When I was talking to BYS, I was addressing the specific "prophecy" that SHE presented was not specific. I never said that ALL prophecy is not specific. I argued against YOUR presented prophecies in the way that was necessary to address them.
If you're only going to allow me to talk about the specificity of those prophecies, then please, allow me to respond. I didn't know you were holding me to such rigid categories. So your first prophecy:
Micah 5:2 reveals that Bethlehem would be the birthplace of the Messiah.
This would be like me saying, "Massachusetts is going to be the birthplace of the chosen one."
Firstly, "the chosen one" or "messiah" is not a real thing. It is a religious, or believed in construct. All that it takes after this is for one really smart religious leader to be born in Massachusetts to get the ball rolling, proclaiming his divinity and wa-lah! The chosen one. While this prophecy may have used specific words, it's content is still vague, due to the nature of the claims.
I've already addressed your second prophecy. All jesus had to do was ride a donkey. The content of the claim is vague.. not necessarily the words used.
So now, how am I lying to myself? I think you're lying to all of us. Show me the truth Ed!
![[-]](images/MyBBShine//collapse.gif)
