“If a prophecy is not falsifiable, it is as worthless as a newspaper astrology column. Making a prediction specific enough to be understood in advance is hard. Re-interpreting a text to make it predict past events is easy, and the techniques (like shoehorining) are well-understood. It can be done with Nostradamus and Biblical acrostics. It can be done to fit normal Biblical prophecies to non-religious figures like Napoleon.”
The initial sentence is a valid inference from a false premise. I never said or implied that Bible prophecy was unfalsifiable.
What I said is that it would be self-defeating for a prophecy to be too specific, since that would invite efforts to thwart the prophecy.
Hence, no one Messianic prophecy (to take one prophetic class for purposes of illustration) is going to give you the who, what, when, where, why, and how of its fulfillment.
Rather, we have a set of prophecies which, taken together, give the who, what, when, where, why, and how of their collective fulfillment.
It’s like espionage—in which information is compartmentalized. Different agents are given different folders which, taken together, spell out the game plan.
“Because of this problem, sensible people demand that it be possible to correctly interpret Biblical prophecies in advance.”
This is self-refuting by Hallquist’s own examples. He doesn’t regard Nostradamus as a true prophet. Indeed, he clearly regards Nostradamus as a charlatan.
But Hallquist didn’t live before the time of Nostradamus, now did he? Hallquist is judging the prophetic quality, or lack therefore, of the famous quatrains after the fact.
Either that or Hallquist is very well preserved for his age.
And does he really believe that Bible prophecies are equally adaptable to figures like Napoleon?
Or does he believe that Bible prophecies are false?