule of Thelema "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

This, too, is assumption on your part. In Crowley's statement, he does not stop harm. In the Rede, it does, which includes self-harm. These principles go back to a time way before Crowley, who decided to take them and shape them into his own religion.

And you will find the same concepts of harm none in most religions and spiritual beliefs. Stripping away the game of semantics, you will see the "Do unto others as you would have them do for you" in all religions of Light and love.

What it comes down to, bottom line, is you believe or you don't, Rakovsky. I, for one, take prophecy with a grain of salt and as eye opening metaphors of what could happen if we don't become loving humans on this planet.

 

[rakovsky]

What you propose is a bit of circular logic, my friend. You cannot define or prove faith itself with the sole use of science. You either have it or you don't. Reliable basis? Deductive reasoning is the closest you can get. Even science is based on deductive reasoning. Science can't be used to prove itself.

Hello, Debi.
Can you please talk more about the deductive reasoning and how it can help?

I, for one, take prophecy with a grain of salt and as eye opening metaphors of what could happen if we don't become loving humans on this planet.

Does Wicca include ideas about "seeing", fore-telling, etc?

 

[Debi]

Hello, Debi.
Can you please talk more about the deductive reasoning and how it can help?

I have no idea if this will help you in your own search, but here are the basics.

Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

During the scientific process, deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical true conclusion. Another type of reasoning, inductive, is also used. Often, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are confused. It is important to learn the meaning of each type of reasoning so that proper logic can be identified.

Deductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion, according to the University of California. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations," said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, a researcher and professor emerita at Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true.

During the scientific process, deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical true conclusion. Another type of reasoning, inductive, is also used. Often, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are confused. It is important to learn the meaning of each type of reasoning so that proper logic can be identified.

Deductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion, according to the University of California. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations," said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, a researcher and professor emerita at Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true.


According to the University of California, deductive inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are true. It's possible to come to a logical conclusion even if the generalization is not true. If the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue. For example, the argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather," is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false.

 

[Debi]

Does Wicca include ideas about "seeing", fore-telling, etc?

Some traditions of it do. As within the Christian church, "denominations" or "traditions" vary in their beliefs.