I recently watched a show on the History Channel (it seemed to be a new release) about how known prophecy points to the year 2012 as the time when everything comes to an end.  Among the pieces of prophetic evidence they presented were the Mayan Calendar, the I Ching (in particular someone’s chart plotting all of the combination of characters, which were applied to history’s timeline), the Bible (particularly the Book of the Revelation to John), Merlyn’s predictions (the real version of Merlyn, not the mythical one), Mother Shipton (either a real or imagined prophetess), Black Elk (the Lakota medicine man who had a vision and gave new popularity to the Indian Ghost Dance), and of course Nostradamus.  The first two of these directly pointed to the year 2012 as a time of end, with the rest basically telling ominously of an end to come.

Now, as I have said before, the History Channel has a cash cow by the tail with such topics as “Prophetic Doom.”  They will milk that cow as long as possible.  They call the end of the world “the Apocalypse,” which sounds so scary; but, in reality, the word is Greek and means “Revelation.”  John wrote “The Apocalypse,” but we name it in English because “revelation” is easier for us to spell.  The more frightening the name (with fright implied), the higher the viewer ratings; and the higher the viewer ratings, the more “Prophetic Doom” programming there will be on the History Channel.

This means that as long as no one really believes the end of the world is coming in 2012, no one packs their bags and plans on leaving their cable television watching habits, then the History Channel will keep churning out rehashes of the same topic, year in and year out.  In order to really scare people they have to present evidence in a convincing manner; but to keep it all a mystery they have to also present convincing doubt.  The History Channel is completely non-committal on whether or not the world will end in 2012.  They do not care, as long as they meet their profit quotas and please their board of directors each quarter.

If you have watched these shows, particularly the ones that deal with a prophecy theme, you see a stream of “experts” who are interviewed.  Most tell the camera why they think this topic is some serious stuff to consider; but there are usually one or two debunkers whose job is to smile and explain why everything is nothing but hooey.  This gets you ready to pack your bags, through the first six commercial breaks; but usually by a quarter till (fifteen minutes before the show ends) the naysayers have you restocking the drawers.  By the end of the show, you have one of those large question marks above your head; and you feel like you just rode an amusement park roller coaster.  “Boy, that was fun.  Let’s do it again!”

In the last show the History Channel aired (as mentioned above), they used Michael Shermer as their “expert” against the theory of prophecy.  Shermer was listed as the Editor of Skeptic magazine.  You have to understand that the founder and editor of such a magazine, which is the offshoot of Shermer’s association with The Skeptic’s Society (he founded it), and which immediately rejects anything (as a skeptic) beyond mankind’s ability to prove it conclusively, is nothing more than a biased opinion.  Shermer simply does not believe prophecy is possible; and thus he will not entertain any possibility of being swayed to belief.  He offers no agreement on the topic, whatsoever. 

Bias and emotion are two elements that have to be controlled, if not eliminated from true logical debate.  Those who were interviewed who believed in prophecy were just as biased and emotional about their belief, as was Mr. Shermer about his disbelief.  In other words, nothing presented was anything more than loose opinions.  Many, if not all, were true opinions, to some degree; but what may be true in one case (or several cases) may not even be legitimately applied to an argument about prophecy.

One opinion offered by Mr. Shermer was about the word, “post-diction.”  He explained this was the opposite of “pre-diction,” and it meant the use of hindsight to verify a prophecy.  Mr. Shermer stated this method to find something having come true was invalid.  It was his opinion that the only way to prove a prediction is prophetic is to have the prediction only be applied to a testable future event.  This is like saying the only valid way to catch a serial killer is through deductive reasoning, because inductive reasoning is foresight, proving nothing.  This, of course, is absurd.  All true reasoning plays a role.

When someone matches a quatrain of Nostradamus’ to a past event, the event is past to the one applying the meaning, but the event was in Nostradamus’ future.  Every quatrain about a future event was originally predictive.  This application in the future to a past event (if the application is agreed upon by all debaters as properly translated and interpreted) means a prophetic utterance (made with divine purpose) was not meant to be understood until the event had passed.  While it is necessary to be able to test the future application of a prophecy, this does not need to apply every time to make a prophecy valid.

This means that the exact opposite of Mr. Shermer’s claim is indeed the case.  In order to come to a point in time when simply understanding what was prophesied (spoken or written) is possible, partial application of that prophecy to the past becomes important.  This is especially so if part of the prophecy is found to have come true infallibly, as determined to be one element of truth, through agreement by all debaters.  By establishing a measurability standard to the way the truth was worded, one is then able to determine how to understand those prophecies still unfulfilled.  Mr. Shermer presumes prophets speak (or write) in ways that are easily understandable, thus easily worded prophecies that can reasonably be applied to the future.  He expressed a belief that the only valid prophecy is one that allows for easily understood tests, which lead to the ultimate proof of validity.  His presumption is flawed and therefore false.

Take, for example, the Greek mythological tales of the Oracle of Delphi.  Greek myth states that the oracle told only the truth, because the god Apollo (the god of truth) influenced the oracle (usually a priestess).  Yet, in tale after tale we are shown how the truth was told in ways that seemed to make sense at first, but always turned out to have meant something completely different in hindsight.  “Post-diction” is actually how the prophecy was understood to have been infallibly correct, despite all attempts to prevent the outcome of a “pre-diction.”  Both postdiction and prediction play a role in true prophecy.  

In the case of Nostradamus, no one (before me) has understood how to read the prophesied words properly, for fullest meaning.  This means some quatrains have been erroneously applied to the past, some quatrains have correctly been applied to the past erroneously, and some quatrains have been correctly been applied to the past incompletely.  All of this error causes a lack of agreement between debaters.  Without agreement on what is true, based on a logical approach to the facts (actual written text), arguments turn into “pissing contests” between people holding dear to various emotional opinions.  Nothing can be proven until an agreement is reached on what actually exists as evidence to something. 

When you learn how to read what Nostradamus wrote properly, you begin to be able to explain fully what he stated, without question.  This understanding of what is proper is something debated, until agreement is reached.  A written word can never mean “anything,” as some skeptics opinionate.  Each word has defined meaning, which becomes the parameters of specific meaning.  Argument leads to agreement on how language is understood, based on that meaning.  Agreement must first be reached on what are the possibilities of thought expressed and the guides stated by the author, towards those possibilities.

Agreement can logically be reached on those quatrains that have predicted our past, as ascertained by postdiction.  The infallibility of that predicted past proves the divinity of the source.  Agreement is reached that the argument is not over Nostradamus’ ability to “see the future,” but over belief in God.  Understanding the language that predicted the past makes it possible to understand the quatrains that connect past events to present events.  This allows one to see the present has predictable (testable) outcomes, which are predicted in the quatrains.  The quatrains that can logically be understood tell of purely future events become logically possible (even highly probable), based on the past and present events being causally relative.  We come to understand that it was God, through Nostradamus, who presented this future to us. 

Skeptics do not believe in God because they cannot prove God.  Prophecy is the proof of God; and therefore skeptics immediately reject the premise of prophecy.  It then becomes somewhat ironic that a non-believer would have to see the end of the world come, just to finally agree that only God could have foreseen that end. 

We are allowed to see our fate only by God, through prophecy.  As far as Nostradamus is concerned, this fate has a past-present-future connection to a collective failure in humanity to act from a true belief in God (fear of God).  True belief in God is based on each individual’s ability to discern the proof of God to themselves.  Nostradamus offers proof of God (God offered proof through Nostradamus) by understanding what can logically be found to have come true in the past, infallibly.  Understanding that infallibility is only possible for God, means no form of human mentality created those predictions.  A belief in Nostradamus is therefore not a belief in God.  A belief in astrology is likewise not a belief in God.  A belief in magic is certainly not a belief in God.  Skeptics successfully argue against these less than infallible tools of divinity.

The proof of God to non-believers is found waiting in the future.  The argument can never be proven against God; but the argument of prophecy, as proof of God, is found when the prediction is well beyond the realm of possibility (probability plays no role) and comes true as prophesied.  To get an idea of what will bring about this proof, check out the History Channel when they rerun one of their “Prophetic Doom” shows.