Not my definition of prophecy, Viv. That's from Webster Dictionary.
But you claimed it as your understanding. Which is it?
Perhaps you should write them and inform them of the new definition.
Why would I do that? So far it's 100% accurate, no prophecy has come true. As that's also your understanding, we seem to all be in agreement.
No, even if I could come up with pinpoint chronology, names, places, and events in fine detail, you and most modern scholars will reject the evidence. Why? Because you do not believe in predictive prophesy.
But you can't, so it's 100% irrelevant what you wrongly presume I and others would think. It's pointless speculation. At least you admit you can't come up with a prophecy.
Nothing, and nobody is going to change that. End of story. If a dog bit you in the bum, you will not believe it.
What does a dog biting me in the bum have to do with your failure to come up with a prophecy?
You would reason: It could have been a hyena or a shark in disguise. So, straw man and changing the goal posts indeed...
Yes, you literally just made up a giant strawman, claiming that if you COULD do what you so have haven't, then I would change the goalposts. How incredibly dishonest of you.
Let's just stick with what we have today. I've not moved any goalposts, you simply can't come up with a prophecy that has been specifically fulfilled, so now you've moved your argument to "Well, if I could, you would just deny it". The simple fact is, that's not what's under discussion. The very definition you claimed as your own of prophecy admits it would never be fulfilled and, thus far, you've only confirmed the lack of prophecy.
Rather than complain about what you think I might do, I would suggest you look inward to your own arguments and discern why they are so easily dismantled.