Why are you referring me to a commentary? Aren't you discussing a biblical passage? I just mentioned that I prefer original sources when possible over apologetics. And FYI, very few readers will go hunt down something you want read unless they want to read it. Why would I be interested in Matt's opinion?Read Matthew Henry Bible Commentary on line regarding Ezek. 37. If you read it carefully then you will see it predicts the rebirth of Israel ...
So what? Do you consider that quality prophecy? I don't. No superhuman ability is necessary to fulfill a prediction.... it predicts the rebirth of Israel as a nation at the exact same spot and undivided.
Let me help you with that. The characteristics of prophecy that would convince a skeptic are these :
 High quality prophecy needs to be specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified.
 It also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique - something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived.
 The prophecies must be verified that they came before the event predicted, and that they were fulfilled completely.
 The prophecies must be unaccompanied by failed prophecies.
See aboveCompleted early 1700s (?) when Israel did not exist. Now lets say 1000 years from now someone discovers a fragmented copy of that writing and knew Israel came back in 1948. They would have to conclude the Matthew Henry Commentary fragment was no earlier than 1948. While we know it was completed far earlier. I think that is called confirmation bias.