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 
I know you probably won’t believe this but if your answer to some aspect of a question I asked you was “I don’t know”, all I would be able to do is say “fair enough.” It would be far better than behaving arrogantly and presuming certainty about something that you don’t have a certain answer to.
Certainty about something does not equate to truthfulness or reality. Many people have been certainly wrong.
LikeLike
“I’ve shown what is as plausible to me and, not only to me, but many others.’
You’ve shown nothing to be plausible. You have shown only that others atheists hold your stance. If thats evidence then we can all pack up and go home since atheism is a minority position and theism is a majority position.
Besides that all you have done is claim it comes down to a majority poll of scientists to determine what is logical which in itself is fallacious and unscientific on the face of it but much worse for you because you are attempting to cite scientist even though you claim its an area that science does not yet address but will one day,
I’d submit that many of them do the same thing you do to come to their conclusions (although there are many theistic scientists and influential) – Project rain check evidence.
LikeLike
” It would be far better than behaving arrogantly and presuming certainty about something that you don’t have a certain answer to.’
and now into full hand waving mode to avoid giving any logical answer. yes I am certain. i am certain that you are now dodging everything put before you and its a waste of time.
LikeLike
@Mike,
And I’m asking you why a supernatural explanation is required? Why must matter be caused?
LikeLike
““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.”
Other religions have recorded supernatural occurrences too . Why are the ones recorded in the bible true and the others false ?
Better yet, Exodus 7:10-12 “10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake.”
What supernatural source caused Pharaoh’s men to be able to do the same thing ?
LikeLike
1 Samuel 28:10-15
10 Saul swore to her by the Lord, “As surely as the Lord lives, you will not be punished for this.”
11 Then the woman asked, “Whom shall I bring up for you?”
“Bring up Samuel,” he said.
12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!”
13 The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid. What do you see?”
The woman said, “I see a ghostly figure[a] coming up out of the earth.”
14 “What does he look like?” he asked.
“An old man wearing a robe is coming up,” she said.
Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.
15 Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”
What supernatural source did Endor use to bring Samuel up from sheol ?
If there are supernatural causes for things in this universe, it doesn’t appear that the “bible god” has the exclusive rights to these.
LikeLike
“And I’m asking you why a supernatural explanation is required?”
And I answered
“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? ”
Which resulted in crickets.
To be honest Ruth your whole position is just incoherent, unscientific and illogical and it doesn’t matter if you cite others that are equally incoherent and illogical regardless of profession. You appeal to the universe being infinite past when all of science says it had a beginning. you constantly appeal to future discoveries and even what they will show and you have zero evidence anywhere that infinity even exists.
LikeLike
@Ruth
Mike (and Kathy) will never be satisfied until we all say (and mean it):
GODDIDIT!
LikeLike
How does one make a differentiation between rain that occurred naturally and rain which was caused by supernatural intervention ?
LikeLike
You are correct, Nan
LikeLike
@Ruth, here is the reason you just have to let go. It isn’t your fault when Mike makes statements like this,
“To be honest Ruth your whole position is just incoherent, unscientific and illogical and it doesn’t matter if you cite others that are equally incoherent and illogical regardless of profession.”
You see Ruth, it doesn’t matter to Mike what you say….. sorry
LikeLike
@ Mike,
You’ve shown nothing to be plausible.
I’ve shown nothing that is plausible to you. Others find this plausible, including scientists. While I have admitted bias toward a natural answer, you have shown a bias toward a supernatural answer. I have not insisted that any answer you give be plausible to me and even stated that I get the logic you are using. I just don’t happen to agree.
You said if I showed something logically plausible other than a supernatural cause that would suffice. But what you also have stated over and over again is that there is nothing natural that is plausible in your mind.
So to that degree and to that extent, yes this is a waste of your time if you were only after getting me or anyone else to explicitly say that the only origin of the universe could possibly be supernatural. You may say I’m lying when I say that but it is clear that it was your intent as you won’t even entertain anything less. So I wonder then, when you say “all you have to do is show a plausible explanation” who the one is that is lying.
LikeLike
Ruth, you said:
“So since existence is far-fetched everybody should just believe that God, the Christian God, is the one true God?
No where in my comments do I say or imply this. I’m just giving reason for the most likely answer, as I assume you are. I believe that it’s much more reasonable to believe we are created beings with a Creator. Atheists demand empirical evidence WHILE our very existence isn’t logical. That seems hypocritical to me.
“If you can believe one far-fetched thing you might as well believe them all?”
Us being created beings isn’t “far fetched”. And the God of the Bible isn’t far fetched. The Bible gives us the most reasonable explanation for our existence.. period. There is nothing more reasonable.. if you disagree, please tell me what it is.
LikeLike
@kcchief1
You said: “How does one react to these statements ???”
Um, you debate them??
Asking a silly question is definitely not the way to react to questions regarding the
origins of our existence.. that defies logic.
LikeLike
“Other religions have recorded supernatural occurrences too . Why are the ones recorded in the bible true and the others false ?”
You look at the credentials of those sources. The Bible is the most credentialed. For example, it is based on the witnessing of many different people.. for Islam, Muhammed is the only author.. one man’s word.. same with Mormonism, with Joseph Smith.
“Better yet, Exodus 7:10-12 “10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake.”
What supernatural source caused Pharaoh’s men to be able to do the same thing ? ”
Either satan or it was the same way a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat today.. trickery.
LikeLike
@Kathy, here are your statements I was asking how one would react to.
” 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.”
I was being sincere. There is no way a reasonable person could react to these statements without appearing insulting. I would have to use some of Mike’s comments in order to react to these. Sorry, I won’t stoop that low.
LikeLike
It’s atheists who lack true objectivity. Anyone who claims to be an atheist is taking, at minimum, a 50/50 chance of getting it wrong.. yet atheists STILL reject God claiming He doesn’t exist.
That’s proof of bias. And it’s taking a huge risk.. 50/50 odds are not that great for you when it’s your eternal soul at stake.
LikeLike
@kcchief1 My questions are based in the reality that existence is illogical from a scientific perspective.. what perspective are you coming from?? Don’t be afraid to debate reality..
LikeLike
“I’ve shown nothing that is plausible to you. Others find this plausible, including scientists. ”
Hot fudge Sunday. You have not shown any scientist in this entire thread with a drop of evidence that supports your dodging. You have not dissected a signal logic presented to you nor constructed any opposing logical construct as a response except – we will find a natural answer in the sweet by and by or begging that you can go outside of time and space outside of this universe but doing so is not super natural.
‘You said if I showed something logically plausible other than a supernatural cause that would suffice’
Yes I did so why dont you at least make a feeble attempt to present some logic instead of begging because – no – begging to a point is not logical, appealing to rain check evidence is not logical and even appealing to authority is fallacious. add to that “I don’t see why” and asking why can’t it be natural? are not the beginnings of rational explanations they are just statements
“You may say I’m lying when I say that but it is clear that it was your intent as you won’t even entertain anything ”
actually you are a bit off. I would not say you were lying to make that claim I would say you are bared face lying and I would say you are revealing EXACTLY what I was saying – that you have one set of rules for atheists and another for theists. I said multiple times you could give me a rational logical answer to my point but instead what you have done instead of giving one s pretend that your claiming and forecasting (of evidence that will come in the sweet by and by) is rational and based on any logical construct.
SO Lets call a spade a spade. You have no logical answer. You don’t know how to address the logic and you don’t like the implications of the fact that you have nothing even on the feeble level to answer the rationality and logic that cause and effect must terminate. So stop lying to yourself – I can do quite well this a logical answer that deconstructs my point – its just that you don’t have one
LikeLike
“@kcchief1 My questions are based in the reality that existence is illogical from a scientific perspective”
Your call entirely Kathy but in my time here there are a few posters that have nothing of any substance to say Kc is one, the arch and Ark brothers, William and nan head the list.
LikeLike
“It’s atheists who lack true objectivity..”
You can see it in this blog easily
LikeLike
Mike,
Here’s my take on it.
Unless You yourself Mike have:
1. Received specific insight from God, regarding the specifics of the processes and factors that were involved in the creation of life.
and
2. you can clearly and simply explain this to us folk who don’t understand astrophysics…
Then It seems to me You have your beliefs and they have there’s.
But it’s belief that is involved in any question of the origin if the universe…
since no one here as far as I know was there at the beginning, to observe the formation of this universe we find ourselves in…
None of us were there. So what we’re talking about is belief.
I believe God asks us to trust Him. There are many accounts where people were asked to respond in faith throughout the Bible.
So for the believer it’s faith, concerning the beginning of the universe, since we can’t prove it either way when it comes to discussing the origins of everything.
And Mike, Please correct me though if I’ve missed so something.
There may be clear evidence for God in other areas (evidence in nature for example) but when talking about origins, no mere human was alive today to witness life in the universe beginning.
but christians believe that God was First Cause by faith.
Atheists might say that they believe something else… rather than a supernatural beginning.
So can either atheist or theist prove their beliefs regarding what caused this amazing thing we call life?
Not without divine intervention…or primary evidence that discounts God being the First Cause.
Both of which we do not have I don’t think.
It seems to me that the Christian position is faith that there was a first Cause and that Cause was a Person, God. Revealed in Jesus The Christ.
An atheists position it seems to me is that they do not have faith that there necessarily was a first cause, or that the first causes were not a god(s)
So therefore it strikes me that an atheist saying “I don’t know” in Response to your question is still an answer…their answer is “they don’t know”…
and because they don’t have faith that God is the Creator, then that area for them is replaced with other beliefs, but they also were not there, as none of us were.
I think we are all laypeople here when it comes to origins of the universe. And even scientists can only speculate and develop models on how this brilliant, terrifying, beautiful gift came about for us humans.
We are somehow self aware, yet we seem so different from other animals…
I have faith in the mystery 🙂
Mike, Are my points making more sense?
All the best 🙂
LikeLike
And Mike, you dismissing people and saying they gave said nothing of substance I don’t think encourages understanding.
What if people took that attitude towards you, then even when you did make valid and interesting points, people would miss it… Since they have already made up their mind and not reading your posts, because you personally wrote them…
Does this seem like an effective approach to finding what us really true?
Truth is truth, despite who types it, or what someone has typed in the past.
Why dismiss people on an open forum?
LikeLike
Typing on my phone…apologies for the typos. Auto correction is not always helpful 🙂
LikeLike
“Your call entirely Kathy but in my time here there are a few posters that have nothing of any substance to say Kc is one, the arch and Ark brothers, William and nan head the list.”
Silence to direct questions is always a good indicator of those people. They can’t defend their views, so they stay silence.. until, you say something they *think* is easy to argue or attack.. then they’ll surface again. Where’s their integrity? I would hate to live my life adhering to faulty views/ beliefs that I couldn’t defend and instead have to resort to insults & attacks.
LikeLike