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 
BTW, when I copy and pasted this I did leave out an example for Islam as you were asking about christians. I did provide a link to the entire article so I wouldn’t be accused of hiding anything.
LikeLike
“Even you must realize that no matter what is put up by me there will be a whole lot of foaming at the mouth, nonsense and spittle from at least half the readers here including the usual culprits Ark,Arch, William and Ron so why in the world would I bother where theres not even a defined standard but just this so elastic “extraordinary evidence” claim?”
Why do you care if there will be foaming at the mouth, non-sense and spittle? You’ve already spent most of your time on this post accusing people of just that. You need to “put up” or change the subject.
LikeLike
@Mike,
I must not be speaking plain English.
and why would it be a presumptuous position when you just were saying the universe has a supernatural cause in itself? You seem to be saying two opposite things at the same time
I didn’t say two opposite things at the same time. I said it would be presumptuous to state that the supernatural is completely impossible.
In case you missed it, I’ve stated here that I’m an agnostic atheist, and exactly what that
means.
Who said anything about “without evidence” ruth? how many times do I have to state that My issue is not with good evidence but with the never defined “extraordinary” evidence?
I thought it was implied in something you said:
an uncaused thing has no process behind it so claiming that there must be some big process that leaves this big footprint really doesn’t hold muxh water
which kind of made it sound as if, since an uncaused thing has no process behind it it need not leave any footprint at all. If that’s a misunderstanding on my part, my apologies. But if a miracle/supernatural event has no process behind it, what makes any miracle claim more or less likely than another?
Its quite obvious you haven’t discussed things with theists in any wide way because I know no apologist who says the Bible has miracles that proves it – the end.
That’s not exactly what I said. But there are those, including pastors and ministers, who do spout the “The Bible says it so that settles it” diatribe. A LOT of those. I have discussed this widely with theists, though they may be uneducated and have no real foundation to their faith except the Bible. There are, believe or not, even sects of Christianity that discourage reading materials outside the canonized scripture – most especially the apocryphal works.
I guess I am as confused as you are because we have been talking about just that for days and as far as I can tell you were just about conceding that
I did concede that. In fact, the way you’ve explained it there can be no other explanation than a supernatural one. Which makes it pretty extraordinary evidence. 😉 So my point was that one might expect some pretty darned good evidence (some might even say extraordinary evidence) for any supernatural claim. When I say that it’s extraordinary evidence I mean it left a gigantic, humungous, tremendous footprint.
Now, when we get to what is considered “extraordinary” or “good” evidence I’m thinking that’s pretty subjective based on the individual. So all you’re left with is either putting up whatever evidence you have, taking the chance at “foaming at the mouth, nonsense and spittle from at least half the readers here”, or not producing/putting up whatever evidence you feel you have. Clearly no one can force you to. That’s entirely up to you.
But you’ve also implied in that that at least half the readers won’t foam at the mouth, spout nonsense and spittle. If it bothers you that some of the readers will undoubtedly attempt to shoot you down I’d suggest not engaging.
LikeLike
kcchief1 said: “I asked multiple questions towards the end of this post to Kathy and Mike and you answered NONE of them. Other than your constant rhetoric and bashing , neither of you responded with clear answers to many of the questions posed here.”
The only question you asked was “How does one react to these statements ???”
and it wasn’t even directed at me.. is this an obfuscation tactic? Seems so.
You said: “@kathy, you believe in talking animals and a virgin birth. You also claim A Supreme Being, while also illogical is a more reasonable explanation, and yes there are a plethora of Gods but only ONE God of the Bible. Which is the most reasonable God. And then the “icing on the cake” is you say, “all other religions have extreme faults in their beliefs etc”
People who have been indoctrinated in their faith and come out with a literal point of view usually don’t visit atheist blogs seeking answers. I think the evidence of this has clearly been displayed here.”
I’ve made a point regarding this that you still fail to address..
The foundation for my comments is the FACT that existence is illogical from a scientific
perspective.. you continue to ignore this and instead accuse me of being “indoctrinated”.. sorry but that’s not an answer to my question/ point.
People who make personal comments instead of addressing the actual points is what Mike was referring to I believe.. this is an extremely common tactic of atheists/ liberals.
It’s so easy to go after someone who is defending talking animals.. but when I ask deeper questions in regards to that.. you “run”.
And please don’t get confused about why I’m here.. it most def. is not to get answers.. that makes me laugh (out loud).. I debate atheists/ liberals to point out to them how their pride and ego are controlling them and causing serious harm.
LikeLike
cont.. you ONLY address my points to make a claim that I’m indoctrinated.. you get a giant FAIL.
“And then the “icing on the cake” is you say, “all other religions have extreme faults in their beliefs etc”
WHAT do you mean by this?? I will gladly debate the extreme faults of the other religions as compared to Christianity.. and I’ll gladly debate Christianity.. it’s not me who is indoctrinated.. it’s usually the one who can’t defend their beliefs when forced to elaborate.
LikeLike
Powell Powers said:
“Now before anybody start to say I’m bias against the 2 Christians (whom I think are effectively trolling even if they don’t meant to be), ”
Can you please clarify this? What do you mean by “trolling”?
LikeLike
“WHAT do you mean by this?? I will gladly debate the extreme faults of the other religions as compared to Christianity.. and I’ll gladly debate Christianity.. it’s not me who is indoctrinated.. it’s usually the one who can’t defend their beliefs when forced to elaborate.”
you mean Mike?
LikeLike
Ron said:
“We have two Christians here? Where? I don’t see them.
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” Gal 5:22-23
“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal… Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged.” 1 Cor 13:1,4-5
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ Mt 7:21-23”
It’s always amusing when non Christians try to dictate what makes a true Christian.
And you all always get it wrong.. it usually is along the lines of the “sin” of judging and disagreeing which supposedly means “hate” instead of “love”.
Wrong.. as usual. You’re just using Christianity to try and silence those who disagree with you.
Granted, Christians OFTEN fail to meet the standards of what Jesus calls of us.. but that’s the whole point.. we’re human, we fail.. and guess what? We are forgiven because of the Grace of God and the gift of Jesus’ sacrifice. THAT’S what defines a Christian.. not how “nice” we are. We won’t stop trying, but you atheists/ liberals make it so hard. Nate is a great example of how it should be.. debating points.. politely.. period. Yes, it’s extremely challenging when you’re attacked constantly and have to find the restraint to not retaliate.. ultimately, it’s the anger and resentment that atheists possess that always causes the debate to take a bad turn.
LikeLike
“Granted, Christians OFTEN fail to meet the standards of what Jesus calls of us.. but that’s the whole point.. we’re human, we fail.. and guess what? We are forgiven because of the Grace of God and the gift of Jesus’ sacrifice. THAT’S what defines a Christian.. not how “nice” we are. We won’t stop trying, but you atheists/ liberals make it so hard. Nate is a great example of how it should be.. debating points.. politely.. period. Yes, it’s extremely challenging when you’re attacked constantly and have to find the restraint to not retaliate.. ultimately, it’s the anger and resentment that atheists possess that always causes the debate to take a bad turn.” – kathy
many of us here were once christians, so we’re familiar with the bible and the many passages that talk about humility, turing the other cheek, redering good for evil, etc, etc. many chritaisns fail at this. You and mike are among the first i’ve seen that deny it’s binding on christians.
and I’m not sure why you keep lumping christains and political conservatives into the same basket and atheists and liberals into another (abortion?) but you’re right. we’re all fallible people.
Nate is a good example of one should typically conduct themselves in a discussion. But to say “ultimately, it’s the anger and resentment that atheists possess that always causes the debate to take a bad turn.” is very incorrect.
LikeLike
@Kathy
Lest we forget: It was punishable by death for reading the bible in English once upon a time.
If you expect restraint then perhaps you ought to publicly denounce the doctrine of Hell,for example and apologise for its continual use as a tool to instill fear into children.
What you believe in is based upon fallacious doctrine.
From Genesis to Revelation it is largely myth, make believe and outright lies.
The anger and resentment you feel from atheists is because of the heinous diatribe forced onto people without their consent and not least because of the widespread child abuse perpetrated by defenders of the ‘faith’ that goes largely unpunished.
If you were to state that you would endevour not to have this dogma forced upon children and allowed people to make an informed choice regarding religion then maybe you would garner a little more respect.
In the meantime, be very grateful you are able to push this garbage and do not live under a theocracy where you wouldn’t even have a choice to voice dissent.
That you consider atheists are only concerned with your ridiculous religion, when in actual fact we resent all religion and its insidious, corrupt nature, is clear evidence just how damned arrogant people like you are.
.
LikeLike
@Kathy, “The only question you asked was “How does one react to these statements ???”
and it wasn’t even directed at me.. is this an obfuscation tactic? Seems so.”
Wrong again, Kathy. Here are the questions pertaining to YOUR comments .
““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
@Kathy, ““And then the “icing on the cake” is you say, “all other religions have extreme faults in their beliefs etc”
WHAT do you mean by this?? I will gladly debate the extreme faults of the other religions as compared to Christianity..”
Oh so now you are going to defend the extreme faults of Christianity as being fewer than the extreme faults of other religions ???
LikeLike
Hi Kathy,
I define trolling as not willing to listen but trying to impose one’s idea. The last time I checked this seems to be an atheist site so I’m assuming that whoever is here is actually trying to learn more about atheists thinking or willing to engage in a discussion, instead of actively doing mudslinging.
Certainly there will be people who are coming here to criticize and to tear down rather than having constructive critique, and I think we have seen such cases in the past. These people I regard them as trolls, as what they are doing is akin to picketing at a congregation/meeting place. They’re not here to learn/chat/discuss, but to disrupt. This may be done unintentionally, but the results are clear for most to see.
That being said, seeing as how you have graciously taken up Nate on his offer in his latest post, I do think a correction on my end is necessary. As such, I humbly ask you to forgive me for the insinuation that you’re a troll.
To Mike:
” think Ruth and Portal have attempted to answer but their answers have been rejected. So in my humble opinion to say that no one will touch or has touched is not being fair”
You made that up out of thin air Power. I have yet to see any answer to that question. and you didn’t answer A either. You side stepped it as if infinity has not already been invoked. once it has then it needs an explanation.
That seems unfortunate, then I guess I will just go back into the thin air where I come from haha. Anyway, I’m done on this thread. Will be silently reading comments in Nate’s latest post and hopefully will not feel compelled to reply again =)
Cheers Mike.
LikeLike
“I define trolling as not willing to listen but trying to impose one’s idea. The last time I checked this seems to be an atheist site so I’m assuming that whoever is here is actually trying to learn more about atheists thinking or willing to engage in a discussion, instead of actively doing mudslinging. ”
Heres thing thing though Powell. this blog is on the internet and on wordpress on a public space. Now if Nate wants to lock down comments thats fine but if in a public space if you dedicate it to saying things about what people believe and what they think and how they “fudge” well they just may come along and respond – not really caring about your definition of trolling and guess what – If comments are open they have every right to
Try starting a blog about indians and what they believe and by George some might show up and tell you where you got it wrong not to learn more about you. Your conditions are illogical
LikeLike
Powell said: “The last time I checked this seems to be an atheist site so I’m assuming that whoever is here is actually trying to learn more about atheists thinking or willing to engage in a discussion, instead of actively doing mudslinging. ”
My understanding is that blogs are debate forums. I realize that many liberals have real problems when people disagree with them.. that they don’t understand the concept of debate but the header of this blog is a declaration of the searching of truth.. and the ONLY real way to find truth is to be challenged with questions. Opposing views facilitates truth. If no one challenged views, zillions of people would believe things that just were not true.. often because it is what they WANT to believe. Which, for some, they are perfectly fine with that.. just as long as no one disagrees. I’m like Nate.. I desire the truth.. and I value opposing views when objectivity is included in the debate.. it’s extremely valuable.
“I define trolling as not willing to listen but trying to impose one’s idea. ”
Could you please give some examples of me “trolling” on this site.. AND also of atheists here NOT “trolling”?
If you can do that, I’ll gladly accept your apology and I’ll also apologize for “trolling” if that is indeed what I am guilty of.
Thanks.
LikeLike
To Kate
I don’t think that is necessary. Would like to believe we’re both adults that are able to put the past behind us and move forward rather than keep harping on who has done what or whatever. If you call this a cop out or want to portray this as shifting or hiding I don’t think I will want to combat that charge.
But hopefully you do see my point about polite conversation, and you can challenge without being rude. I seldom comment on blogs as I prefer face to face discussion and I actually find that a much better mode of communication because there is less space for ambiguity. For example, I’m sure Kate you are a fantastic lady who is eloquent and gentle in real life, but to be honest I didn’t like the tone of your first few earlier comments. This may not be your fault but lies in me as I may have misread your tone, but nonetheless this doesn’t help to generate positive discussion which I’m sure you want to propagate.
I think a good point to remember is this, would you have used the same words while saying it to another person’s face? I’m sure Ark would have been bashed head in if he speaks like that in real life.
Unfortunately, atheists are also not doing themselves any favors here which is bad, so certainly it is up to Nate to moderate. But honestly moderation is never easy either, and you will get criticism for moderating and not moderating so I will not even remotely request or expect Nate to start doing it as that is his own prerogative. If others find the comments section too messy (e.g. see Youtube comments haha), they’ll just skip it altogether. The reason why I bothered to reply here is becuz I’ve seen great comments here in the past but tbh the past 2 weeks have been less than edifying.
So anyway, shall we just drop the whole “trolling” label? I may have misused it, I may have offended you an Mike with the label. So I would like to take it back with eggs on my face. I think what is more important is to move forward and contribute positively to the discussion, and this post itself is already 1 too many (in fact 3 too many) that doesn’t contribute to the discussion.
To Mike:
Haha I agree with you. I live by a personal mantra, “nothing is absolute” (which is oxymoronic in itself!). Hence all that I said is just a personal guideline and not really a hard rule that we should never be broken. When should I bend/change/amend? It’s honestly hard to say but I do hope that I can at least please most people with my behavior all of the time if not most of the time.
Good day to you sir and ma’am.
=)
LikeLike
@ Mike,
I’ve conceded your premise that the first cause must be necessarily something supernatural. Can we now move forward and have a few questions answered?
LikeLike
Shoot Ruth. There is no “we”. You are the only one who engaged and you are the only one I will take questions from and maybe with the exception of one or two the only one I will be reading. My Week just got VERY busy but I am sure I will be able to answer by the weekend if not before. Would probably be best to limit to one or two so it can be focused and more fruitful.
LikeLike
Mike, then maybe you want to email ruth directly or have a discussion with her on her blog. There just isnt much sense in avoiding the issues on nate’s blog, to engage with ruth (no offense to ruth) in a discussion you’ve tried to design to help you avoid this present discussion and ignore all other participants.
and really, she just asked you to answer the questions that have been presented to you countless times, and your response was that you’d talk to her but no one else… it was an interesting response since you are now dodging her questions while saying that you wont dodge questions from her.
LikeLike
I realize that many liberals have real problems when people disagree with them.. — Kathy
Doesn’t this work both ways? IOW, “believers” could easily be substituted for “liberals.”
We all have our thoughts, opinions, impressions, and persuasions about life in general and on this blog, scripture in particular. To make a generalized statement like the above only serves to antagonize. Best to stick with the facts, ma’m. Don’t you agree?
LikeLike
@ Mike,
Would probably be best to limit to one or two so it can be focused and more fruitful.
I’ll start with this:
If you had no sacred scripture how would you go about assigning any attributes to the supernatural?
LikeLike
It appears my previous comment has aroused some guilty consciences. That’s good. Now act upon that guilt by bringing your behavior into congruence with the guidelines set by the one you claim to follow.
LikeLike
“Doesn’t this work both ways? IOW, “believers” could easily be substituted for “liberals.”
We all have our thoughts, opinions, impressions, and persuasions about life in general and on this blog, scripture in particular. To make a generalized statement like the above only serves to antagonize. Best to stick with the facts, ma’m. Don’t you agree?”
Yes, of course it can go both ways.. but in my experience, it has overwhelmingly been liberals who can’t seem to handle disagreement very well. They (not all) think debating is “fighting”. I’m not trying to be antagonistic as much as just pointing out the truth. But yes, my comment is antagonistic.. it’s partly because of a lack of honesty or desire for the truth and because I would like liberals to realize this wrong against humanity really. It’s just flat out wrong. I don’t like dishonesty. I don’t like when people put their ego before truth. God doesn’t like it either. It’s these wrongs, based on pride and ego, that are destroying our country and ultimately the entire world. Yes, maybe a bit overly dramatic but it actually IS “just the facts ma’am”.
LikeLike
Kathy, I think you’re generalizing again. You say that “liberals” are unable to handle disagreement, but this goes both ways. That’s why there are “debates.”
You say there is a “lack of honesty or desire for the truth,” but isn’t this simply because others do not agree with you? And what it “truth”? To some, it is the bible (“God’s” word); to others, it is logic, reason, science — call it what you will — and for them it IS the honest truth.
And finally, to make a statement that “God doesn’t like it either” is rather presumptuous, don’t you think? None of us truly knows the mind of “God.”
But I’m getting off-topic. I just feel too many accusations have been hurled (on both sides) and Nate’s blog would be far better served if we all stuck to the original topic.
LikeLike