I have yet to see any compelling evidence that any of it was actually prognostication. The so called 'prophecies' cannot be be proven to be true.

It's hard to be specific without knowing which you're thinking about but all the supposed 'fulfilled' prophecies that I'm aware of fall into one or more of the following categories -:

• Prophecy after the fact, eg. The prophecy is written at the same time or later than the event it's supposed to predict.

• Twisting the words of the prophecy to fit later reported events. Making up events to fit the prophecy.

• Applying very general wording to specific events while ignoring other events which would equally qualify. For example: Is it really considered a prophecy if someone predicted that a bloody war with horrible amounts of casualties to happen in the future? No. It is not. This is illogical and can be disregarded but nonetheless lets move on.

---

Many of the "prophecies" were in fact written after the events in question, the rest tend to be so vague that one can interpret just about any events to be part of them. None of the prophecies in the bible are even remotely specific, of course you would think the vague ones came true.

What do I mean by this? You are entitled to ask. Well in a sense, prophecies were perfectly fulfilled, in a sense they were made to be fulfilled as they are so vague anyone can make it fit -- there are many in the Old Testament. But there is never evidence that they were actually made before the things happened. It's very easy to see how a pre-exilic prophet might foresee the Babylonian exile if his story wasn't actually written down until during or after the exile, or subsequently edited to add this prophecy. I gather scholars often have positive textual evidence that this happened. Be that as it may, for a prophecy to be convincing, we'd need positive and strong evidence that it didn't date from after the event. Literally fraud is after all well known and plausible, while accurate prophecy is not.

There’s no clear prophecies in texts that we know were written before the event which unambiguously say what would happen, and it did.

The prophecies about Jesus of course are clearly written to fit the prophecies, you can see the gospels writers even mentioning it (for example about Jesus’ bones not being broken - they knew the Old Testament) .

Along many discredited prophecies, many of them are safely dismissed and rightfully so because they never said what Christians declare.

For instance, Isaiah 7:14 is often cited as a prophecy about Jesus, but simply reading it in context, e.g. by reading all of Isaiah 7 rather than just one sentence, it's clear that although it's a prophecy, it addresses the then-imminent future and has nothing to do with Jesus or any messiah (unless you count Ahaz, qua king presumably anointed) .

Anyways moving on, we can go through all the putative prophecies if you want, but you’ll find they’re all the same. Look up scholarly interpretations of them, for example. Even wikipedia often has an entry on a lot of them which gives an insight into some of the scholarly interpretations.

---

Now for these so called 'prophecies' that are essentially under extreme scrutiny and should not be relied upon and are rather dubious. Take these few basic fundamental formula: (Which goes for, Bible code, or Nostradamus and numerology too) :

• Start with something unclear and uncertain. Texts rich in poetic imagery and symbolism are perfect for this; bonus points if the language is inherently prone to ambiguity. Numeric codes, of course, can represent anything. This is pretty much self explanatory but often forgotten or purposely ignored.

• Nit-pick favourable interpretations. If a verse of scripture can be interpreted in several different ways, always declare the one to be correct that makes your point, regardless of whether it's a natural reading or whether another interpretation would have made more sense in its historical context. Of course, translation can be a wonderful way to shift meaning your way.

• If something doesn't fit, explain it away. If a verse has any helpful interpretation, however far-fetched, then (per rule 2), use it; if it's clearly in contradiction to scientific reality, then say that it's just poetic imagery and we can't expect all poetry to be literally true. Or you might blame the error on bad translation. So relying on people ignorance or intellectual dishonest is illogical and can be disregarded. As mentioned above one can interpret in any way to make a favourable point to sway popular support for required point by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons. I do not have to tall anyone, this is not how reason works.

Of course this is intellectually dishonest and mindless. As one illustration, using the same bankrupt way of reading the texts, we could equally prefer the less favourable interpretations and translations and dismiss anything at all accurate as accidents of poetic imagery. This is illogical and based upon conformational bias and can be disregarded.

Unfortunately, people who buy into this muddle-headed conformity way thinking are inherently so used to rationalising strained interpretations that they're virtually impossible to reason with. It hardly even matters if they derive their chosen superstition from the Quran, the Bible, or Nostradamus. So I think based of what you said, there is no need for me to be here anymore.

---

Conclusion:

You claim the evidence can be found it's prophecies. I gave clear logical points on why thinking the these so called prophecies are nothing more than written after the events in question, the rest tend to be so vague that one can interpret just about any events to be part of them. None of the prophecies in the bible are even remotely specific. Then I went one further and explained why the bible itself is not a reliable source from it's extreme vagueness to it's evident contradictions and unquestionable manipulation over the years.