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 
🙂 Every now and again scanning to get to Ruth’s posts I see the penny section mentioning my name. Sorry guys. You ducked and ran over a week ago. like I told you – too lightweight to read. I read Nate and Ruth and Port (a little bit). Whatever I thought you might have added to the conversation never materialized so you rae not worth reading much less responding to.
I guess you could lie and say I am avoiding you because ooooh you make greater points but then you would have to imply your points are better than Nate’s who I am still reading, Catch 22 eh? 🙂
LikeLike
Keep drinking your own koolaid Mike.
LikeLike
Ruth, I think you’re making good arguments UNTIL you get to the part that is so often overlooked by atheists.. where did the science come from? Natural explanations don’t disprove God in any way and never will be able to. For every discovery, THE question will STILL be left.. where did the components involved in the scientific discovery come from?
The popular point about primitive ppl believing that God (or gods) were the cause of natural occurrences until we discovered the “truth” is extremely faulty.. because now that we know HOW they occur, it in no way disproves God. Just b/c those people were “ignorant”, not having the “superior” knowledge that we do today, that isn’t proof in any way that they were wrong about God being the ultimate cause. It would be wise to realize that thousands of years from now, WE will be looked upon as “primitive” and ignorant… so does that mean we are wrong about everything we believe?
Mike is right.. it’s not fair to say that we just haven’t found the answer to that “yet” as an answer to THE question… and that is because on the most fundamental level, our existence isn’t logical. If it were, your argument would be valid. But existence argues against what is at the heart of science.. logic.. cause and affect. Atheists refuse to acknowledge this reality.
LikeLike
The popular point about primitive ppl believing that God (or gods) were the cause of natural occurrences until we discovered the “truth” is extremely faulty.. because now that we know HOW they occur, it in no way disproves God.
Just because we are ignorant now of what caused the expansion of the universe in now way proves the existence of God either. In effect what you are saying is that absence of evidence is evidence for God.
I’ll agree with you that no matter how many discoveries are made it will never definitively disprove the existence of God. Because no matter how many discoveries are made theists will continue to say, “then where did that come from”. And when that discovery is made, yet another and another.
I have never said definitively that a god does not exist. I’m an agnostic atheist. Which means I don’t claim to know with any absolute certainty that a god or gods don’t exist. I find it highly unlikely. Even if I were to concede that the supernatural could have caused the “first cause”(whatever that is) I don’t see how one would assign attributes to this supernatural thing other than the ability to make things from nothing. There are a plethora of gods to choose from, and their attributes seem extremely man-made.
So the point that if one supernatural event occurred then we can’t rule out that supernatural events, like the flood, stands. But what is the likelihood that it did? Other than scriptures where is the evidence of such? Saying that the Bible proves the Bible to someone who is skeptical of the veracity of the Bible is of little value.
One would think that if the supernatural occurred there would be evidence of this other than simply because we don’t understand the origins of the universe.
LikeLike
“Yes, but you seem certain that whatever happened is “supernatural”.”
I’m confident that anything that doesn’t operate by a natural cause and effect process is not what anyone unbiased would consider natural. If you wish to rebut then do so. I’ll hear you out on it.
“BUT it seems when you insert the supernatural claim, and insist that I do as well, that there can be no natural explanation. ”
Fine – then come up with an even half way plausible explanation for something that has no cause or something that is infinite in regard to the past having an explanation. Infinite implies no end and in the reverse it means something that has no beginning – How in the world are you going to make that natural and even if you did it meansthat “natural” is way different than what we think of now.
“I’ve stated to you that I believe that science will eventually provide the answer and even agreed with your assessment that my reliance on science is in fact a form of faith. Because science tests, proves, eliminates, verifies. ”
I am not concerned with rhetoric though Ruth as I am sure you are not concerend with mine. Its not a point and no your faith is not in science. Your faith is in what you think science will one day say that science hasn’t said it will even say in the future.
“But it is faith of a different form in which I think of when I think of a supernatural.”
Ruth I am sure you THINK it isn’t but Yours is EXACTLY the same and I’ll show it
“I have faith when I cross a bridge it will hold me because there is science and engineering behind that. Do bridges sometimes fail? Of course they do. ”
There You are expressing faith in something that has evidence to support it like a bridge – yes – but when you come to be claiming science will one day show that infinity can be natural and have a natural explanation you are doing so with ZERO evidence, NADA, EXACTLY what you criticize Theists for allegedly doing. If you think about that I am sure it will become obvious.
“It is possible that there are laws of nature that haven’t been discovered yet. I find that more likely than a supernatural explanation.”
Why? because thats your philosphical bent? Consider what you are writing? You are claiming that laws we do not have any evidence for, that presently eluded us and we cannot detect and have escaped our detection -That to this point is merely imaginary is more likely (I’d love to see how that probability is determined) than a supernatural that we cannot detect? How does that betray anything but a bias against the word “supernatural” because anyway you slice it they are indistinguishable on an evidential basis.
rationally something else must be driving your “likely” because your evidence is zip.
You illustrate my point PERFECTLY. when faced with certain issues atheists do the same kind of appealing as do theists and yet you claim a distinction.
“You might rebut with the fact that the laws of nature only operate within space and time, but how do we know that?”
YOU do realize that going out of time and space by very definition is Super (beyond) natural (that which relates to this universe)
So you just used the supernatural to try and skirt around the inevitability of the supernatural.
“Not only that but it has been shown that quantum particles temporarily pop in and out of existence with no seeming cause. Are we calling that supernatural?’
So what happened to science finding an explanation for that? or does science only find explanation for things that appeal to atheists?? You are confident that science will find an explanation that make everything natural but you are now arguing for no cause/explanation to QM? Anyway no – Quantum fluctuations happen within time and space INSIDE our universe and particles are from borrowed energy and strictly speaking they do NOT happen without cause. QM laws cause them to happen and follow statistical modelling.
Now those pesky laws really have no natural process to operate by though. The very idea of laws outside of a universe is supernatural and if you deny that please look up the meaning of the word supernatural
LikeLike
Ruth, if we were on Facebook, I would put a “Like” on your last comment!
LikeLike
@Mike,
What makes the supernatural more plausible than matter existing in some form infinitely/eternally? Why is it that just because matter exists something had to cause it? Why is that a miracle any more than the existence of the supernatural? If the supernatural can just be why couldn’t some form of the universe exist on the continuum?
You’re asking me to assert an alternative to the supernatural? That would be it. And I think that it is as likely as the supernatural as an explanation.
LikeLike
And that in no way rules out the supernatural.
LikeLike
Every law in this universe escaped detection until it was detected. If researchers and scientists didn’t have a fairly good reason to think they’d discover more laws there wouldn’t be much point to continuing to search, would there?
LikeLike
“Just because we are ignorant now of what caused the expansion of the universe in now way proves the existence of God either. In effect what you are saying is that absence of evidence is evidence for God. ”
I’m not making that claim at all. I’m claiming a lack of LOGIC of our existence is evidence of a Supernatural Being/ explanation.
“I’ll agree with you that no matter how many discoveries are made it will never definitively disprove the existence of God. Because no matter how many discoveries are made theists will continue to say, “then where did that come from”. And when that discovery is made, yet another and another. ”
Why would only theists ask this? Why wouldn’t you or anyone ask this?? It’s a natural, rational, logical question.
” I find it highly unlikely. Even if I were to concede that the supernatural could have caused the “first cause”(whatever that is) I don’t see how one would assign attributes to this supernatural thing other than the ability to make things from nothing.”
Why would an origination of nothing (which is illogical) be more likely than our existence being planned and having purpose? I see it as just the opposite. Everything argues for plan and purpose as opposed to freak accidence.. from .. nothing.
” There are a plethora of gods to choose from, and their attributes seem extremely man-made.”
Yes, there are a plethora of gods.. but only ONE God of the Bible. Which is the most reasonable God.. all other religions have extreme faults in their beliefs etc.
LikeLike
Ruth and Mike,
Supernatural is NOT an explanation . You can’t say god did it, but I don’t know how he did it.
“The very idea of laws outside of a universe is supernatural and if you deny that please look up the meaning of the word supernatural”
Merriam-Webster’s definition of supernatural. “: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.”
Again Mike says, “I am asking how you deal with the ramifications a supernatural root to reality due to cause and effect INESCAPABLY having to terminate at some point in reality whether thats an unexplained God. an unexplained Universe or an Unexplained can of beef that created the universe.”
A God without explanation is no different than a cause for the universe without explanation.
Stalemate ! “a position counting as a draw, in which a player is not in check but cannot move except into check.”
LikeLike
@Kathy,
Why would only theists ask this? Why wouldn’t you or anyone ask this?? It’s a natural, rational, logical question.
I don’t think that only theists do ask this. It’s just that [most] scientists and atheists ask it from a different perspective. That is why scientists continue to go farther and farther back…to find explanations for this. But more so than from a perspective of “why do we exist” they want to know how. Science doesn’t purport nor attempt to give existence a purpose. So I think that’s at the essence for theists of the “why” question. They want/need to know a purpose, when there may not be one.
Why would an origination of nothing (which is illogical) be more likely than our existence being planned and having purpose?
Who said this originated from nothing? Why is it an less likely that matter existed on the continuum of eternity than a god?
Yes, there are a plethora of gods.. but only ONE God of the Bible. Which is the most reasonable God.. all other religions have extreme faults in their beliefs etc.
Based on what? All other religions have extreme faults and yours does not? It’s not pretty far-fetched that a man was born of a virgin, died, and then raised again?
LikeLike
@KC,
I’d be willing to call it a draw. I’m not about to change Mike’s position on it, and that’s fine. I’m not really trying to get him to. I understand where he’s getting his position. I just don’t share that view. I’m not insisting that he share my view.
LikeLike
@ KC,
And Mike laid the groundrules for this discussion. He was only willing to answer the questions put to him if we agreed that there was definitely a supernatural cause to the Universe. This is not a discussion where we’re trying to understand one another’s position.
Having those groundrules, since I haven’t conceded a definite supernatural cause to the Universe, he is entitled to withhold the answers to the questions put to him. *Shrug*
LikeLike
“So the point that if one supernatural event occurred then we can’t rule out that supernatural events, like the flood, stands. ”
Sigh… still the strawman. Kindly point out to me where I said anything “stands” just because we can’t rule out the supernatural. You’ll run out of fingers counting me saying that is NOT the case in this thread
“What makes the supernatural more plausible than matter existing in some form infinitely/eternally”
Natural processes ruth. natural processes. Lets take a bouncing ball infinite universe. Thats all thats in it – a bouncing ball, Nowhere near as complex as our own universe
Now if its infinite then the force the ball is bouncing with is uncaused. its come from nowhere. YOU can’t say the ball ever had the force to applied to it because its infinite past has ALWAYS had it bouncing . you can’t say the force began because it always was applied. Thats what infinite means
How is the ball bouncing with a force that comes from nothing/nowhere any substantial different from a supernatural event?
Now apply all the forces and actions in our own universe which equally would come from nothing. I suggest that for all we hear about science showing non supernatural causes we have yet to have even ONE explanation for any fundamental force. All we do is figure out how it works together with matter and other forces after we have them.
Thats why your and Nate’s argument that science has progressed in explaining away the supernatural in the past so it will on the primary issues is bogus (its never explained away the supernatural ever). Theres a fundamental difference between explaining how things work once you have them going than it is to explain how you get them in the first place.
Thats like claiming because we can chart the path of planets and how they revolve around the sun that we can use the same techniques to determine the origin of motion. Apples and oranges
LikeLike
@Mike,
Sigh… still the strawman. Kindly point out to me where I said anything “stands” just because we can’t rule out the supernatural. You’ll run out of fingers counting me saying that is NOT the case in this thread.
I didn’t say you said anything stands.
You said:
In a universe where everything pops out of nothing whats so extreme or extraordinary about waters parting in the Red Sea? At least you start with water and wind while with everything out of nothing you start with nothing! If something unexplainable has happened in our universe what should be so “extraordinary” that more than one thing happens without natural explanation.
I said that your point in this regard stands. Sigh…everything is a nail to your hammer, isn’t it?
LikeLike
“And Mike laid the groundrules for this discussion. He was only willing to answer the questions put to him if we agreed that there was definitely a supernatural cause to the Universe. This is not a discussion where we’re trying to understand one another’s position.”
Disingenious nonsense Ruth. If you can show LOGICALLY how you escape supernatural qualities to the universe’s beginning/infinity then do so. Thats ALWAYS been an option for you. However what is not an option as far as I am concerned is making the proclamations that those supernatural qualities can be side stepped simple
A) because you say so
B) because you allege some future discovery rain check evidence can be begged to get out of answering
C) because you hand wave that its philosophical
D) because your saying”I dunno” makes it so
You have some logical answer then fine go for it but if its more of A through D then its just ducking and running.
meanwhile I noticed that no one really got into my example scenario of a theists begging out of a logical argument by saying I dunno
Thats very telling and since I KNOW without a shadow of a doubt should the debate reach to phase two and I do the same not one of you would take “we can’t know for sure”/ “I dunno’ as an answer to what you put to Christians you won’t be wasting my time with duplicitous standards
LikeLike
“I don’t think that only theists do ask this.”
But that’s not what you implied in your comment.. you said that “theists” would continue to ask for the source. And the question had nothing to do with “why” at all.
When I ask that question.. it purely a scientific question.
“Who said this originated from nothing? Why is it an less likely that matter existed on the continuum of eternity than a god?”
Because that is illogical, it goes against scientific laws as well as common sense reasoning.
A Supreme Being, while also illogical is a more reasonable explanation because purpose is more reasonable than lack of purpose.. particularly when everything in existence is based on purpose.. (cause & affect).
“Based on what? All other religions have extreme faults and yours does not? It’s not pretty far-fetched that a man was born of a virgin, died, and then raised again?”
Based on the Bible. Yes, a virgin birth and rising from the dead are “far fetched”.. but you/ atheists conveniently forget.. existence itself is “far fetched”.. because it’s illogical.
Was it you or someone else who linked a picture of the planets/ space?.. anyone who acknowledges the wonders of that,.. how can they question a talking animal or a virgin birth? Those feats are nothing by comparison.
LikeLike
“I said that your point in this regard stands. Sigh…everything is a nail to your hammer, isn’t it?”
IF I misread something you wrote (and it appears I did so I apologize ) then state it not try and get into a narrative about what everything is to me which you are not qualified to assess and is just hearkening back to the same old handwaving about me to side step the points I raise..
LikeLike
@Kathy,
So since existence is far-fetched everybody should just believe that God, the Christian God, is the one true God? If you can believe one far-fetched thing you might as well believe them all?
LikeLike
@Mike,
I really don’t want to argue. That’s not even what I’m trying to do here. I’ve said all along that this can be argued far better by far more educated people than me on the subject.
I know you don’t want to answer any questions unless I say “yes, the origins are supernatural”. But why is it that more theoretical physicists, quantum physicists, and scientists in general don’t openly say that a supernatural cause was responsible? Why aren’t more of them, at the very least, deists?
That makes no sense to me.
To me, LOGICALLY, it makes as much sense that matter has always existed in some form as it does that a supernatural entity exists.
LikeLike
@Ruth, and now there are 2 “Literalists” .
” how can they question a talking animal or a virgin birth? Those feats are nothing by comparison.”
“A Supreme Being, while also illogical is a more reasonable explanation because purpose is more reasonable than lack of purpose”
“Yes, there are a plethora of gods.. but only ONE God of the Bible. Which is the most reasonable God.. all other religions have extreme faults in their beliefs etc.”
How does one react to these statements ???
LikeLike
If you can show LOGICALLY how you escape supernatural qualities to the universe’s beginning/infinity then do so.
I’ve shown what is as plausible to me and, not only to me, but many others. That is isn’t a plausible explanation to you isn’t anything I can do anything about. You have made it perfectly clear that any explanation short of supernatural isn’t plausible to you.
LikeLike
“I know you don’t want to answer any questions unless I say “yes, the origins are supernatural”.
You can lie on that all you want Ruth. I just told you I would accept logical answer as to why not but lets face it -you don’t have one which is why you are insisting on a strawman
“But why is it that more theoretical physicists, quantum physicists, and scientists in general don’t openly say that a supernatural cause was responsible? ….That makes no sense to me. ”
Fallacious illogical appeal makes no sense to me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
“To me, LOGICALLY, it makes as much sense that matter has always existed in some form as it does that a supernatural entity exists.”
The show the logic because appeals to authority in place of reasoning is the opposite of logic
LikeLike
I’m not the one doing the insisting here… 😕
LikeLike