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 
How is this intellectually honest?
“I’d love to hear the star issue addressed. I promise to wear my Sunday bests to the class.”
Then I address it and the reply is
“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 thats your Sunday best its just another example of duplicity.
LikeLike
There is something about Crispyuns’ who get miffed at being called out or upset when people call them names over their ridiculous attempts to continually justify their texts , doctrines and all round faith based nonsense beliefs that really makes me laugh.
Here they are, impugning the intellectual credentials of all and sundry yet their predecessors, who laid the foundations of their nonsense beliefs at one time often put to death many who so much as questioned the supernatural crap they espoused as fact and truth.
Anyone who cares to engage an individual such as Mike Anthony must always bear in mind that such people require a man-god to be real for their own lives to have any meaning, to the point they will construct endless labyrinths of theological and philosophical clap-trap in order to not only make sense of their own lives but to enforce such garbage on others through indoctrination of children.
And as nonintellectual and uncivil it may be – rude in fact – if they are ‘hell bent’ on proselyting this diatribe with nothing but threats to back up their claims then they deserve every ‘uncivil’ epithet that is thrown at them.
LikeLike
@ Mike,
I think your policy suggestions are good. As for the rest, your style of talking is not inviting enough to motivate me to keep typing, so I will bow out. You probably feel the same towards mine. So we part ways.
Take care.
LikeLike
“Anyone who cares to engage an individual such as Mike Anthony must always bear in mind that such people require a man-god to be real for their own lives to have any meaning, ”
Are you up to debating me on the issue of whose position relies more on the supernatural? The other arch has run away. I sense you will probably as well or you will start first and realize it was nowhere near as easy as you believed due to your own subliminal everything from nothing genie worship.
as for being miffed – if that were the word it would be at others for the hypcocrisy of being miffed at me rather than you. Your are more like entertainment. like a snarling little puppy with big eyes. cute but kind of messy.
LikeLike
Ya know, I misjudged you, Mike Anthony. You and Ark are like twins separated at birth or soul mates. I’ll bet in-person you guys would be a riot together and would never want to separate. You both seem to have very similar temperaments. I will no longer make comments that could interfere with your possibly pre-destined blooming bro love.
LikeLike
“Ya know, I misjudged you, Mike Anthony. You and Ark are like twins separated at birth or soul mates.”
Yes of course because ark has been kind enough to call me a cute puppy. 🙂
LikeLike
‘ I will no longer make comments that could interfere with your possibly pre-destined blooming bro love.”
Why is there so much reference to homosexuality here? and why is it brought up as a joke or derogatory context so often. Liberal atheist homophobpics? lol…say it aint so
LikeLike
“Bro Love” is not a referral to homosexual love: See Urban Dictionary
And as for homosexual love, ’tis the same as any other sort of love to me. Love is love.
But I understand for many religious folks it is a horrible sin. But I won’t engage that controversy here.
“Bro Love” is a cool thing — I have it for several friends. If I understand the term properly.
LikeLike
““Bro Love” is not a referral to homosexual love: See Urban Dictionary”
It can be used both ways. Sometimes people use it as a little joke to lightly imply something is going on and given your comrades were going on a few days about Jesus and his disciples I thought I would ask because the arches do seem infatuated with the subject.
LikeLike
Interesting that you used the word “infatuated”.
Not me, I never use sexual orientation as a joke — I could care less. Now and again I may get derogatory about height or blood type … 🙂
LikeLike
” Now and again I may get derogatory about height or blood type … :-)”
lol…..Okay it took awhile but I finally found a half way cool atheist on this blog.
LikeLike
Oh I will slip up eventually — I am pretty inconsistent and foolish. Worse yet, I love that about myself. 😉
LikeLike
“next post try telling me what I don’t know. I was talking about the alleged historians who would have heard the story. they would have concluded it was a ghost story.”
I agree, that is the obvious conclusion after hearing mathew’s claim.
LikeLike
“William the problem with your approach is that you never look at the culture, history or language so you claim things are made up that are right there in the Bible.
Consider the absurdity of reading say a piece of literature from Brazil and not wanting to look at the spanish/portuguese it was written in, the culture and habits in Brazil. No scholar does this it would be INEVITABLE that you would come with misunderstandigs even if it were written today. However if you get presented with something that is not apparent to YOU a few thousand years after the document was written and what ? your US/european culture understanding you claim its “made up”” – Mike
Well, since I’m not ancient but of a modern US/European/Canadian culture, you can see why i struggle.
can you give me an example of where I did this? I dont want to be guilty of it.
But when someone is making a defense of the passages we’re discussing, passages that were transliterated by greek & hebrew scholars, and their defense contains things or is entirely composed of things that are absent from that text, then why wouldnt it be fair to think they’re made up?
LikeLike
I fixed your claim to add more real truth to it.
“Well, since I’m not ancient but of a modern US/European/Canadian culture and am so lazy mentally I think that applying my canadian understanding to an ancient middle east writing is scholarly, you can see why i struggle.
Yes thats better. I do understand that. 🙂
“their defense contains things or is entirely composed of things that are absent from that text, then why wouldnt it be fair to think they’re made up?”
You will Lie on a dime William. I made nothing up. You just object to looking at the language a book was written in as a bone lazy and intellectually dishonest ploy to get you to where you want to go.
LikeLike
“Out of Israel in Matthew? Meh common objection. Nate would probably argue it back and forth but Laws are said to be fulfilled not just prophecies and I see Matthew here using a common Midrash technique of Jews seeing Jesus as the leader of Israel represents he was called out of egypt too”
Hi mike. dont you think this highlights one of the problems we keep having? Although you’d disagree, it appears as though we’d have to implant certain things into the scripture in order to have it “work out.” We can add any made up thing to any problem and resolve it, dont you think?”
….
But i am not sure i even responded appropriately, as i was not sure what you were even getting at in your reply – other than you disagreed and nate should think about rewriting his post.”
the above is a more complete context of what we’re talking about.
you’re claiming that mathew was using a “technique” in explanation as to why he quoted something out of context and randomly said it was a “prophecy.” That looks like making something up to me – when nothing in the text says that for itself, and then you just insert it… it looks made up.
““Well, since I’m not ancient but of a modern US/European/Canadian culture and am so lazy mentally I think that applying my canadian understanding to an ancient middle east writing is scholarly, you can see why i struggle.
Yes thats better. I do understand that. :)”
Lazy? to some degree maybe. But I dont have the time to become and expert on every subject, that suggestion that people are to do so is hypocritical and absurd. besides, how would studying ancient hebrew give me insights to the alleged and hypothetical assertion that mathew is using any type of “technique” other than that of lying? if you want to provide sources I wont be too lazy to review them.
LikeLike
“You will Lie on a dime William. I made nothing up. You just object to looking at the language a book was written in as a bone lazy and intellectually dishonest ploy to get you to where you want to go.”
this is interesting, because from my perspective, you’re the one who’s lying and who is guilty of the intellectual dishonesty of lazily asserting that the problems I’m having is (among other things) with the lack of intimate knowledge in ancient hebrew and greek, while relying on the scholarly translations into english, while you yourself refrain from providing sources that could correct this problem that you claim exists.
I wonder if we’re just approaching this from two entirely different perspectives, that we’re just not comprehending what the other is saying?
LikeLike
@Mike
Oh..you are going to offer verifiable evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was not only a real person but also the Creator of the Universe?
Oh, boy! Let me go make some popcorn ‘cos this is going to be super fun.
Okay…I’m ready. Let’s see your evidence, Hotshot. We are all waiting with baited breathe.
LikeLike
@Ark,
Oh..you are going to offer verifiable evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was not only a real person but also the Creator of the Universe?
He can do it.
In three sentences.
He cab prove these things.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. 😀
LikeLike
“Lazy? to some degree maybe. But I dont have the time to become and expert on every subject,”
So? big woop. Why should that be anyone else’s problem but your own? Okay so in your ignorance you call midrash something made up by me because you have no background in jewish literature and are too lazy to even look at your main research tool. here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash
Fine. But how is that any point? So you read a Book steeped in Jewish culture and want it to fit your Canadian context. Thats your issue not a point.
next you can follow up that the Jews made it up.
Second yes I did point out that fulfilled Gk “fill up” does not always refer to a future event but a concept/value being filled up made complete. Thats because it does
Luke 24:44 (KJV)
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled/pleroo, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Matthew 23:32 (HCSB)
32 Fill up/Pleroo, then, the measure of your fathers’ sins!
Matthew 3:15 (HCSB)
15 Jesus answered him, “Allow it for now, because this is the way for us to fulfill/pleroo all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him ⌊to be baptized⌋.
Matthew 5:17-18 (HCSB)
17 “Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill/pleroo
18 For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished.
NOTE THAT THE ABOVE RELATES THE LAW NOT JUST PROPHECY BEING FULFILLED
Matthew 13:48 (HCSB)
48 and when it was full/pleroo, they dragged it ashore, sat down, and gathered the good ⌊fish⌋ into containers, but threw out the worthless ones.
Above a fishing net is “fulfilled”/ filled up.
Furthermore I should add that even the idea of prophet and prophecy is wrong in your and Nate’s understanding. Almost every prophet spent more time prophesying without telling the future than prophesying while telling the future (they did both).
So then what if Matthew sees the the idea of the prince representative of Israel being called out of Israel as the filling up completion fulfillment of the Idea of God delivering from Egypt. It fit the meaning of the word “filled up” and it fits common Jewish midrash to the passage.
You wanting to ignore the language and culture of the book presents no issue to me or Matthew. Its just begging to do no research.
LikeLike
” Are you up to debating me on the issue of whose position relies more on the supernatural?
Oh..you are going to offer verifiable evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was not only a real person but also the Creator of the Universe?”
Yawn……… the first part isn’t even worth debating since no serious scholar claims Jesus never existed. The second part would first require us to deal with the issue you are running away from – does the Universe require a supernatural creation?
Shucks and you thought you had managed to wiggle and hand wave from your fear of debating me on that. 🙂
Sorry. Lets go Ark or are you afraid that in your case your boat might sink?
LikeLike
“He can do it.
In three sentences.”
Meh…….perhaps…. but not really. it takes just that to correct your ignorance on what theists even maintain or I tell you what? We could just do what you did with abiogenesis
Evidence rain check
and only use three words?
What do you say?
LikeLike
“So? big woop. Why should that be anyone else’s problem but your own? Okay so in your ignorance you call midrash something made up by me because you have no background in jewish literature and are too lazy to even look at your main research tool. here”
your wiki article also says the midrash was a rabbi’s way of making up scenarios to fix the problems with the text. I can agree with that. i guess that is what mathew was doing. I would say that I’d defer to your source, but i think it said what I and nate had been saying.
Mathew cited something that had nothing to do with he was talking about. zero. all the jewish culture doesnt rectify that.
What mathew quoted in regard to israel being called out of egypt isnt a law, so I dont get you point.
“Furthermore I should add that even the idea of prophet and prophecy is wrong in your and Nate’s understanding. Almost every prophet spent more time prophesying without telling the future than prophesying while telling the future (they did both).
So then what if Matthew sees the the idea of the prince representative of Israel being called out of Israel as the filling up completion fulfillment of the Idea of God delivering from Egypt. It fit the meaning of the word “filled up” and it fits common Jewish midrash to the passage.”
anything can become a “prophecy” in such a case. maybe you’re correct, but it certainly takes the pizzazz out of it.
It’s like me claiming that i predicted the iraq war when playing risk as a young lad, and moved my army by force into the middle east but withdrew my forces to focus on asia. is that your claim?
LikeLike
Hello, Mike Anthony.
LikeLike