A Question About Faith - Lesson 8

I'll go through it, thanks.

Why can't we compare, for example, faith to empirical science regarding prophecies that have come true? If the prophecy does not come true, then it turns out that he is a false prophet and the prophet is killed, and if it comes true, it is evidence that he is a true prophet and from now on he is trusted also regarding his prediction of what will happen in the future?

Because the prophecies are really not unambiguous. And there are other reasons why they don't come true.

So how is it possible, according to your words, to kill a prophet who prophesied and none of what he said came true? (See Rambam) A. He was not unequivocal, and if so, he did not prophesy falsely B. He will always make excuses for what you just wrote, "that there are other reasons why they do not come true."

This is just at the examination stage. You and I were talking about prophecies in the Bible.

"Is this just at the exam stage?"
That is, only before the prophet is officially recognized is it checked whether his prophecies come true.
But how will his prophecy be tested if, as you say, "the prophecies in the Bible are not unambiguous" and "there are always excuses why they were not fulfilled"?
If there is no objective criterion to check fulfillment – then the "examination phase" has also collapsed.

Maimonides is not just talking about a "technical stage," but about the truth of the prophetic test:
Unambiguous fulfillment = truth.
Non-fulfillment = lie.
Without this, the entire concept of prophecy becomes empty.

What is not clear? I explained. When a prophet is tested, he is supposed to issue prophecies that can be tested empirically. For example: Tomorrow at ten in the morning there will be 12 mm of rain. The prophecies in the Bible are not like that. Therefore, faith is not a scientific test.

Sorry for the outburst – I'm relatively new here on the blog, but every time I'm amazed anew by the tricks of the tongue and the ease with which you hide and manage to evade behind rhetorical slips in the chatter, and by the wonder that rhetoric slips through the fingers of readers and commenters here – like public soap.
Because this time, with all due respect – it simply crossed the line of good taste. Listen, this is no longer an argument, but a dense smokescreen of vague chatter,
And this is an excellent opportunity to show Nadav and the other readers here how a philosophical blunder can be turned into a distinct show of brilliant rhetorical acrobatics – one that makes viewers forget the simple question:
What did we actually ask? And what did the rabbi answer? So it clearly seems like there is a pretty transparent attempt here to evade the central question!
It's also not really clear what exactly you gained from this ridiculous statement that it's "only at the exam stage"?
Your argument tries to grab the rope from both ends: On the one hand, you claim that prophets were indeed tested empirically – and then, as if “after the kindergarten teacher went out for a break at ten o’clock” – you claim that suddenly the prophecies that followed are no longer unambiguous, and have “good reasons” not to come true, huh? Is this radio??
Your mouth answered you: Every prophet in the Bible who entered the bookcase has already passed the "credibility test" that you set, and in an empirical way, and if, in your opinion, from the moment the prophet passed the test, he is entitled to the absurdity of firing shots and making vague, elusive and vague statements, and everything is still considered "prophecy" to him?
What insurance certificate is this? With a Bible like that, I (like you) would lose interest in it too.
And you still ask, "What's not clear??" – Maybe it's not clear which Bible edition with a filter you have at home?
For example, my edition of the Prophets includes Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jonah, Malachi, and a few other old friends – and there, contrary to what you say, there are a lot of concrete, measurable, and completely empirical predictions. Some with a clear time frame, some with a detailed description of clear events – which allow for empirical examination, such as the destruction of the Temple within 70 years, the sudden death of a certain ruler, war, famine – and everything is tested and verified in reality.
So with your permission, I will give, in a nutshell, a light overview of completely measurable and accurate predictions.

Jeremiah: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you."
Bingo. Measured, dated, and executed (Ezra 1).

Isaiah 44–45
"Tell Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and he will fulfill all my desires.'"
The prophet Isaiah calls upon the name of Cyrus – about two hundred years before his time – and prophesies that he will return the people of Israel to their land and rebuild the Temple.
Measured? Certainly. Clear history. Return to Zion. Cyrus' declaration.

Elisha informs the Shunammite woman:
"Arise and go… for the Lord has called for a famine, and it will also come upon the land for seven years."
And indeed, the Shunammite woman is packing a suitcase.
Prophecy about drought – with precise timing and pre-declared duration
And not just any weather forecast.

Jonah: "Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown" – with a stopwatch.
True, they repented – but the prediction was measurable.

Jeremiah 28 – Hananiah ben Azur dies within a year
Hananiah predicts that the kingdom of Judah will return to prosperity within two years. Jeremiah responds:
"Behold, I will send you from the face of the earth; in a year you will die." Hananiah ben Azur died within a year, exactly according to the prediction written on the Tanakh.
And very empirical. Either he dies this year – or he doesn't. There are no excuses.

1 Kings 13 – The Death of the False Prophet
The prophet predicts that Josiah will sacrifice bones on the altar in Bethel. And he adds an immediate sign – the altar will be torn apart and the ashes will be poured out.
A prophecy with a "double sign": both a future sign (Josiah), and an immediate sign (the altar was split and the ashes were spilled).
With two conditions that were met, and accurate details for both the present and the future
All of these are not just prophecies – but empirical tests of every kind. The prophets were certainly tested, and sometimes even publicly!

…So what remains of your sweeping claim – “The prophecies are really not unambiguous and there are other reasons why they are not fulfilled” – if not an attempt to circumvent the focus of the discussion? Even if this is stated for some reason emphatically, it is still impossible to ignore the fact that many of the prophecies in the Bible meet (and have met) measurable standards.

P.S.
Even if we accept your position that this only concerns the examination phase –
The very fact that you demand an empirical test for credit for a prophet,
It indicates that, according to you, the Bible also includes content that can be scientifically examined.
And sometimes – even sharper than contemporary scientists are willing to commit to.

Thank you scientist, you really took the words out of my mouth, please don't turn off the water until the discussion is exhausted.

In honor of the scientist, you can turn off the water. If you haven't received a response by now, I assume you won't. I'll try to get answers on another blog.