Eschatology = endtimes. The context of those verses will also give you some clues as to why it is endtimes. For example in Isaiah 19 you will see the phrase ‘in that day’ used several times. Those events are all part of endtimes.
Please. This is a cop out. You try to claim this like it’s some kind of get-out-of-logic-free card. You specifically said that the bible was your book because:
You’ve been shown unfulfilled and/or inaccurate prophesy repeatedly, and all you can say is ‘endtimes dont count’. End times prophesies are still prophecies.
This is just curiosity, but why don’t you give us an example of an unambiguous accurate fulfilled prophecy. Please note the ‘unambiguous’ stipulation. Claiming that there’s going to be war in the future, or famine or disease or sand isn’t prophecy.
This isn’t about individual expectaations. It is about what is observed. That fossil is morphologically consistent with an otter, not a seal.
Unfulfilled does not equal inaccurate, sorry.
…
The author of the commentary doesn’t agree with you - as I showed. I’m not even sure what to make of what you wrote here. You are the one who is bringing up Gen1:3. You were trying to make the passage say something about providing enough light to keep the plants alive (from v 1:3). This wasn’t the case as the commentary you linked to attests.
So why, all of a sudden, you are trying to say that I was comparing the Sun in v 1:16 with the light in 1:3 is bizarre.
Further, once again, there is no defense of the Moon producing it’s own light.
You are essentially just hand-waving here Reef Shark. You don’t seem to be following what you’ve previously argued. I think you believe that if you write something, anything, then you believe you’ve refuted the skeptic - no matter how irrelevant what you wrote is.
Then every book of prophecy is inerrant.
Cite? Why do you think they know it is a seal ancestor? I suspect internally they are quite different.
Of course it looks like an otter, since it was in the same niche as an otter. Superficially dolphins look like fish, but aren’t.
BTW, this is concerned with expectations, since I’m very curious why you reject clear evidence. I’m not a biologist, let alone an expert on seals, so I’ll trust the experts. Are you an expert? Or are you just rejecting anything not in line with your preconceived ideas?
It does if the prophecy has an expiration date.
Yeah, dodge that question! Don’t bother answering any real questions, don’t bother actually defending your position, just fall back on old denials! You really can’t beat the classics.
So are you going to give us an example of unambiguous fulfilled prophecy, which apparently there must be or you wouldn’t have claimed it, or just keep on claiming you’re right without anything to back it up?
And remember: It’s not a prophesy if you can’t show that it was written before the event it predicts.
I’ve only ever seen religion venture outside its natural domain: generally when they make a claim about reality.
However, I’ve never seen a scientific article on the trinity, for example.
On the other hand, science would be soooo much easier if blind guessing was accepted as fact.
Yeah, and focusing on why implies there is something there to ask why about. Religious whys are kind of like saying why fairies like certain flowers to cavort about.