When I was a Christian, one of the biggest reasons I had for believing the Bible was that it contained actual prophecy — or so I thought. I mean, if a book gave specific, detailed prophecies that no one could have guessed, and then they came true, wouldn’t that be good reason for believing that God may have had something to do with that book? How could a mere human accomplish such a thing? And it’s not just that the Bible sometimes got it right, it always got it right — or so I believed.
According to the Bible, a good test of whether or not someone is a true prophet is the accuracy of their prophecy. Makes sense, I suppose. Just as chefs are judged on the quality of their cooking, so prophets should be judged by the quality of their predictions. In the case of chefs, no one claims that God is required to make them great. But if you could show that someone was a true prophet, that would be fantastic evidence that God might be speaking through them. An unreliable prophet, on the other hand…:
when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
— Deut 18:22
An inaccurate prophet is no prophet at all, in other words. He does not speak for God. This is a great litmus test for anyone claiming to have divine revelation. It was my belief that the Bible passed this test with flying colors… but does it?
When the Bible Gets It Right
When I was a Christian, one of prophecies that always stood out to me was that of King Josiah:
And behold, a man of God came out of Judah by the word of the Lord to Bethel. Jeroboam was standing by the altar to make offerings. And the man cried against the altar by the word of the Lord and said, “O altar, altar, thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name, and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who make offerings on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.'”
— 1 Kings 13:1-2
This is a very specific prophecy. While there’s no timeline given, the prophet says that someone in David’s line would be born who would use that altar to sacrifice false priests and that the man’s name would be Josiah. In 2 Kings 23, this prophecy comes true about 300 years later! This was a prophecy that always stuck in my mind as being too marvelous for any mere mortal to accurately predict — surely God had inspired that prophet!
But as it turns out, the 300 year time difference is misleading. 1 and 2 Kings are just two halves of the same book. The same authors that wrote or compiled 1 Kings 13 also wrote or compiled 2 Kings 23. Therefore, there’s no way to know if that prophet ever existed, much less that he actually gave a prophecy concerning a king who would come 300 years later. In other words, this doesn’t really count as evidence of a true prophecy. Maybe the event really happened, but since both the event and the fulfillment were recorded in the same book, there’s no good reason to take it at face value.
There are other examples we could look at as well, but I think the point comes across. Just because something at first blush appears to be an actual prophecy, it may not be upon closer examination. Still, while this might indicate that the case for the Bible’s inspiration isn’t as strong we first suspected, this would not have caused me to question its inspiration when I was a believer. I would have needed something bigger.
When the Bible Gets It Wrong
Jeremiah 33:17 says this:
“For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel”
When I was growing up, this prophecy was sometimes referred to as a prediction of Christ. Hebrews 1:8 says that the throne was preserved for Jesus, and Acts 2:29-31 says this:
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.”
So the literal kingdom of Judah is not what Jeremiah is talking about, according to these passages. Jeremiah was foretelling a time in which Jesus would sit on the throne of an eternal, spiritual kingdom as David’s descendant. But is that really what Jeremiah intended?
If you look at the following verse, Jeremiah 33:18, you see this:
“…and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.”
Can verse 17 still be taken figuratively in light of verse 18? According to books like Hebrews, Jesus became the new high priest forever when he was crucified and rose from the dead. So could that be the application of this particular prophecy? No. Jeremiah specifies that the priests would be Levitical — in other words, they would be of the tribe of Levi, which is the only tribe that was allowed to offer sacrifices. Jesus was not of that tribe. Hebrews gets around this problem by linking Jesus’ priesthood to the way God allowed priests before Moses was given the law — they were granted priesthood based on their caliber, not on their lineage. Hebrews refers to this as the “order of Melchizedek,” since Melchizedek was the most prominent person mentioned in the OT to have this honor. Refer to Hebrews 7 if you’d like more info on this.
It’s very difficult to take verse 18 figuratively, and when taken at face value it’s false. Levitical priests do not offer sacrifices today, and haven’t for a very long time. And since it’s hard to take verse 18 figuratively, it’s hard to take 17 figuratively as well. Once again, it fails as a prophecy because Israel is not a monarchy and there hasn’t been a Davidic king in over 2500 years.
When you’re an inerrantist, as I was, it’s hard to know what to do with this information. Do problems like this mean the entire Bible is wrong, or just that particular book? It turns out there are many more problems littered throughout the Bible. We’ll talk about one more in this post, but for more information, feel free to check out the links listed on the home page.
A very clear example is found in Matthew 2:14-15 where we’re told that when Joseph and Mary fled with the infant Jesus to Egypt, it was to fulfill a prophecy from Hosea 11:1, “out of Egypt I called my son.” However, when you read the passage in Hosea, it says this:
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
And from there, Hosea talks about Israel’s unfaithfulness to the Lord in serving after Baal, etc. Obviously, Hosea is talking about the nation of Israel, and there’s no reference at all to any future event, much less the Messiah. Matthew appropriated this text when he (apparently) created the story of Jesus’ family fleeing to Egypt. Matthew calls this a prophecy, but the original text is anything but. So many of the Bible’s prophecies fall apart in this way when researched.
While actual prophecy fulfillment would go a long way in supporting the notion that the Bible is inspired, in practice, it just doesn’t work out that way. Not only do the apparent prophecies get weaker upon inspection, but some of them are simply false. So if accurate prophecies should make us think the Bible is inspired, what should inaccurate prophecies make us think?
Finding Truth 
“Also, I’m definitely NOT the best person to be making cosmological arguments. So any holes you punch in whatever I say can most definitely be argued better by someone who knows what the hell they’re talking about.”
I am sure you will not believe it Ruth but the moment I find someone wiling to engage issues rather than just pretend to be engaging them as I find EVERYONE else here has done I am not interesting in punching holes. I’ll make my point but if you find me “punching” you call me on it.
LikeLike
The things beyond our knowledge are just that, beyond our knowledge. It could be anything. Not all guesses are equal, but lets assume ” god.”
Mike, do we just also have to assume then, the bible?
LikeLike
I dont mind discussing theoretical physics – I even enjoy it – but this is a religious blog, with a biblical context.
We could get back to that or we could let mike get lost in 1+1=miracle in space, in an ongoing attempt at dodging the obvious question that directly result from his own comments.
Always be ready to avoid giving an answer for the hope that is within you
LikeLike
I’ve been a way for a little bit and haven’t had time to respond till now. William, I’m gonna ask you to take a break for a while. I think some of your recent comments have been too personal — it’s the kind of thing that I’m trying very hard to move this blog away from.
Thanks
LikeLike
I’m not entirely sure why I’m still here on this thread. Perhaps I’ll take a stab at this.
@Mike:
Much has been said here, so please remind me: what were the question(s) that you insisted any non-beliver answer before you will answer any of his/hers?
LikeLike
“So it’s your contention that if there is no first cause – miracle? ”
NO In fact the evidence says here has to be but it can’t be a natural process or we are back to depending on things that have causes and an infinite regress where every thing is a miracle.
I’m a little confused by this answer. When I said ‘no first cause’ I meant infinite regress. Is it your contention the with either infinite regress or ‘first cause’ something supernatural/miraculous happened?
As I said, I’ll have to do more reading about this. Cosmology and theoretical physics are not exactly areas I’ve spent a lot of time pursuing. There are only so many hours in a day.
WHen did I conclude that evolution doesn’t happen? and what are you talking about when you refer to evolution – biological? – stellar?
I must have misunderstood something you said. But if matter has always existed, even prior to the Big Bang, why would “everything” that exists be a miracle? Why wouldn’t there be stellar evolution, or biological evolution?
Is it possible that scientists lack a full understanding of cause and effect? How are we using cause? Are we using it as a verb or a noun? I’d tend to think that we’re talking about a noun when we think about a ‘First Cause’. What about the possibility of Initial Singularity being the first cause?
LikeLike
Mike Anthony
June 15, 2014 at 11:44 am
“I loved Ron’s example about stars falling from the sky. That is clearly an example of gMatt showing that Jesus bought into the inaccuracy of that period’s world view.”
Matthew 24:29 “”Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.”
“I’d be curious to know what in the world you are talking about. Matthew is taking about a time when God reveals himself to the world in full glory as God. The natural meets the supernatural. You and Ron might be suffering from a bit of circular reasoning. God as a concept is the supreme being. No theist believes God is subject to the laws of nature but controls them so snuffing out light of the sun is no more than a command to do so.”
Mike, the Oxford Bible Commentary says the supernatural darkness of the consummation in Mt 24:29 is richly symbolic.
Because you believe this passage to be literal does not make it so.
LikeLike
Mike,
You really do raise some very interesting questions that I have given some thought about quite a bit. I can’t really say I have definitive answers for your “big” question (regarding the “domino” thing), but I have some thoughts.
First, your 2 options are the only 2 that I’ve been able to think of and I haven’t heard of any others – namely: (A) there is some thing or things that are “necessary” – in that they have no cause and are not in need of explanation, OR (B) there is an infinite regress. -> So I’m down with that.
First, both options have seemed strange to me since I was in Junior high school, but let’s go with them. Option (B) is weird for my finite brain to think about, so I can talk a little more about (A) instead. My understanding from philosophers is that the “necessary” stuff is either natural or supernatural. Now I know this is different from your definition for supernatural and I’m not trying to trip you up – I think you can probably still make your point without it, but I want to make sure we’re talking about the right stuff.
I’ll quote William Dembski, because I think he has summarized it best when talking about the cosmological argument: “explanations always run out at some point. There’s a final resting place of explanation, and it seems we can end it in nature or we can end it in God. I’m not sure you can adjudicate that on any sort of logical grounds that stand outside and can say ok well it’s really God and not nature.”
Now he is choosing option (A) here (which may not be the correct option, but again it fits in my brain a little better). But he is saying one option within (A) is that we can end the explanations in “nature”.
My understanding of this is that the definition of supernatural is different than yours. For example, perhaps the “necessary” things are just physical laws of nature (including logic) along with some very simple necessary non-thinking particles and everything we see is a result of those necessary natural laws acting on those necessary natural particles. I really don’t know if this is the case, but it seems a logical option at least. It may very well be that the same ramifications that you are suggesting still arise in this situation, although I’m still not totally sure what ramifications you mean. So just tell me what your thoughts are on this if you’d like.
LikeLike
“No theist believes God is subject to the laws of nature but controls them so snuffing out light of the sun is no more than a command to do so.”
Mike again you and millions of people might “believe” this but it does not make it so.
I am not ignoring you at the moment since you appear to trying to be civil. 🙂
LikeLike
“I am not ignoring you at the moment since you appear to trying to be civil.”
I caught the end of this because its the last post. You are so cute. You think I am not ignoring you at the moment? Your name Ruth? Last thing I read of you was nonsense
How does it appear to you now?
LikeLike
“Mike, the Oxford Bible Commentary says the supernatural darkness of the consummation in Mt 24:29 is richly symbolic. ”
Thought I’d check to see if you had improved
not a drop
HInt: Protestants don’t have one source that speaks for the Bible and the OBC wouldn’t be the pope. try harder until then
back on my ignore
LikeLike
“I’m a little confused by this answer. When I said ‘no first cause’ I meant infinite regress. Is it your contention the with either infinite regress or ‘first cause’ something supernatural/miraculous happened?I’m a little confused by this answer. When I said ‘no first cause’ I meant infinite regress. Is it your contention the with either infinite regress or ‘first cause’ something supernatural/miraculous happened?”
sorry if I misunderstood Ruth. With an infinite regress everything is a miracle because nothing has any cause or explanation. Lets say a ball is bouncing in an imaginary universe that has infinite regress. Why is it bouncing? Well normally you would say a force caused it to but in an infinite universe that force comes from nowhere it has no beginning or the force generates from something that has no explanation, no reason and no cause.
How is this any substantial different from the supernatural? NO natural cause, no rational explanation dependent on a non process. Again Not claiming that supernatural equals God or theism.
“I must have misunderstood something you said. But if matter has always existed, even prior to the Big Bang, why would “everything” that exists be a miracle? Why wouldn’t there be stellar evolution, or biological evolution? ”
sure you can have evolution but all you are talking about is processes that cause the evolution . these processes themselves have no explanation no rational cause. Second you have another problem. All the best science says the universe ends in heat death at which point things are spread out so much the universe is done with but if this universe was infinite in the past that would have already happened long ago. This raises a a conundrum and absurdity because anything that could destroy or render the universe in a heat death would have already happened in an infinity an infinite time ago. In fact an infinite universe would have to be fine tuned that nothing would ever destroy it or render it useless or non functional in a span of infinite time because if so it would have forever have been in that state for forever long ago.
If all this sounds absurd it probably is – because an infinity is a human concept not one that we have actually confirmed is even possible.
“What about the possibility of Initial Singularity being the first cause?”
it doesn’t matter what we call it. The issues are the same. it still represents a reality with no cause, no explanation no process that gets it there (without going into infinite regress again). I’d argue that it therefore shares everything with theism except (and I admit its a big exception) intelligence
“Is it possible that scientists lack a full understanding of cause and effect?”
IF they do then we are in bad shape because rationality is based on it and so is science itself.
” How are we using cause? Are we using it as a verb or a noun? ‘
Not sure what you are asking here. Please feel free to clarify it to me.
LikeLike
So,Mike, you ready to explain how Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator of the Universe(s) yet?
LikeLike
Not sure what you are asking here. Please feel free to clarify it to me.
It seems to me that a cause is an action. So when we talk about cause that’s what we mean. When we say that everything has a cause, the cause is a physical action on physical matters that already exist. That is all we can observe and all we can research, which you’ve already mentioned. But if we say that the beginning of the universe had to have a first cause, are we talking about physical action on physical matter or properties that physically exist? Or are we talking about a Cause? A non-physical entity? Which would then be a noun?
As far as I can tell, and there again I’m no theoretical physicist (clearly :D), if we cannot test, observe, research anything that is non-physical I don’t know how we’d make a leap to a supernatural conclusion. Unless we are claiming the supernatural for anything that we cannot currently explain.
…because an infinity is a human concept not one that we have actually confirmed is even possible.
Is an infinity being claimed for this supernatural cause? Or did it come from nothing?
LikeLike
@Ratamacue,
I’m not entirely sure why I’m still here on this thread. Perhaps I’ll take a stab at this.
@Mike:
Much has been said here, so please remind me: what were the question(s) that you insisted any non-beliver answer before you will answer any of his/hers?
I’m completely out of my element here.
Mike, can you re-state your questions for Ratamacue and perhaps others who may be lurking? I tried to find them but this comment section has gotten really long.
As I remember them and I’m paraphrasing:
Since everything we see in the natural world must have a cause, the Universe must have a cause, therefore necessarily that cause must be supernatural (outside of the laws of nature we currently observe).
Can we agree that the Universe had a supernatural cause?
What are the ramifications of a supernatural cause?
I may not have that right, so Mike: feel free to correct any portion of that which is incorrect.
LikeLike
“HInt: Protestants don’t have one source that speaks for the Bible and the OBC wouldn’t be the pope. try harder until then”
Mike, I’m glad you’re not showing any bias in this comment. Now I realize why you talk down to so many of the people here. Not only were many of us “former Christians”, we were the really stupid kind, “Protestants”.
LikeLike
Mike,
If I’m understanding your argumentation:
No matter what explanation might be given for the cause of the Big Bang, it can’t be the ‘First Cause’ because anything that can be explained would need further explanation? Therefore the ‘First Cause’ is necessarily supernatural?
LikeLike
okay, let’s just say we agree – it’s all supernatural. God did it? now what?
which god?
how do you know it’s the bible god?
are those supernatural leaps as well that just cant be explained by reason?
LikeLike
He’s trying to get anyone to agree with “supernatural” so he can jump out of the closet with a pointed finger and shout “AH HA!” so he can then reassure himself that since everyone believes in the supernatural, then his book of supernatural claims shouldnt be or couldnt debunked.
the unprovable origins is really moot, because it’s unknowable. It’s up in the air and he knows that, so as long as he keep an argument going, he can avoid having to deal with the fact the bible, his perfect and divine book, is quite imperfect and is entirely based on the claims of man.
it’s a kindergartner’s ploy. No one knows what was before the big band or what caused it. there are guesses, and they’re not all equal. “god” is a guess. But we’ve seen that guess fail throughout time (as with planetary gravity for one). We’ve seem science make mistakes and correct itself and we’ve seen science work and then move forward – we have plenty of evidence for that.
but’s go ahead and just assume god did it. Okay, mike, what now? how does that prove jesus?
LikeLike
sorry nate. no more from me. i’ll excuse myself now.
LikeLike
@ William,
He’s trying to get anyone to agree with “supernatural” so he can jump out of the closet with a pointed finger and shout “AH HA!” so he can then reassure himself that since everyone believes in the supernatural, then his book of supernatural claims shouldnt be or couldnt debunked.
I just don’t think it’s particularly helpful to declare the motivations of others. I think they reveal those all on their own. It may be completely fruitless for me to discuss the origins of the universe with Mike but the discussion we’ve been having up to this point hasn’t exactly filled the basket either.
LikeLike
@Ruth
Mike’s motivations are crystal clear. He’s here to troll and get under your skin. And short of banishment, the only way to deprive him of the oxygen he desires is to stop responding to him directly—pretend like he’s not even part of the conversation. Refute his points without so much as quoting his comments or mentioning his name. (If you feel inclined to be sarcastic, type out a long condescending reply, read it over, have a chuckle, and then promptly delete it before posting.)
“It’s not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.”
~Epictetus
LikeLike
@Ron,
I’ve been reading the comments since this thread started. Mike has explicitly stated his motivations. I don’t think he’s hiding them.
“It’s not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.”
~Epictetus
I love this quote!
LikeLike
Ruth I read WIlliams accusation because you quoted it. In my last post to you I conceded that even if an atheist were to agree that the universe necessarily calls for a supernatural cause that does not mean the Issue of God is settled when I wrote even if that were conceded
“I’d argue that it therefore shares everything with theism except (and I admit its a big exception) intelligence)
So the argument does NOT equal God did it. I realize that quite a few Christians do make that leap but not all of us do. There would still be the large question of Intelligence and I openly admitted is a BIG issue
I’ll get to your last post to me by the weekend. tied up with some work and a new client.
I would add though that we have had some stern disagreements and you are DEFINITELY not my fan. the idea that you would be some push over to debate. for me to do a gotcha, is nonsense especially since this is an atheist’s site with mostly atheists. Its simply that I sensed you were the ONLY one genuinely not being dismissive and I can respect that on its own basis. I have no illusions that at the end of this Ruth will fall to her knee and say nearer my God to thee. In my experience online debates never have such turn around buts in the one out of one thousand of them perhaps people walk away understanding the others points and their own better.
NO attempt to change stances either. I still think Ark, arch, kk, Ron william and yeah even Nate to a degree are full or nonsense. However if you show some REAL genuine respect as you did towards looking at an issue (not toward me even), whether you agree with it or not then you’ve earned some for yours back.
the rest of the crew aren’t fooling anyone that they are genuinely willing to do that SO I’ll continue to ignore everyone but You and Nate (and nate ONLY because its his blog)
.
Simple. Who doesn’t like it can have a cow or ban me.
LikeLike
@ Mike,
Just very quickly: did I summarize your questions for Ratamcue accurately? I do think he(I think he’s a he), and portal, and Howie would like to genuinely address these, or at least determine if they’d like to take a stab at them.
LikeLike