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 
I was looking to respond to something non babbling in your last post but alas WIliam I could not find it.
LikeLike
“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”
you’re a different sort of christian than I was. I thought the 66 books of the bible was the only source. what are the other books? like the book of mormon? what do you mean here?
and before you get too critical, you clearly dont know as much as you could on buildings and foundations (as discussed in regard to tyre) – so dont be hypocrite, mike. become an expert on construction or get off your high horse regarding all the extensive research there is to be done on every aspect of ancient cultures. This is dishonest and stupid, and while i believe you could be better than that, i dont understand why you insist upon doing it time and again.
It’s somewhat entertaining, at times annoying, but i suspect always evident to the reasonable people – whether they comment or not – so i’m fine if you wish to continue, but honestly, it does seem contrary to the teachings of the book you claim to be defending.
LikeLike
“I was looking to respond to something non babbling in your last post but alas WIliam I could not find it.”
it’s alright. It’s just because you don’t know what you’re looking at. maybe I can clarify something for you though?
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’
Sorry nate. Your experience with the church of Christ (the boston movement portion being considered by most to be a cult) is not representative of all of Christianity. You can speak to your own experience not mine. I have not found you more versed on issues than the average Christian I know and fellowship with. In fact i have found you to be stunningly unaware at times of basic stuff. If I take bible teacher fiends I know then it even gets worse.
As for KK’s point that I responded to – its nonsense. If hundreds of millions of people can read and understand the Bible with the help of all the resources the church has for spanning language and cultural issue then a few doubters some who I even have to show maps to correct does not make God incompetent. it makes them less than earnest as they claimed to have been.
LikeLike
“you’re a different sort of christian than I was. I thought the 66 books of the bible was the only source. what are the other books? like the book of mormon? what do you mean here?”
Good night….oh vey….Sigh….. rolled into one
Dictionaries, lexicons. interlinears, Biblical atlases. commentaries etc etc
I’m sorry I just can’t read you anymore. Say whatever you want.
LikeLike
“If hundreds of millions of people can read and understand the Bible with the help of all the resources the church has for spanning language and cultural issue”
How silly of us !!! If we just read the bible using the “help of all the resources the church has for spanning language and cultural issue”, then we will understand everything and know it is all true because “the church” provided the resources to help us see the truth.
Mike, everything you have ever posted here NOW makes perfect sense!!!
We have been so ignorant (collectively) because we failed to use the resources of the church.
Now that you have made this so clear, I guess there is no need for further discussion.
LikeLike
“Dictionaries, lexicons. interlinears, Biblical atlases. commentaries etc etc”
well we all read and have read those, but you said books that “god had made available,” so I thought you meant something else.
the difficulty is that if someone says something you dont like, you’ll arten claim that’s because the individual doesnt read or understand the ancient text and is relying solely on the english transliteration – as if they werent made by expert scholars.
I’ve asked for “mike approved sources” so that I may avoid this pit fall, but you continually neglect to provide them. I guess I’m left to wonder through the Dictionaries, lexicons. interlinears, Biblical atlases. commentaries etc etc as I find them, and only discussions with you will let me know if i’m on the right path.
LikeLike
“We have been so ignorant (collectively) because we failed to use the resources of the church.
Now that you have made this so clear, I guess there is no need for further discussion.”
Great Stuff!!! Look me up in the New Jerusalem. I am so happy I got through hat dense fog around your head. Praise God!!
LikeLike
Absolutely! I concur. And therefore, it leaves the door wide open for you to show us how your man – god Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator of the Universe.
I mean, you believe he is so therefore there must be something besides blind faith that clearly convinces you, yes?
So, once again, let’s have your explanation of why the character, Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator God you genuflect to, Mike.
LikeLike
“So, once again, let’s have your explanation of why the character, Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator God you genuflect to, Mike.”
Once again I would like your explanation of the universe and how you avoid the supernatural ramifications of it. You can try a million times avoiding answering my challenge to you but it won’t work. I placed it first and you will not skip over it and demand me answer yours. Balls in your court. I could care less what blog you are on you won’t control the discussion while running away from a challenge put to you .
This won’t do
“I have no idea how the universe formed and don’t presume to venture an answer.”
thats a dodge and a weave. Come on Ark get going. Chop chop
LikeLike
““I have no idea how the universe formed and don’t presume to venture an answer.”
thats a dodge and a weave. Come on Ark get going. Chop chop”
that’s not a dodge – it’s an honest answer.
But look at it like at it like this, you think god created it. Okay, how did god do it – what physical laws and phenomena did he use?
Like gravity between the planets. newton once said that god did it, implying he was at the limit of his understanding, but today physicists can explain their balance with math and gravity – physical laws and phenomena.
So why argue this? it’s not based in scripture. “God did it” is easy to say – how did he do it? and I dont think you’d be dodging if you said you didnt know.
LikeLike
What dodge? What the hell are you whining about now for your god’s sake?
I have admitted I have no idea how the universe was created.
I have conceded there is probably no evidence for materialism.
Therefore, I am saying if you have the answer then damn well show it!
You condemn non-believers to hell for not believing and as soon as you are given the opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of your claim you fold!
And why? Because you can’t demonstrate it can you?
And this is the ultimate ‘Fail’ of all christians.
Your worldview absolutely reeks of hypocrisy.
The religious spend so much time attempting to ridicule so much of scientific explanations related to evolution and other similar topics with their ”Goddidit” explanation even when scientists admit they have no scientific explanations to some of the problems, yet instead of the producing the Ace in the Hole, the definitive piece de resistancethey balk at the opportunity to show, once and for all that their Worldview has merit.
** edited — final line was removed **
LikeLike
Sorry to edit you, Ark, but the final line of your comment went a bit too far. Worse has been said on here, but I’m trying to push for a kinder, gentler tone all around.
So guys, no more personal insults or character assassinations. It’s simply not necessary. Make your points, forcefully if it’s warranted, but let’s leave out the name-calling.
And Mike, I don’t need you to chime in about this at Ark. I’ve taken care of it. So move on with the conversation, or leave if you don’t like things here.
Thanks
LikeLike
“The religious spend so much time attempting to ridicule so much of scientific explanations related to evolution”
Actually Ark that raises my entire point. People like you and the others here spend a copious amount of time critiquing and ridiculing religious people because their book mentions some miracles. You yourself practically foam at the mouth talking about their man in the sky and Nate, though not outright ridiculing, claims that that the mention of miracles in a book raises the suspicion against it as if there is a preexistent proven fact against all things supernatural.
SO this is ENTIRELY the right place to start. it sets a foundation of what is absurd and what this vacuous term “extraordinary evidence” means going forward into any debate. Further this is a major tenet of atheism. You use it everywhere and in everything – that the supernatural ought to be laughed and scorned because after all its supernatural. its probably El Numero Uno of the technique you use to belittle theists.
So speaking of reeking with hypocrisy how can you properly rail against their supernatural views when you yourself cannot deal with the fact that the universe requires a supernatural explanation that you yourself if you thought it through would be required to deal with and yes even maintain? Now I am not insisting as you and yours claim that you must specify what or whom that supernatural explanation is. Neither am I saying as some of you are already barfing therefore God.
I made it clear. I asked
“Once again I would like your explanation of the universe and how you avoid the supernatural ramifications of it.’
You are free to say I think the universe always was but since it would have no cause to be the way it is then the the natural cause and effect chain is broken and I would like to know how you deal with that supernatural component even if you believe the universe always was.
So this questions is about the levelling of the playing field going forward to talk about evidences and you are not going to waste my time when I do get to evidences by hand waving and laughing at anything supernatural which I know you will try. It helps to set some pre evidence rules down is all. If your position must rely on the supernatural at some point then it can’t be an automatic point against religion that at some point they do also. The fact that you do rely on it if you think it through does not make Religions true but it certain removes the claim that appeals to the supernatural automatically invalidate religion.
Look at a recent conversation by way of illustration. someone brought up God making the sun go black as an actual point against Matthew! In other words just the fact that God would have power over the sun to cause it to stop shining is an actual point against the existence of God and Matthew. Total and utter circular reasoning.
and why does such duplicity exist in your minds? well because you swear that the supernaturals is so absurd it should be rejected out of hand but then if so YOU have to answer how it is that YOU escape in your own world view appealing to your own version of the supernatural
Sorry You will not be allowed to fudge out of answering that in any discussion with me when I asked you this first because you certainly will not be fooling this poster that going forward with any evidence I present that you will not be hurling the absurdity of miracles at me. I know you all too well now.
SO answer how you deal with the inevitable end of natural cause and effect in reality or run away. This may be nate’s blog but its my time and none of you will dictate how I spend it while ducking my question.
How do you deal with the fact that whether theistic or atheistic The natural flow of cause and effect must terminate in something that is simple because it is with no rational explanation for it being that way – a supernatural proposition that is inescapable..
LikeLike
Mike, I get why you want someone to throw up some supposition about what happened before the Big Bang, but I just don’t think you’re going to get any takers. My experience has been that most atheists are comfortable with “I don’t know” as an answer, and you’ve been given it several times here. If that’s not satisfactory to you, then you are not bound to continue in the conversation. I think we would all understand if you declined to go any further.
As to the a priori stance against the supernatural, most of us are simply skeptical of supernatural claims. Just like we are skeptical that Zeus or Thor were real gods, and we’re skeptical of things like fairies and leprechauns. I don’t say that to make light of Christianity, it’s just that we’re not likely to accept miraculous claims from any source without substantial evidence. Maybe you don’t think that’s the correct outlook, but we disagree. This may be another impasse.
Thanks
LikeLike
“And Mike, I don’t need you to chime in about this at Ark. I’ve taken care of it. So move on with the conversation, or leave if you don’t like things here.”
I didn’t see it nate but two things.
A) I know that had any of your followers read me go waay over the line (as ark must have given you let him go with all kinds of things usually) you would not be telling them they could not respond to protect me from a response from them – or they should move on.:) lol…no one would believe that. You are fooling no one. the little lecture to leave it or move on if i don’t like it is about me pressing some of your points in various posts with facts in a way you are not accustomed. thats obvious. Any party insulted by me would not be given a lecture for my protection and we both know it since its never happened and never will.
b) so because of the above had I read it I probably would have responded. You clearly want me gone for other reasons regarding points made and I expect that any moment but don;t presume my world will be the least bit affected (as it was not when you banned me the first time for disagreeing with you) to the point that you could actually have one of your people insult me and have any power to make me feel I should not respond regardless of what you did afterwards. Just being honest. You own the blog not me. Do whats right fine I respect that show your bias and there is no candy or privilege that means anything to me to yank to control me – as a matter of fact its a return of a lot of free time to me
So by all means if not hearing good arguments against your point is something you long for again You can go back to hearing nothing but praise anytime you want because that little jab at me after a poster went waay over the line against me is pretty obvious about ideology and we both know it.
LikeLike
“Mike, I get why you want someone to throw up some supposition about what happened before the Big Bang, but I just don’t think you’re going to get any takers. My experience has been that most atheists are comfortable with “I don’t know” as an answer, and you’ve been given it several times here. ”
Thats not the point but I understand if you are not grasping it or don;t wish to. its not a matter of what happened before the big bang its that even if you go beyond it to anything you want all of science tells us that everything has cause and effect and yet it must terminate at a given point. even if you claim that the universe is infinite in cause and effect that means the chain itself has no beginning and no cause.
its inescapable but most atheists like yourself dont want to face because it does tend to weaken your claims substantially.
LikeLike
“As to the a priori stance against the supernatural, most of us are simply skeptical of supernatural claims. Just like we are skeptical that Zeus or Thor were real gods, and we’re skeptical of things like fairies and leprechauns’
Yes i know but many atheists are not very skeptical of claims that everything came out of nothing which is quite the rage among you. Its only Gods you all really have a problem with and thats why in any debate with me your duplicity on that matter would have to be dealt wit or it would be pointless. Life is to short to entertain duplicitous games
LikeLike
Then either make a point or move on. Your constant posts about your own greatness are wearing a little thin.
LikeLike
I already have made my point Nate. the fact that you can’t answer it is of no consequence to me. Telling me to move on when I was already done is you prolonging things not me.
LikeLike
“Your constant posts about your own greatness are wearing a little thin.”
Don’t you think that can apply to all your posts where you incorrectly mischaracterize the Christian apologist as if you are smarter than them on the positions you cover? Perhaps you just loathe anyone as confident as you are..
LikeLike
I don’t know. If that’s how people perceive my posts, then I have work to do. My intent is not to sound arrogant, but just to express my opinion. I expect others to express their opinions as well, and I expect that we may not agree.
I think the difference between my comments and yours is that I don’t continually criticize people for their positions, nor do I question their motivations or honesty. If I’m wrong in that assessment, then hopefully someone will let me know. I’ve been blogging for a long time, and I don’t usually have this much trouble having productive conversations with Christians.
LikeLike
“Its only Gods you all really have a problem with and thats why in any debate with me your duplicity on that matter would have to be dealt wit or it would be pointless.”
Mike, I can only speak for myself and you are right that Gods are the problem I have with a religious explanation of the beginning of the universe.
Which God ? Is it a personal God ? Where did God come from ? These are simple questions to answer for someone who has no problem believing in the supernatural .
Lets take medical science as an example. Many of the examples for physical affliction in the NT were blamed on demon possession. Jesus became famous for supernaturally casting out demons in order to heal those who were afflicted.
Today 99.9% of all physical afflictions on this planet are due to scientifically discovered causes such as viruses, cancers, birth defects, etc, etc, etc. No serious person believes that these afflictions are due to demon possession. Common sense would also dictate that those who were afflicted in the NT were most likely NOT demon possessed either.
Does this example give you any sense of why some of the people following Nate’s Blog might be skeptical of you or anyone else using a god (of your choice) as the ” supernatural cause” for the existence of the universe ? When we don’t have the answers , it is quite normal for the religious to use supernatural answers until science finds the real answer. I do see your point Mike that you feel the non-religious use scientific explanations which also appear supernatural to a “religious person”. They appear this way mostly because science hasn’t confirmed these explanations…..yet.
Science corrects itself constantly with the discovery of new evidence. I don’t see this happening to the same degree in religion.
LikeLike
“I think the difference between my comments and yours is that I don’t continually criticize people for their positions,[/quote]
Sure you do you just call them apologists when you do or you say things like they remind you of clinton if you recall.
“nor do I question their motivations or honesty. If I’m wrong I that assessment, then hopefully someone will let me know.”
Good then I am letting you know, You have questioned my sincerity a number of times even today so i don’t see how you fool yourself you never do that.
” I’ve been blogging for a long time, and I don’t usually have this much trouble having productive conversations with Christians.”
I ‘ve read other people who have equally strong opinions in comments and you have the same issues. Provided they call you to task on anything I’ve seen similar dialogue.Now of course if they come in and say that you have good points but they think this or that then you are fine with those but if they get down to telling you something you said is dead wrong or a mischaracterization then its similar. If I am honest me more than others sure no doubt because frankly I spot things some don’t and yes I have pushed you on the facts to the point where I see more of a side that perhaps you don’t show to others because I do.
One thing that I really don’t and won’t buy might be particular irksome I guess and that is I just don’t buy the whole pure as the fallen rain thing – from anybody. I don’t think it honest of anyone to go around like they have no biases and just the facts move them. Its really just self deception. One of your frequent claims is of others twisting things but You do a mean game of that yourself when a point is on the line so the whole the Golly gee I am above doing that kind of thing just isn’t real to me.
anyway these posts are now all about me or you. I don’t see any point being moved on to.
LikeLike
“Does this example give you any sense of why some of the people following Nate’s Blog might be skeptical of you or anyone else using a god (of your choice) as the ” supernatural cause” for the existence of the universe ? ”
Actually sorry KK once I realized you were trying to change the subject of what I asked I just kind of scanned through and only read this closely and its all I will respond to with no apologies.
I am not even at the point of “using a god” as the supernatural cause. I am asking how you deal with the ramifications a supernatural root to reality due to cause and effect INESCAPABLY having to terminate at some point in reality whether thats an unexplained God. an unexplained Universe or an Unexplained can of beef that created the universe.
Its about establishing a baseline and yes claiming its fine and dandy if you say atheist can accept everything out of absolutely nothing is fine but if someone says a personal god – “now thats outrageous!” is just vast silliness form just irrational bias.
LikeLike