But just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy could be if it were actually the product of omniscience. If the Bible were such a book, it would make specific, falsifiable predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage like, "In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers-the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus-and this system shall be called the Internet." The Bible contains nothing remotely like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century.In response, Steve Hays complains that, "Harris has done nothing to disprove the argument from prophecy. No attempt to deal with the actual prophecies of Scripture. Instead, he’s changing the subject." Then he makes some irrelevant remarks that do not attempt to deal with Harris' point--or more likely fail to do so out of sheer ignorance. Here's me enlightening him.
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.
Because of this problem, sensible people demand that it be possible to correctly interpret Biblical prophecies in advance. Ergo, all prophecies regarding Jesus fail, since the Jews of Jesus' day, "had no conception of a dying, much less a rising, Messiah" (to quote WL Craig, who thinks this counts in favor of Christianity).