1.
It must be accurate. A statement
cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is
not accurate, because knowledge (and thus fore
knowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
I do not know what you mean by accurate. Do you mean that it is something that really happened in history? If so, it is known history that Bahaullah traveled to the places that fulfill Micah 7:12, in the exact order the prophecy states.
2.
It must be in the Bible. A statement
cannot be
Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
Well, I agree with that for obvious reasons, but I do not know what you mean by “modern reinterpretations of the text.” What interpretation do you think is to be used?
3.
It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement
cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if
meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because
ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
I can agree that vague predictions are not very useful if we are trying to use them to determine whether they were actually fulfilled.
4.
It must be improbable. A statement
cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because fore
knowledge requires a person to actually
know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows
anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
I don’t know what you mean by a guess. Allegedly, the prophets in the Bible got their knowledge from God. Why else would anyone even bother to pay any attention to what they revealed? As such, if a prophet revealed a prophecy it would not be a guess, it would be something he knew was going to transpire in the future.
I do not understand why whether it is probable or improbable would have any bearing on whether the prophecy was actually fulfilled. If it was not something that you were expecting to happen and it happened why would you be more prone to believe it was fulfilled?
5.
It must have been unknown. A statement
cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because
foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.
Again, what I said above applies. Allegedly, the prophets in the Bible got their knowledge from God. Why else would anyone even bother to pay any attention to what they revealed? As such, if a prophet revealed a prophecy it would not be a guess, it would be something he knew was going to transpire in the future.
The fulfillment of Micah 7:12 by Baha’u’llah was accurate, in the Bible, precise and unambiguous, improbable and unknown, according to your delineations.
Micah 7:12 In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.
As with most prophesies, it's easy to look back when you know what you're looking for to tell that it was fulfilled, but impossible to guess what it is referring to beforehand. It helps to look at the context, but even then one cannot know who “he” refers to unless one is looking at history and can see how it was fulfilled by a person in history.
Also, prophecies are not written in a manner that we would know
exactly what they were referring to because they were not intended to be so precise such that everyone could instantly identify a messiah in the future. God has never made things that easy. That might be what people would like but that was not the intention of the prophets.