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 
Ruth
reading your last few responses just indicates that you are begging out of having to deal with the issue by using a smorgasboard of excuses. You did better than your comrades for awhile but its really just the same ducking and running they were doing. As time permits I will respond to the others but lets take one of the main tactics you employed and I will debunk it.
The claim: Its a philosophical argument.
this is code word for “If I label it philosophical I don’t have to deal with it”. The implication and psychology of it is if its philosophical then its not science so its of secondary value. You are not alone with this bluff and I am sure you believe it as well
In this case it is easier to debunk because I see from your blog you have been watching Lawrence Krauss. May I ask one simple question
Why is Lawrence Krauss’s everything out of nothing NEVER labeled as a philosophical argument by atheists such as yourself?
Krauss takes QM and extrapolates from it that the universe sans space and time can be created by a law that can only be shown to be real inside time and space. Dos he have direct evidence of this? No…nada. Theists takes what we have learned from cause and effect and come to the very certain conclusion that materialism based in cause and effect must terminate.
Atheist’s don’t label that philosophical and its obviously self serving and fallacious. Now some people try and come back with the flimsy defense that Krauss’ is a scientist. However he is also an avowed atheist and whenever a theistic scientists comes to a conclusion that is not atheistic he/she is brushed off by claiming he/she is in inputting their theism so the same can be said of Krauss’s and his atheism.
Fact is my argument IS a scientific argument. its based on the findings of EVERY scientific test ever done in every field – that nature has causes and effects. You may not realize it and may need to think about it more but when you claim an infinity universe in respect to past as you have you ARE implying that something exempts itself form the science we know.
Arte YOU being philosophical?
That’s one way to debunk your claims and in another post over the weekend I will give another way to debunk that as well
LikeLike
“And then there was Nate’s (what I thought) excellent question. Why do we have to go back to pre-expansion to find a basis for “supernatural”.
I actually read Nate’s question there and didn’t answer because rather than excellent I thought the whole premise was just vastly silly and transparent coming from someone claiming to be after finding the truth. Lets say that we did come up with a truth for something and it was rooted in something a trillion years ago. truth is truth. where the truth arose to our understanding is just nonsensical to make an issue pro or con. Its really nothing but a duck and dodge really.
LikeLike
Look, Mike, I’m trying to answer the questions you asked to the best of my ability. It seems that if I do anything short of concede “supernatural” that you write me off as not taking the question seriously. I actually take the question very seriously and if you read all my posts you know that I’m not settled on any one view. I don’t see how anyone can settle on a particular view even if they concede supernatural caused because I’m not at all certain how one would know anything about the supernatural cause.
I said in one of my responses that to concede “supernatural”, unless one settles on one of the proposed creationist deities, that supernatural in my mind was the equivalent of “I don’t know”. Now from that vantage point of “I don’t know” one might offer up hypothesis, but that is what they are – hypothesis. I’m interested in hearing yours.
The fact that I’m pondering out loud here, so to speak, should tell you that I’m at least considering this. If you don’t want to engage if I don’t say the things you want to hear that’s fine. It’s your option. I’m not the one with all the burning answers.
LikeLike
So much for looking like it was going to be interesting. For what it’s worth (and I realize lately it’s been worth very little), I personally think Krauss is actually delving into philosophy in many of his talks.
LikeLike
You’d like for us to agree that something supernatural caused the beginning, whatever that was (as best as I can tell the Big Bang may not have even been the beginning) and what the ramifications of that are.
Here is where I am:
Something probably happened that caused the big bang and/or the beginning of time as we know it. That means that whatever that something might have is beyond our understanding at this time. Based on that things have happened and continue to happen that are beyond our current understanding. Am I saying that these things don’t defy the laws of nature that we currently understand? No I am not.
LikeLike
I agree with you Howie. That is why I said it was a question of philosophy, All the possible scenarios of what have happened pre-expansion seem very philosophical to me if there isn’t any evidence for them,
LikeLike
Fact is my argument IS a scientific argument. its based on the findings of EVERY scientific test ever done in every field – that nature has causes and effects. You may not realize it and may need to think about it more but when you claim an infinity universe in respect to past as you have you ARE implying that something exempts itself form the science we know.
That may well be, but anytime we claim anything that is beyond the science as we know it it becomes philosophical. So perhaps I am being philosophical (I think I even copped to that, btw). But I think you’re being more philosophical than you’d like to admit.
LikeLike
“Look, Mike, I’m trying to answer the questions you asked to the best of my ability. It seems that if I do anything short of concede “supernatural” that you write me off as not taking the question seriously.”
Look Ruth you can get testy if you want. It doesn’t matter to me. If you wish to claim that something is philosophical in a CLEAR attempt to brush it off to some secondary level then you will be called on it. I don’t atheists proclaiming Krauss’ argument is “philosophical” and neither I bet do you which is probably why you are getting flustered. Its almost solely claimed against theists
I don’t have a lot of time anymore for playing games with atheists on an atheist blog. if there was a lot of traffic to this blog or even a good bit of neutral traffic then there might be some payoff but since that is not the case I won’t be entertaining games and getting flustered when you get called on them.
LikeLike
Mike, Krauss argument does seem to be philosophical though,
since when he is discussing things like the beginning of the universe, he is discussing processes that cannot be measured, directly observed, tested and placed in a control, and therefore used as a reference for prediction.
It is therefore philosophical since the scientific method cannot be applied to it.
LikeLike
I’m not a big Krauss fan. I watched a few youtube videos. So whatever claim you make about him is neither here nor there to me.
I admitted up front this isn’t an area I know a lot about. If you read my blog piece that should have been pretty evident.
I got flustered because you took things that I said, which I admitted were philosophical in nature (I’m the last person who would claim any certain knowledge about the subject), to brush me off. You’re perfectly entitled to do that.
For those of us who don’t pretend to have all the answers, pondering such questions isn’t secondary. If you have the answers we’d like to hear them.
If you’ve got bigger fish to fry and that’s why you’d like to drop it you’re entitled to that, too.
LikeLike
“That may well be, but anytime we claim anything that is beyond the science as we know it it becomes philosophical. ”
and what does that even mean? beyond science. Right now the science does not tell us that evolution is unguided and yet all atheists claim it most definitely is not. So I take it that the atheist position is philosophical? that’s funny I never heard you claiming abiogenesis was “philosophical” when you were discussing that at another time.
The great deception of how atheists try to use the word philosophy is that we use philosophy constantly in science as we apply logic and rationality to the facts that we find from experiments
That philosophy applies where we don’t have science is utterly fallacious and its usually an argument as it is here where the proponents are merely trying to skirt around logic and rationality.
LikeLike
“I’m not a big Krauss fan. I watched a few youtube videos. So whatever claim you make about him is neither here nor there to me. ”
I wasn’t claiming you were a fan . I was asking you why atheist such as yourself seldom ever apply “philosophy” to his arguments as you do theists whether you agree with him or not. I submit that you only play that card when you wish to skirt around rational and logic based arguments of theists.
P.S. I should add that though you read me right that I don’t think this argument equals God exists I nevertheless is a huge blow to materialism upon which most of atheism is built
LikeLike
It should be obvious by this point that I’m not some atheist debater. I thought we could have a discussion(not necessarily debate) about this issue.
It’s fine that you don’t agree with me. Why is it though, that when you don’t agree with me, you tend to just tell me I’m skirting rationality and logic instead of just laying out your logic and rationality?
It’s not helping me to see where I’m wrong for you to just tell me I’m wrong. Tell me why you are right.
LikeLike
“‘I got flustered because you took things that I said, which I admitted were philosophical in nature (I’m the last person who would claim any certain knowledge about the subject), to brush me off.”
I did no such thing. I brushed aside your attempt to brush the argument to a merely “philosophical” status. Since you and maybe one other person is all I am reading in this thread and have stated so you are the last person that could rightfully claim I was brushing them off.
Anyway I have to run again. will answer more this weekend
LikeLike
Actually I stand corrected,
The traces of light or energy from the Big Bang might be measured, and there have been tests done through the Large Hadron Collider.
But it is one thing to observe and measure energy in a collider. Another thing to make a hypothesis, since hypothesis can change. What people think of as the Big Bang might look very different as more tests are done. I don’t know very much about it though.
But ideas on the origin of the universe is more faith based or belief based it seems to me. Since any discussion on this is a discussion on processes whose origin we don’t understand scientifically. At least I don’t think dice taus do yet anyway..
LikeLike
Hi portal,
Ryan, is it?
You said:
It is therefore philosophical since the scientific method cannot be applied to it.
Thank you. This is what I was trying to say but didn’t state so eloquently.
LikeLike
“It is therefore philosophical since the scientific method cannot be applied to it.”
Port almost every leading atheist would disagree with you including Krauss himself who like many claim philosophy is dead, Kraus theory has been heralded by Dawkins, Harris, Tyson etc and none of them consider his argument philosophical at least not in anyway that makes a big difference to its credibility (where they are concerned).
the whole thing is just a sidewinding way off avoiding that we use logic rationality and intuition in science all the time and it is only invoked as something derogatory or of secondary importance when the person making the argument is a theist.
LikeLike
Ryan,
You also said:
But ideas on the origin of the universe is more faith based or belief based it seems to me. Since any discussion on this is a discussion on processes whose origin we don’t understand scientifically. At least I don’t think dice taus do yet anyway..
I agree with this, but that by no means renders it secondary. It just means we don’t understand it. Were it secondary why on earth would so many theoretical physicists, philosophers, and amateur philosophers(us included) bother with the question? It’s burning question for a lot of people. It’s just that different people approach the question from different perspectives.
Let’s just follow the logic that anything that could have caused the Universe must necessarily be supernatural. By supernatural I mean outside of the laws of nature as we currently understand them.
Can we apply any kind of scientific method to this supernatural thing?
I’m definitely NOT a scientist, but do I understand it correctly that the further we go back toward the expansion the more our current scientific models break down? Such that the way that the laws of nature currently work may not be the way they’ve always worked? Such that the reality of early entropy isn’t necessarily the reality that is now?
I’m in way over my head here.
LikeLike
Ruth,
Thanks. I’m sure you could have said it just as well, if not better 🙂
Mike
although my understanding of science in General is very limited, I agree with you that logic (both inductive and deductive) seems to be used in different scientific practices. For example in inferring causality, and the development of theories that are then critically reviewed in an attempt to be proven false.
I disagree with you though that intuition is applied to science. When just intuition would be relied upon, such a thing would not be sound science.
My understanding is that although scientists are humans, and therefore victims of intuitive impressions that can be misleading.
the goal of science is to remove as much of this intuition from the testing as possible, so further understanding can be gained, and then the findings effectively applied to other disciplines (pharmaceutical products, engineering, logistics ect.)
LikeLike
Ruth,
I’m way over my head as well 🙂 I’ll leave the physics to those who know what they are talking about, because I certainly don’t. What you say I think makes sense though, although I don’t know much about it 🙂 I don’t know whether these current models would break down…
In regards to the supernatural, if by supernatural we are defining this as…
Definition 1:
processes that oh beyond our current understanding or construction of what we identify to be laws of nature…
Then under this definition the supernatural would be referring to those interactions that we have not yet identified, understood and labelled to be laws.
If this is the case using the word supernatural might be misleading.
Since supernatural strikes me to have attached to it another definition.
Definition 2:
a power (personal or impersonal) that transcends and is outside the laws on nature itself.
The distinction to me is that such a power is outside of nature (removed as an “other”) not merely part of nature
Within the first definition we have yet to understand and identify its processes in order to group and label certain process as a “natural law”.
Yet within the second definition, the very power or cause is considered apart from other processes or laws, and therefore beyond or above nature (supernatural).
Two very different ways of defining the supernatural. And these aren’t the only two… But I hope these two help illustrate what I feel is the cause of some misunderstandings.
This might be why there is such confusion between people.
And then we could always compare these definitions to a dictionary definition of “supernatural” which could be be used to further either definition 1 or 2
LikeLike
Hi all,
Sorry if that was muddled,
I’m going to try and unpack this again
So what I’m trying to say (in reference to what I wrote above)
Under definition 1 of the “supernatural”
“Processes that we have yet to understand and identify to call laws”.
The beginning of the universe might be said to have a “supernatural beginning” but supernatural under this definition is instead referring to processes and laws that we have not try identified to be laws of nature. Like how we associate physical processes with gravity. We could likewise one day associate another currently unknown law (or laws) to the beginning (or eternal existence) of the universe.
Yet definition 2 has a very different outcome.
Definition 2 of the Supernatural
“A power (personal or impersonal) that transcends and is above the natural laws themselves”.
Under definition two the supernatural is considered to be a power (personal or impersonal) that is outside of naturL law. Since it is outside of natural processes it is above such processes or laws.
It may also be that He/She/It is beyond our understanding, and therefore the only understanding we have of the supernatural (above natural laws) is revealed by this power. Whether this power has agency or not is then based on the beliefs and convictions of the individual.
I am in the definition 2 group.
But I don’t understand why Mike is insisting those who are in a definition 1 position accept his definition of supernatural before he is willing to answer their questions.
Am I making sense?
LikeLike
Sorry just to correct myself
” Whether this power has agency or not is then based on the beliefs and convictions of the individual.”
What I meant was that the beliefs that are associated with definition 2 are based on the individual,
but the nature, agency and power of a Creator certainly is not based on the belief of the individual,
rather the belief of the individual is based on the agency, nature and power of the Creator.
LikeLike
Under definition 1 of the “supernatural”
“Processes that we have yet to understand and identify to call laws”.
The beginning of the universe might be said to have a “supernatural beginning” but supernatural under this definition is instead referring to processes and laws that we have not try identified to be laws of nature. Like how we associate physical processes with gravity. We could likewise one day associate another currently unknown law (or laws) to the beginning (or eternal existence) of the universe.
I think this is the definition that Mike is calling “rain check evidence” and ducking and dodging.
Either way I think we’ve all agreed that whatever happened prior to the Big Bang is a mystery; something we don’t understand.
LikeLike
I’m not insisting that it be definition 1 either. I think that may be where some of the confusion comes in. Though I lean toward definition 1 I could be wrong. If I’m wrong and it is definition number 2 and is “A power (personal or impersonal) that transcends and is above the natural laws themselves” how do we then go about assigning any attributes to this power other than the ability to make something from nothing? What if this power is impersonal? What makes one think that this power is personal?
So that if we say, okay the supernatural exists so that makes anything possible, that doesn’t really get us a lot closer to saying that we know things about this supernatural entity. Sure, we then couldn’t say that the Christian God definitely doesn’t exist, but that isn’t what I’m saying anyway. It would be presumptuous of me to say that it definitely doesn’t exist. I don’t find the existence of that God likely. No more likely than any other God.
But that may be putting the cart ahead of the horse, since Mike conceded that supernatural – even to his thinking – doesn’t necessarily equal God.
Having said all that, that’s why I preferred what I thought was discussion over debate. I don’t claim to know or have all the answers. I’m not putting up an argument for debate necessarily. I was seriously thinking out loud. For me thinking about these things is a process.
LikeLike
Ruth,
I just wish he’d answer the questions put to him. That was my attempt at answering his 🙂
As I said before…
The beginning of the universe might be said to have a “supernatural beginning” but supernatural under this definition is instead referring to processes and laws that we have not yet* identified to be laws of nature.
Like how we associate physical processes with gravity, there may be yet unknown law(s) associated with the beginning of the universe….
I believe God is involved, but again I don’t know why Mike has insisted that he won’t answer because he feels people haven’t answered his questions.
If I was an athiest, that’s how I would have answered his question on the supernatural.
LikeLike