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 
“It appears my previous comment has aroused some guilty consciences.”
Ron. I Can’t speak for Kathy but the only thing you have aroused for me is the reminder that you are delusional. That said I think Kathy did say she pretty much rejects your credentials to question Christians on being a Christian which is eminently logical and the verses I gave pretty much destroy your Bible quote mining conclusions.
LikeLike
“I’ll start with this:
If you had no sacred scripture how would you go about assigning any attributes to the supernatural?”
MAJOR props. Great question not a gotcha question either and a logical next step.
The only thing you could do under that condition would be to analyze the capabilities displayed in the universe to try and determine its nature. I am taking that as a general first question right? Not asking me what attributes I see but how I get to them?
LikeLike
@ Mike,
That would be correct.
LikeLike
This might turn into more than two questions. Do you have a problem with that?
LikeLike
“This might turn into more than two questions. Do you have a problem with that?”
No problem whatsoever Ruth
LikeLike
@Mike,
No problem whatsoever Ruth
Again, without the benefit of any sacred text, what supernatural capabilities displayed in the universe can be detected besides the uncaused act of force that generated the Big Bang?
LikeLike
I am not sure that I understand your question but if I do I would say its not a matter of the big bang exclusively but everything. If we say that life evolved by some accident we are still saying that the initial properties of the universe has those capabilities with the right arrangements so these capabilities also arise out of this initial supernatural state. That is – the ability itself in the right arrangement is not an accident it has that property because it has it with no explanation
So what I am saying is that once you have that supernatural start everything that results from it is in some measure supernatural . That doesn’t mean God necessarily. it just means that anything being 100% accident isn’t in the cards and that to some degree everything resulting from a Supernatural has that quality because everything ultimately traces itself back to something with no explanation – everything.
If you are asking for some specific phenomenon in nature then I would say there are some pretty interesting things in the quantum world
Sorry if thats not what you were looking for by way of an answer but the sacred text part of things is a big reason I am a christian and yeah my answer to the question of this thread is Yes.
LikeLike
@Mike,
Before we go any further in this perhaps it would be helpful for me to know if you subscribe to evolution or if you believe that God created Adam and Eve out of clay and rib as fully human from the outset.
LikeLike
@Mike,
My last question was in reference to this statement you made:
The only thing you could do under that condition would be to analyze the capabilities displayed in the universe to try and determine its nature.
Because at some point, before there was ever a Torah, a Talmud, a Midrash, a New Testament or any sacred writings, someone had to do this very thing.
LikeLike
“Before we go any further in this perhaps it would be helpful for me to know if you subscribe to evolution or if you believe that God created Adam and Eve out of clay and rib as fully human from the outset.”
Why? I know Christians who believe in evolution and I know those who don’t. I also know that Jews hundreds of years before Darwin held to multiple creations of life on the planet and so many have no problem whatsoever with the fossil record even with a 6 day creation. evolution is an importance issue in a debate about God but its nowhere near to the importance people put it at.
“Because at some point, before there was ever a Torah, a Talmud, a Midrash, a New Testament or any sacred writings, someone had to do this very thing.”
From your viewpoint yes. from a theist who believes Men knew God from the beginning no. The revelation true might not have been written down but it was still there according to a theistic particularly biblical framework.
LikeLike
Why? I know Christians who believe in evolution and I know those who don’t.
Because I’m not really debating here. I like to get some idea of where people are coming from and what their beliefs are. I feel like we can better have a conversation and not talk past one another.
Plus, whether or not you subscribe to evolution or whether you believe God planted Adam and Eve fully formed in the garden makes a difference in what mankind knew and when, IMHO.
I get what you’re saying about a theist POV. But what about those who still don’t have the written texts that you have at your disposal? There are areas of this world that aren’t so privileged. The Bible says they are without excuse because of what has been made. So I’m trying to figure out how they would know that there is only one God and not 20. They don’t have the benefit of your sacred texts.
LikeLike
from a theist who believes Men knew God from the beginning no. The revelation true might not have been written down but it was still there according to a theistic particularly biblical framework.
This revelation true seems to have only been given to a particular race of people – the Jews – not all mankind. Throughout the Torah this is the message, that they are God’s chosen people.
LikeLike
“This revelation true seems to have only been given to a particular race of people – the Jews – not all mankind. ”
The revelation I spoke of was not the Law of moses but was given to the ancestors of all living people and handed down – its one of the reasons why almost all races and tribes are religious. They had progenitors that were.
“Because I’m not really debating here. I like to get some idea of where people are coming from and what their beliefs are. I feel like we can better have a conversation and not talk past one another.”
Apparently thats was was a load of huey. because In another thread where you suggested I believed in a literal Adam and Eve – which of course I do – you told me to sell it somewhere else as if I was offering you anything merely for your consideration of accepting.
Heres your problem going forward. You have conceded a supernatural origin to the universe and everything in it. Also in that is functional order where one thing has rules of how it leads to another, So you have no natural origins for the properties of the universe, the laws in it and the functional order of it. Al these things were baked into this reality with no natural explanation and they include properties that allow and create intelligence.
The huge difference you think this is from theism is an illusion on your part. when you put that together with no evidence for an accident being in an infinite supernatural universe all you have is your position of chance and accident versus theism on purpose – with no evidence to pick one over the other.
So this illusion that yours is more rational than theism IS an Illusion. Its true that what you have conceded does not prove God but it sure does devastate the materialism mindset you operate from.
LikeLike
Apparently thats was was a load of huey. because In another thread where you suggested I believed in a literal Adam and Eve – which of course I do – you told me to sell it somewhere else as if I was offering you anything merely for your consideration of accepting.
I never thought you were offering anything merely for my consideration. One doesn’t have to agree with another’s point of view to try to understand it, or where they’re coming from. I can see why you believe what you believe. The fact that I disagree doesn’t mean I can’t understand it.
My “go sell it somewhere else comment” was because you seem intent on being on the attack. I’m not begging bread here or anywhere else. Both you and Kathy have asked on a number of occasions why we don’t believe in the God of the Bible.
I don’t know how life started from nothing. I never claimed I did. Maybe what we think about that isn’t that far apart. As Nate said in his OP, Deism is a view I have quite a bit of sympathy toward. But Deism is a far cry from theism. I’ve asked some very specific questions about the nature of whatever the supernatural thing is and you can’t really answer them either. I didn’t bring up “abiogenesis”. You did. Abiogenesis isn’t one definitive answer to the origins of life. There are a couple, maybe more, theories of abiogenesis.
We can agree that life began in some form or fashion from non-living molecules. That is a mystery. I’m not sure why you think that theists don’t get an evidence rain check. Because atheists don’t believe? You’ve already pointed out that you are in the majority, and many Christians don’t do nearly the research that you obviously have. There are a large number of them who do accept Christianity on blind faith in the Bible alone and never even question it. Evidence rain check? You bet. Just because there are those of us out there who don’t just jump to “Goddidit” doesn’t mean you don’t get an evidence rain check. Of course you’re getting one – from a lot of people.
I think if you go back and read through my posts here you’ll see I’ve intentionally avoided using such language as “indoctrinated”, “you Chrisitans”, “all Christians”, “conservatives”, “ignorant”, etc. The reason for that is that I find that insulting. I’m not trying to insult anyone’s intelligence. If I were to say that about you or anyone else I would only be insulting myself as I did, indeed, believe many of the things you believe. Just because I’ve seen it from another perspective and changed my mind does not in any way mean that I think I have anything all figured out or that I’m more enlightened or smarter.
LikeLike
“Both you and Kathy have asked on a number of occasions why we don’t believe in the God of the Bible. ”
Me? Where? I can’t recall that since most of my posts are about debunking claims
this blog makes not asking
” I’ve asked some very specific questions about the nature of whatever the supernatural thing is and you can’t really answer them either.”
Nonsense. What you did is precluded me from answering based on assumption of no revelation which isn’t a real world question but a hypothetical. I asked you if you meant just general in nature in terms of methodology and I answered. now you are jumping from that to try and pretending I couldn’t answer. why not just ask a specific question instead of pretending you did. The only specific question you asked was on Adam and eve and based on the other thread it seems that was so you could dismiss it because it was me saying that I held to an Adam and Eve that you then told me to sell elsewhere like I cared to get anything from you.
“Just because there are those of us out there who don’t just jump to “Goddidit” doesn’t mean you don’t get an evidence rain check. Of course you’re getting one – from a lot of people.”
you said it yourself – many believe with little to no evidence. I don’t deny that but to equate that as evidence rain check is not an honest comparison. They are not as you are indicating science will vindicate them plus we are in a discussion about evidence so its just hopeless to try and spin that in there as if that excuses that claim in a discussion directly about evidence.
LikeLike
They are not as you are indicating science will vindicate them plus we are in a discussion about evidence so its just hopeless to try and spin that in there as if that excuses that claim in a discussion directly about evidence.
You and they are claiming that God will vindicate them – after they die. The entire God premise is a giant evidence rain check since none of us will know for certain until we die.
You are failing to understand that the conversation between you and I probably would have taken a completely different tone if you weren’t constantly on the attack.
I didn’t preclude you from answering based on the assumption of no revelation. I precluded you from answering based on a written text. Major difference. In fact I gave you a perfect platform to explain revelation. The answer you gave only left me with more questions. Like were the Jews the only ones who understood that revelation? You pointed out that most races and tribes are religious. Is the reason that the Jews were God’s chosen because all the other races and tribes failed to stay true to the revelation they were given? If it was just a general revelation how can they be held accountable for the written revelation if they don’t know about it?
Is the only way to debate ideas to be inflammatory and derogatory?
LikeLike
OK, Nate, I told you I would do this, so here I am. As I mentioned earlier, you first approached me a good while back and challenged me to investigate the things that made you doubt the Bible and the truth of God. I periodically went and read many of your posts and wrote responses to the issue you raised. While I have not gone through all of them I think I’ve done enough of them to honestly say I’ve responded to your initial challenge. In the end, I do not find them convincing, and most of them have clear answers. I did not get around to all of them, so silence on an issue does not necessarily indicate anything from my part.
Your reasons certainly do not support denying God or the truth of the Bible. So today, at the risk of looking like I’m blasting your blog with my cheesy stuff, I will post links to my responses to your posts. Since there are 466 other replies to this first post, and I don’t plan on reading them, and I don’t expect anyone to read this note except you, so………
Nate, I can tell you are a thinker and have researched these things. I also have honestly followed you way, way down your path. My brother, I say with all sincerity, you have not made a sufficient case for your conclusions. I suspect in the end the real reason you walked away from the church was the legalism that is often ingrained in the Church of Christ and that you personally don’t want to believe.
In any case, here’s my dumb links. I do not know if I’ll write many more of these, but who knows. You’ve been a good inspiration for this apologist to defend the truth of Christianity.
Specific to this current post, you have illicitly rejected a fulfillment of prophecy by brushing it away because it is in the same book. There is no logical basis for this other than an assumed bias that you read into 1 and 2 Kings. If your position was true, we can trust no historian to write the second half of any story. You’re reading your biases into the text. You even quoted the reason that if the author of Kings was lying, he would have been rejected.
As to the passage in Jeremiah and the continual heir, this has an answer, See here:
https://humblesmith.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/jeremiah-33-predict-a-continual-heir-of-david-over-israel-true-or-false/
LikeLike
Hi humblesmith,
I’m trying to start working my way through some of your responses, and I decided to start with this one.
I’m not saying that the author was wrong. Like I said in the post, maybe there really was a prophet who foretold Josiah’s reign. But there’s no real way to demonstrate that with this text. We simply don’t know when the various parts of 1 and 2 Kings were written. Obviously, this isn’t evidence against the claim that the Bible contains actual prophecies, but neither can it count as evidence for it.
Ah, but how could he have been rejected? Who would have known if his 300+ year claim was accurate or not?
And I disagree with the conclusion of your post about Jeremiah’s prophecy. You’re right that he’s speaking about something in the future, but don’t you also accept Hebrews as inspired? The writer of Hebrews states that Levitical sacrifices are obsolete and unnecessary after Christ’s sacrifice (Hebrews 7-10). I’ll include a little more detail over on your post.
Thanks
LikeLike
A constant refrain I see in comments by Christians is a failure to accept that it is possible that sincere people can deconvert because of concerns about the divine inspiration of the Bible. Always there must be some other reason.
Well Nate, credit to you, at least our friend did not accuse you of wanting to sin.
The book of Kings (and as you say it is one book, it was only separated into two parts because it was too long for one scroll) is in essence an apology for the failure of ‘God’. For example, for years it puzzled me why if Josiah was the most sincere king since David, that ‘God’ did not restore Judah. However it makes sense if one realises that this work is an apology for failure of ‘God’, the author had to somehow explain why even when a King sought ‘God’ with all his heat things still fell apart.
In my deconvert process it has been refreshing to find that so many issues that made little sense to me when I called myself a Christian start to make perfect sense when I look at the Bible as a human work.
LikeLiked by 1 person