I think we're in agreement here.
I posted a link to an entire blog post about modern people taking demonstrably non-prophetic material and then, after thematically related traumatic events occurred, finding the material at least emotionally "uncanny" (and in one case intellectually uncanny, seriously considering whether a piece was an "interpolation" of sorts created after the fact). If it was previously unclear, let me now declare that I believe that this propensity is a species-level feature, not anything peculiar to modern people.
With those facts established, my post here could emphasize other aspects of the problem, e.g that ancient testimony survives to some awareness that understanding of prophetic material is labile "before versus after." Since the famous part of Herodotus' oracle story is about a consumer reading what he wanted to read in a text that said no such thing, how could you and I disagree that some ancients found some prophecies in some texts that were very often not written as prophecies at all?
Yes, I see the distinction from the "issue" in Herodotus' story: whether or not that utterance was intended as prophetic wasn't in question: it was. Now, please return the favor and try to see that the cognitive lapse in that situation and "They were twisted into becoming prophecies" are very similar: some readers read what they wanted to read even when that isn't in the text.
While "Bible code" style lapses may be especially interesting ways to "read" a text wishfully, those weren't the only kind of laspes made. Matthew rewrote Mary's sexual history partly because of a poor word-choice by a pre-Christian translator, but also by Matthew's pointedly ignoring the context within which the word appeared. He did, however, correctly identify the cited story as an explicit prophecy, as explicit as any Delphic pronouncement, but it wasn't about Jesus or any other Messianic claimant. That was Matthew's wishful reading.
The moral of our story is that there are many ways to read a text to comport with interest. Herodotus' famous anecdote shows one, Matthew shows a few all by himself, and away we go.
ETA There is some irony here, since our discussion is predicated on a strong belief that we share but which is not demonstrably true: That God Almighty did not, as a matter of fact, dictate every jot and tittle of the Hebrew source text, of the original LXX translation and of the 1611 King James Version. Some of the people whose "lapses" you and I agree are lapses would consider careful examination of God's compositions, even down to the character level, to be a well-founded excavation of genuine information placed in the texts by their sole author, the Creator of the Universe.
We do well not to let our disagreement with a premise cloud our understanding of what follows from it, lest we fail to understand the behavior of those whose premise it is