DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Bucky Ball]

"No he wasn't" is not adequate. Jesus was GONE (if he ever existed) LONG before Timothy wrote that, AND the canon of scripture was not established, so it could have been ANYTHING, including the 200 "other" gospels. No one care what you believe. You are uneducated and your opinion is basically worthless about any subject, especially science and the Bible.
You argumentation skills are very poor. Can't your Jesus send someone who is :
a. educated in the basics of science,
b. has had at least basic training in the Bible.
You have neither.
As far as prophesy goes, your typical (ignorant) American Fundamentalist understanding is totally false.
In Hebrew culture, a "prophet" ("mouthpiece") was someone who spoke the will of their god, TO THE PEOPLE OF THEIR OWN TIME.
It was not prediction of the future. In main-line seminaries and all the major schools of Biblical Studies, the freshmen students learn this in Bible 101.
The ancient role of a prophet in Hebrew culture was to interpret the words or will of their god to the people OF THEIR OWN DAY. NOT to predict the future. (That's Hollywood's idea of the role of a prophet). So you often hear fundies talking about "prophesy", and how various prophesies were a 'foretelling", or prediction of the future, and indeed they count them up as "proof" that Jesus or whatever HAS to be true, as the "prophecy" came true. 
In fact Leviticus forbade fortune telling and divination, so we know it was an abomination to even think in these terms for many/most centuries in Hebrew culture. However, with the rise of Apocalypticism, around the turn of the millennium, this changed somewhat, and is evidenced in many Christian writings, including the gospels, as they adopted the notions absent in ancient Israel, but coming into popular view with the Essenes. In terms of Hebrew culture, and the "telling of or prediction of" the future, was unknown, and forbidden, and not at ALL a view of the major prophets themselves. However in the the new view, certain "hidden meanings" or "pesherim" began to be looked for, in the practice of Midrash. The name for this is called "pesher", (or seeking a "hidden meaning"), which was not even known to the original speaker/writer, but only "revealed" later to certain believers.

Originally, the (plural) "pesherim" were only fully revealed to the Son of Righteousness, (the leader of the Essenes), and the idea was first found and fully understood after scholars read the Dead Sea scrolls, and was a sub category of "Midrash", (or study of the texts). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...15650.html

Thus we see that "prophesy" as fortune telling as began to be practiced in Judaism around the First Century, (and picked up by Christians and the gospel writers), really was a very late invention and never a classical part of Hebrew scripture, or understanding, either interpretation, or intention, and certainly was not the function of the ancient office of "prophet", in Hebrew culture, who was to be a "mouthpiece" to the people of their own day, and not Madame Zelda with her crystal ball.

A good example is the misinterpretation of the Virgin Birth.
The so-called "virgin birth" is one of the PRIME examples where there is development of an off-the-wall notion, based on a translation, of a MIS-translation, of a translation, which is then taken out of context, and solidified as doctrine, and driven over the cliff. 

To wit :
a. Background :
Isaiah 7 talks about the history of King Ahaz, son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, who was king of Judah. At the time, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, son of Remaliah, King of Israel, marched up to fight against Jerusalem, and the campaign was long and protracted. See the Syro-Ephraimite War, (Wikipedia :  ), and it happened in the 8th Century (734) BC. When Ahaz was loosing faith, Isaiah went to visit him, and told him to "buck up", keep the faith, and continue the war, and told him that the SIGN from god, that they were favored, was that one of his wives, (a "woman of marriageable age") would be found to be with child. The SIGN was the CHILD, (and NOT the manner of the birth). ...."And they shall name him Emmanuel" which means "god is with us". The CHILD was the SIGN. It was about the ancient time being discussed. It had NOTHING AT ALL to do with a future Jesus, as do ALL the purported "prophesies" EVER mentioned with respect to Jesus. First it's a totally ignorant view of what prophesy was, and second, IF it predicted anything at all, it was advice, (as in brush you teeth, or you will get cavities) ... THAT sort of ethical advice. It was NOT prediction of the future. This ignorant "miss" is one of THE greatest hallmarks of Fundamentalism, which every literate scholar of the Bible knows is wrong.

Any devout Jew in the time of the Roman occupation, (around 60 AD), would know that story, from Isaiah, and when they heard the words "a woman, (of marriageable age) will be found to be with child" they would connect the stories in their brains, and recognize that the gospel text's intention was to remind them of the Isaiah story, and would "harken" back to it, and realize the intent of the author was to claim that THIS child also was a sign, (BUT NOT the intent of the original text AT ALL.) The general intent of the Gospel of Matthew was to claim the fulfillment of the various prophesies regarding the messiah, and this one was another one of those claims/stories of fulfillment. But it was only in the context of the CHANGED understanding of the new interpretations.

b. The word "virgin" is a mistranslation, of a translation. So WE have a translation, of a mis-translation, of a translation. Matthew, writing in Greek about the "virgin birth" of Jesus, quotes the Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos,), (we still use the term "parthenogenesis") while the original Hebrew text has "עלמה" (almah), which has the slightly wider meaning of an unmarried, betrothed，or newly wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed Abijah, daughter of Zechariah. He NEVER meant to imply that he was asserting "gynecological" claims, and THAT whole business was "off-the-wall", a mistranslation, taken to ridiculous extremes, by interpreters who missed the point. THE CHILD was the sign. And the original text was about a condition of war and a child which was to be a sign.

Also interesting that Matthew (1:25) only says that Joseph "knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son". It does NOT say she REMAINED a virgin. (??)
In fact, it implies that she and Joseph had a normal married life.

---

Interpretation of dreams predicting future events is in the Bible.

---

No.
You have NO TRAINING in the Bible.
Omen reading was forbidden.
"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft"
 - Deuteronomy 18:10
You are going to hell for not doing what the word of your god says.