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 
According to the Bible, a good test of whether or not someone is a true prophet is the accuracy of their prophecy.
In Matthew 24:29, Jesus says:
“Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.”
The absurdity of this claim is apparent to anyone who’s passed grade school science. Take a look at these images.
The third one down on the left shows the Earth’s size in relation to our closest start—the Sun. If the Sun were a hollow sphere, it could contain approximately 1.3 million Earths.
The remaining images show the Sun’s size in relation to other stars. VY Canis Majoris is estimated to be large enough to contain 6 billion stars the size of our sun.
It’s clear that the passage in Matthew betrays the scientific ignorance of whoever penned it. And if that passage does actually record the words spoken by someone named Jesus, then it’s equally clear that he was no true prophet.
LikeLike
Lol…well, considering I didn’t get much further than the Leclanche cell in physics at school maybe I should refer you to de Grasse Tyson then? Or Hawking? Just to be on the safe side.
I mean, I wouldn’t want a Sunbeam for Jesus to steal my lunch.
LikeLike
@ Mike Anthony,
Since Nate hasn’t jumped in to speak to the dialogue etiquette on this thread, I just want to say (as an atheist/former-believer) that you have my sympathy for the poor conversation skills of some here. I have unfortunately been following the thread and had to read the ugly comments. I will now unsubscribe. I wish you well.
LikeLike
“The third one down on the left shows the Earth’s size in relation to our closest start—the Sun. If the Sun were a hollow sphere, it could contain approximately 1.3 million Earths. ”
Your reasoning is totally incoherent. Apparently its that the suns and the stars are too big for God to turn off ? lol….Who said God was Maximus Prime?
LikeLike
“maybe I should refer you to de Grasse Tyson then? Or Hawking? Just to be on the safe side.”
Well that reply has one thing going for it – An admission that you are not up to the task to debate it yourself is a refreshing change toward honesty.
LikeLike
“Since Nate hasn’t jumped in to speak to the dialogue etiquette on this thread,”
Nate has given lip service every now and again but If he’s honest he is only really irked enough by my replies to talk about banning and its only me he has in mind for that. He’s done it once and I am sure if I hang around he will do it again. In fact he in another thread has expressed his great respect for the worst offenders because they told him they would scale it back which lasted no time at all and I suspect he knew wouldn’t be because its their style of conversation.
this outrage over my posting style is about one thing – ideology. It started from my first post here where I said atheist tend to think certain ways. Poor William was greatly offended even though this blog routinely talks about what theists do and how they think. How dare I say atheists have certain tendencies.
Good of you to say though. Ruth, Ron you could say are Ok and meet certain standards but its just testament to the VAST hypocrisy of this blog owner and his readers that they can look and skip over the posts from Ark and Arch and claim I am the one to claim has nothing but vitriol and rudeness.
LikeLike
Ark,
I think the Bible should be taken at face value, in that if you start with the assertion that its all made up then how can a person consider whether it is true or not, since their premise can only bring them to one conclusion.
Its like if I started with the idea that someone writing me a letter is being deceptive, how could I then take any of it seriously? Since I’ve already come to a conclusion. No matter what they write.
Nate,
I think what your saying does make sense. I just don’t feel the same way about it as you 🙂
Mike,
Okay, if you don’t feel the same way about prophecy very well. I don’t think it muddies the water though.
LikeLike
.”……skip over the posts from Ark and Arch and claim I am the one to claim has nothing but vitriol and rudeness………”
Mark, who was claiming that? whether its a theist, atheist, deist, a person being harsh to another person…. is a person being harsh to another person.
LikeLike
“Okay, if you don’t feel the same way about prophecy very well. I don’t think it muddies the water though.”
It does in the sense that people get the impression that all fulfilled prophecies are of the type to find fulfillment only in other bible verses
“whether its a theist, atheist, deist, a person being harsh to another person…. is a person being harsh to another person.”
This isn’r prep school Port. if you constantly harp on one person without showing the same follow up on other worse offenders your bias shows. You are a classic example of this. You reply waay more to my posts critiquing style than you have ark and Arch. You are fooling no one.
I mean I am sure you will continue regardless but just saying – not fooling anyone.
LikeLike
I find your comments belittle people, and when people ask you questions its seems like its an inconvenience to answer them, like your taking great pains to kneel next to the delinquent child and spell things out to them. at least some of them come off that way to me.
I suppose I haven’t commented so much on Ark and Arch because they have been around for a while, and I’m pretty sure they know my thoughts on how belittling people is not cool.
LikeLike
Mark, I’ll give it a break now. your right, I have been harping on I think. And I’m by no means perfect. I should take the log out of my eye 🙂
LikeLike
@ Portal & (Nate & Ben & Mike),
Good points on belittling. The quality and value of a thread drops very quickly when people revert to delinquency. Certain sites invite it. On my site, I try to monitor and enforce dialogue etiquette — just like I do in my house. I spell them out in my “Policy” tab. Lots of atheists hate those restrictions — and thankfully stop visiting my site. In my home, I much more enjoy polite conversation, even with those with whom I strongly disagree.
You ought to consider setting up a simple blog — if nothing else, to tell us something about yourself. See here.
BTW,
I loved Ron’s example about stars falling from the sky. That is clearly an example of gMatt showing that Jesus bought into the inaccuracy of that period’s world view.
Of course, it might not have been Jesus but just gMatt. And some Christians may argue that Jesus was just using a metaphor. Or apparently Mike Anthony thinks, if I am not mistaken, that indeed, somehow Yahweh will do that. If he said it, he’ll do it. Don’t underestimate god! [But I am not sure]
Maybe Nate could do an “anti-Bible study” on that one. But I must agree with an initial indirect objection of Mike’s (and I am guilty of it on my blog often), if an atheist is going to criticize some Bible passage, it would be really helpful if they told readers what the popular commentaries’ apologists use as counter arguments and address them. Instead of pretending that they just discovered the issue and that the Christian tradition hasn’t tried to counter them over the last 2000 years.
It is sort of like when ID folks do anti-evolution writing and not even addressing the obvious objections by evolutionists that are easily available with the smallest amount of searching.
Otherwise, we are all really only doing propaganda or trying to get our own choirs to sing. Not that those aren’t OK motives, but we should be honest about them. But then, I guess that does take the punch out of propaganda. And we all do it.
Anyway, Nate always puts lots of work into his posts so maybe his next “anti-Bible study” will treat us to replies to some standard apologetics.
I’d love to hear the star issue addressed. I promise to wear my Sunday bests to the class.
LikeLike
Sabio
“You ought to consider setting up a simple blog”
I have thought about it, I think one day I will. At the moment I just enjoy reading and having conversations. I started to set on up, then changed my mind, I’m not the most decisive person, but I have a habit of writing my thoughts down anyway, so I might might organise them one day, they are not brilliant I don’t think, but for what its worth.
Thanks for your thoughts 🙂
LikeLike
Sabio,
I’ve checked out your blog too a while ago, I find it interesting
LikeLike
” like your taking great pains to kneel next to the delinquent child and spell things out to them. at least some of them come off that way to me.”
You know what?
Good. I like that, No apologies.
I think you (not you personally but collectively) should feel that way and if my exasperation about your (again collectively) ignorance sometimes makes you feel foolish I mean seriously thats a very good thing . It may instruct your arrogance. Do you not think that no matter how you try to claim otherwise and couch your words on this blog that you are not in fact trying to convey that people who maintain their faith are not delinquent children who just have not seen the light? Maybe you should take off your blinders and read from another perspective because its pretty clear as day. A rose by any other name.
Think about it before you answer. Doesn’t every other if not every single Post Nate puts up convey that particular message about Bible believers and does not every single comment section fill up with comments about the ignorance and delusion of believers.
So in essence you find it belittling for me to express the same confidence in your (all you s and yours are collective ) ignorance as you but find it only insulting when it is done to you and not by you. Touche!
“I suppose I haven’t commented so much on Ark and Arch because they have been around for a while”
So in essence your familiarity regulates your expression of outrage at seeing someone new mistreated. Thats pretty weak.
LikeLike
@Mike,
Do you think personality attacks are helpful to fruitful dialogue?
“ignorance”
“arrogance”
I see that you don’t have a blog either. But if you did, what would you put in your comment policy to try and maintain commenting productive civility?
LikeLike
“I loved Ron’s example about stars falling from the sky. That is clearly an example of gMatt showing that Jesus bought into the inaccuracy of that period’s world view.
Of course, it might not have been Jesus but just gMatt. And some Christians may argue that Jesus was just using a metaphor. Or apparently Mike Anthony thinks, if I am not mistaken, that indeed, somehow Yahweh will do that. If he said it, he’ll do it. Don’t underestimate god! [But I am not sure”
I’d be curious to know what in the world you are talking about. Matthew is taking about a time when God reveals himself to the world in full glory as God. The natural meets the supernatural. You and Ron might be suffering from a bit of circular reasoning. God as a concept is the supreme being. No theist believes God is subject to the laws of nature but controls them so snuffing out light of the sun is no more than a command to do so.
It says nothing about the “innacuracy of the world view”. NO Christian believes that this of all events is natural and subject to normal laws. Claiming that if God reveals himself he must show himself to be subject to the laws presently employed to run the universe is asking God to not be God.
If your hangup is the word star – star relates to any light in the sky including whats known as falling stars. No distinct word in the greek between the two. Revelations has both stars falling to the earth (which Matthew does NOT state) and it has the heavens which are the collection of stars scrolling away from the earth. So you have a meteor shower and a rapid expansion of the universe with the stars speeding away. big whoop.
LikeLike
I have faith, and I don’t think most people treat me as a child, or maybe I am just oblivious to it 🙂
“So in essence your familiarity regulates your expression of outrage at seeing someone new mistreated. Thats pretty weak.”
its more that they already know where I’m coming from I think, and what they do with that is up to them, just likes its up to you, you can continue to communicate in the way you think is right. No one in the internetland can control that.
LikeLike
Nah, Mike, I think I represented you right. If Yahweh says stars will fall from the sky and oceans turn to blood, then that is exactly what HE will do.
Or, maybe you choose some words to use metaphorically or to point out the subtle Hebrew or Greek meaning — that is fine. But I see your tendency. If God said he stopped the sun in the sky, then he did.
I think I get you. No problem.
LikeLike
“Do you think personality attacks are helpful to fruitful dialogue?
“ignorance”
“arrogance” ”
and why would that be a personal attack? Do tell. because we ought to use nomenclature consistently. Are you claiming if an atheist says that theists are ignorant of facts that that is a personal attack or if I perceive an atheist as assuming an ignorance and properly classify it as arrogance that that is a personal attack?
Why not answer the question. how does one not take this blog and particularly the comments on it in precisely the belittling way you claim is not acceptable. Do you have an answer?
LikeLike
“Doesn’t every other if not every single Post Nate puts up convey that particular message about Bible believers and does not every single comment section fill up with comments about the ignorance and delusion of believers.”
Depends on the topic of the post,
the thing is though, I feel its ok to disagree with points in a post and still respect, have a chat with people who don’t agree or believe what I believe.
I better go to bed, its late here.
all the best Mike
LikeLike
“Nah, Mike, I think I represented you right. If Yahweh says stars will fall from the sky and oceans turn to blood, then that is exactly what HE will do. ”
I don’t really care how you think you represented it right. The passage in Matthew that you are quote mining is very clear. its a future date when a supernatural God enters into the natural world. Begging that he must act in accordance with natural laws while being the supernatural God over them is just circular nonsense. Its essentially saying that IF God acts like God then it invalidates the position there is one.
“Or, maybe you choose some words to use metaphorically or to point out the subtle Hebrew or Greek meaning — that is fine. But I see your tendency.”
the same vaccuous nonsense of William. Yes I have the tendency to read the greek text of a work written in Greek. How bad of me. Fact. there were no two words for star and falling star in the bible. That may destroy your cute little idea that stars falling proves the NT sees the universe however you want to but sorry thats just the Greek it was written in and theres nothing you can do about it.
LikeLike
@ mike,
Claiming someone is ignorant of a certain fact is different from calling a person ignorant. I’d imagine you know the distinction.
Anyway, the most interesting information would be to see a list of comment policies you’d want on your own blog. Perhaps none. Perhaps you love free-for-alls.
If so, we have very different preferences.
Remember from my previous comment criticized equally — all players. No need to get into religious positions.
LikeLike
“I see that you don’t have a blog either. But if you did, what would you put in your comment policy to try and maintain commenting productive civility?’
My blog rules shod I have one
Easy. no cursing, no swearing, no derogatory name calling. no petty side insults about people off the point of the conversation and no what you won’t see here – pretending that people on either side of the issue do not have an agenda or bias.
If someone doesn’t know what they are talking about then demonstrate it and you are free to say it. If you can’t take hearing you are ignorant on a subject then don’t play telling people they are ignorant on others.
EZ peazy.
LikeLike
“Claiming someone is ignorant of a certain fact is different from calling a person ignorant. I’d imagine you know the distinction.”
You have no point. I expressly said all my you’s in that post were not personal but collective. Can I imagine you know the distinction?
LikeLike