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 
Evidence rain check
Like archaeology on Exodus?
LikeLike
1.Did I say that someone called Jesus (Yeshua) did not exist? Of course not, Hotshot, and there is every likelihood that there was a smelly little itinerant preacher called Yeshua running round Palestine sometime in the first century.
The character Jesus of Nazareth, however, as depicted in the bible, is a narrative construct. Period.
2. Even if the universe did require a supernatural creation you then have to show that your god, Jesus of Nazareth, is that supernatural creator. And this, you cannot do.
This is what faith is all about. Faith you no doubt have. Evidence? Not a chance in Hades.
Best you pack it up now,Mike, before you begin to look really silly.
LikeLike
Sink? *Smile*…..I note you are still plugging holes all over the place trying to save your myriad arguments. I believe, however, that you are plugging the wrong holes, Mike. Start with the one just below your nose.
Any time you are in the area, we are all waiting for your Supernatural Explanation
LikeLike
“The character Jesus of Nazareth, however, as depicted in the bible, is a narrative construct. Period.”
oooh oooh he foamed at the mouth and said Period. What grand evidence for his materialism dun did it of the gaps fairy worship
LOL thats the best ya got Ark?
“Any time you are in the area, we are all waiting for your Supernatural Explanation”
I’m still waiting for your everything out nothing fairy tale explanation Ark. I got my popcorn, some soda and a a few party hats but you won’t show long enough to really debate but just run away.
Lets start with the origin of the universe or reality first .We can set the abiogenesis chanting and magic wand for later.
LikeLike
I have no idea how the universe formed and don’t presume to venture an answer.
If you believe it was created by your man-god, Jesus of Nazareth them I will be fascinated to read what evidence you have.
LikeLike
“Lets start with the origin of the universe or reality first ”
Let’s start with the origin of your bible god first and go from there.
LikeLike
“oooh oooh he foamed at the mouth and said Period. What grand evidence for his materialism dun did it of the gaps fairy worship”
I agree. It’s just like someone saying, “the end” or “I blew that out of the water…” whoever it is who keeps saying things like that…
it means nothing and only gets in the way of the real issues.
LikeLike
“”I have no idea how the universe formed and don’t presume to venture an answer.”
oh-oh So you cannot say that the supernatural is precluded as an answer and yet you believe materialism is all there is. Nope. No begging out of having to give an answer. If you claim the supernatural is absurd you have to come to the plate and give your swing at answers just like you demand theists to do. Sorry
and spare me the usual “God of the gaps” barf and hand wave. its an issue of what reality actually is and if one side has to defend their position you have to do the same
LikeLike
“it means nothing and only gets in the way of the real issues.”
I tell you what what Will. You can say “the end” when you actually put something on the table not like your two walls of text filled with rhetoric and claims you just put up in another thread along with your begging that because you can’t be expert on everything it lets you off the hook for not knowing what you are talking about.
I’ll continue to say the end when I put up facts because I see you making claims all over the place that have nada to back them up but your say so.
LikeLike
“Let’s start with the origin of your bible god first and go from there.’
I already put up my challenge and you will either deal with it, run away or Have nate ban me. You won’t be dictating anything. and yes
The end.
LikeLike
“oh-oh So you cannot say that the supernatural is precluded as an answer and yet you believe materialism is all there is. Nope. No begging out of having to give an answer. If you claim the supernatural is absurd you have to come to the plate and give your swing at answers just like you demand theists to do. Sorry”
anything is possible, which is why we’re discussing probability. And if the universe needs a beginning, if everything needs a beginning, then why not god? If he “just is” then why not the universe?
And if we’re saying that the big band means that the universe had a beginning, then why cant the singularity be composed of eternal material – similar to your god if he didnt need a beginning? we cant disprove it (I only throw this in to show how absurd it can be) I’m not saying any of it is the case, but looking at everything is usually how we figure things out – where as in religion, you have an assumed premise and never back up to evaluate that premise, which is, “god is real and he wrote the bible”… at least that’s the assumption of many.
LikeLike
“I’ll continue to say the end…”
i know you will… and you’ll also continue to avoid the real issues in so doing.
LikeLike
“I already put up my challenge and you will either deal with it, run away or Have nate ban me. You won’t be dictating anything. and yes
The end.”
Using your logic Mike , it only makes sense for you to begin with your explanation first. Looks like you are the one running away.
You believe in a god who you say created the universe. To challenge a non-believer in explaining the cause of the creation of the universe would only be logical after you first explained how your god came into being.
I think this is only fair. Most of us don’t claim to have the answers while you do. Explain away.
LikeLike
I’m not dictating anything . You are the one who tells us we are ignorant (collectively). Please take us and enlighten us by explaining to us how your god came into being. After your concise explanation, perhaps then we can understand how the universe was created. You have the stage . Explain away.
LikeLike
@ Mike
Not a scrap of evidence has been put forward to indicate a supernatural explanation so why should it even be considered? This is the reason I am offering you the chance to explain how your god, Jesus of Nazareth is that supernatural element.
LikeLike
“anything is possible,”
Do tell then in an infinite universe everything would eventually happen including God
Ooops.
” which is why we’re discussing probability”
Whose the “we” . I said nothing about probability.
.”And if the universe needs a beginning, if everything needs a beginning, then why not god? If he “just is” then why not the universe?”
Well first off all thats not the issue. The issue is the supernatural. Invariably you must have something or someone that has no beginning which means primary reality can have no cause. Something that appears with no explanation and cause is not natural to our world and most definitely is NOT bound by Materialism. its therefore clearly supernatural
Secondly you have ZERO evidence just like you say of theists that the universe has any property that frees itself from the cause and effect chain that is natural to materialism. In fact our universe and the science of it has pretty much proven that the universe itself cannot be what always existed. its proven to have had a beginning.
These FACTS indicate that when atheists have this priori (and you all do though nate lies to himself he doesn’t – its in several of his articles) that extraordinary evidence (rather than just good evidence) is required when the supernatural is being discussed its all a crock because in their very own world view the cessation of natural cause and effect is called for which has no significant difference to the existence of the supernatural.
In short when you think it through you all believe in the supernatrual. You just barf against it when Christians talk about it.
LikeLike
“i know you will… and you’ll also continue to avoid the real issues in so doing.’
and since that is just a statement with no fact that you can back it up with I can dismiss it
the end
LikeLike
“Using your logic Mike , it only makes sense for you to begin with your explanation first.”
Who care about what your think my logic leads. You don’t get a vote on it. I’ve given you your choices. Begging to the cows come home will not change that I put something to you first and you will either deal with it or run away.
Now get to dealing with how you avoid the supernatural aspects reality and the implications of it with cause and effect. babbling that you don’t have to isn’t working.
LikeLike
“Not a scrap of evidence has been put forward to indicate a supernatural explanation so why should it even be considered? ‘
Not a scrap of evidence has been presented that materialism is any ultimate explanation for anything so why should it be considered?
LikeLike
“babbling that you don’t have to isn’t working.”
Look into the mirror , Mike
LikeLike
“Look into the mirror , Mike”
I do. handsome fellow if I say so myself. 🙂
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.”
All the more reason Mike that “a god” would hardly expect an ancient book like the bible to be considered relevant to the world today.
If god’s requirements for reading the bible are studying the culture, history, and language of the various times each manuscript was written, in order to truly understand what he is trying to convey to us, well then he is going to get what he must have wanted in the first place. A bunch of doubting people . 🙂
LikeLike
“All the more reason Mike that “a god” would hardly expect an ancient book like the bible to be considered relevant to the world today.”
And yet hundreds of millions do – even more than even atheists exist.
“If god’s requirements for reading the bible are studying the culture, history, and language of the various times each manuscript was written, in order to truly understand what he is trying to convey to us. well then he is going to get what he must have wanted in the first place.”
You mean people who can crack the many books and resources he has made available through thousands of teachers he called to break things down rather than live in ignorance? Yes
“A bunch of doubting people”
Atheists that can’t crack double digits in most polls? You are so cute. You’ve convinced yourself your the majority eh? Thank God (and Al gore) for the internets
LikeLike
“Whose the “we” . I said nothing about probability.”
then join the discussion, mike.
“Do tell then in an infinite universe everything would eventually happen including God”
would or could? there’s a difference. And besides, it’s not really true anyways. Would or could a unicorn hang a solar system from its nipples? so, not everything would or could. It’s so improbable, we can go ahead and say that one’s impossible.
“The issue is the supernatural. Invariably you must have something or someone that has no beginning which means primary reality can have no cause.”
assuming your premise is correct. We’re talking about whether the supernatural is plausible, and your answer is that well, it is, the god is real… that’s just not good sense.
“Secondly you have ZERO evidence”
for what? the random suggestions I made when making a comparison against your no evidence based notion that god of the bible is real or that the supernatural is real? if so, that was sort of my point… that and to show that your line of logic can also be applied to your position…
“In short when you think it through you all believe in the supernatural. You just barf against it when Christians talk about it.”
hmm.. how so?
and are you suggesting that if someone believes in the supernatural, that they should also then believe in christianity? are you saying that all supernatural claims are the same or are on equal footing?
do you mash all religions together to make one big harmonious religion like you do with the differing gospels?
This could be one reason we’re having such a hard time having a discussion – because I have been misunderstanding your overal outlook.
LikeLike
Mike, surely your last comment was a joke. You pretend as though the people who frequent this blog have done no research, yet it’s obvious that we know far more about these issues than the average Christian. Yet you appeal to the number of Christians as though it’s any indication of the quality or truthfulness of the claims of Christianity?
LikeLike