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 
“Ah..as I thought. The same with every Christian. When push comes to shove you have squat.”
Ah as I Knew. the same with every atheist /borderline atheist . When they get stumped on a big question they hand wave and go to rhetoric to squirm out of answering. What else is new?
LikeLike
@William, “yeah, I never thought the bible said that demons caused diseases, but i dont recall it saying where diseases came from at all. Mike, where are those passages that state the root causes of disease?”
I never said the bible said that demons caused diseases.
My quote refers to “physical afflictions” : I said, “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.”
The NT clearly associates some of those who were demon possessed with being blind, deaf, mute, foaming of the mouth which could also include epilepsy, back being humped over, fever, etc.
I did go on to say that medical science has discovered causes for physical afflictions “today” INCLUDING but not limited to viruses, cancer, birth defects, etc, etc, etc.
“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.”
Some people accuse me of not reading scripture in its “proper context” . I would suggest they (not you William) read my comments in their “proper context” as well.
No where in my comments did I say the NT suggests demons cause cancer. I did say demons manifested themselves in a person through being blind, deaf, mute, foaming of the mouth, being humped over and fever as examples. Those to me are physical afflictions.
LikeLike
@kcchief1
“I never said the bible said that demons caused diseases.”
I know. I was replying to mike. He routinely argues with people over things they didnt really say. I assume it’s a bait or dodge tactic, and I’d rather not play it.
The intelligent and honest people will see that without me or anyone having to point it out. So instead of arguing with him, i just ask him about things he’s said – claims he makes – and in so doing, i try to do it by honetsly and accurately questioning him on what he’s actually claiming – if you can pin him down. Is it just me, or does he seem to avoid clearly stating his case, and seem to spend most of his time gloating or just bashing others?
know what I mean?
LikeLike
Not in the least. I am perfectly prepared to accept your worldview; all I ask is for you to explain your claim, namely that Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator of the Universe, and provide evidence.
You believe this and proselytizing is part of the Christian mandate and likely consider my soul is in jeopardy so why are you stubbornly refusing to demonstrate the veracity of your belief?
LikeLike
This is why I am no longer engaging him directly. We have seen his type before doing the Wizard of Oz routine. Standing behind the curtain, huffing and puffing until someone pulls the curtain open .
When you have to result to insulting others to get your point across, you have no point to make.
I initially accused him of making “silly comments” . From there I accused him of huffing and puffing and being a classroom bully.
I hardly consider those insults. I was describing the “person” I saw. He seems to prefer honesty and I obliged him.
LikeLike
Here’s what I’m reading:
Atheist to theist: “You’ve got nothing. No explanation for your presupposed supernatural cause. Explain it. Show your work .”
Theist to atheist: “Well, you’ve got nothing. I call your nothing, now show it to me.”
Atheist to theist: “I’ve got nothing to show. Now let me see yours.”
Theist to atheist: “Not til I see yours first.”
The thing is, as an agnostic/atheist, ‘I don’t know’ is a perfectly acceptable answer. I am waiting for evidence. Real, verifiable evidence.
‘I don’t know’ does not imply nor preclude the supernatural. So I’ll be the one to bite. Even if there is a supernatural explanation, there are no perceivable ramifications of that, to me, unless that supernatural explanation is threatening and/or promising things.
To suppose a supernatural explanation to my finite mind does not carry with it any perceivable ramifications.
LikeLike
Mike,
In virtually every one of your posts you use language like “you are lying” or you say something like this:
Consider this an official warning. Stop labeling people’s motivations. Just because they don’t agree with you does not mean they are being dishonest or hypocritical. You’re not “calling a spade a spade,” you’re simply being obnoxious. Have others on this site sometimes been guilty of the same thing? Yes. And in most cases, I’ve tried to put a stop to it then as well. I asked Ark to stop this kind of thing yesterday, and he has. I’m not asking you to offer any kind of apology — I’m simply asking that you focus on actual content from here on out and not on personal character. Is this something you can agree to?
LikeLike
Well said Ruth & Nate !
LikeLike
@kcchief,
For the record, I agree with your assessment of demon possession. Even when I was a Christian, I wondered if demon possession was being used for any number of ailments, especially those concerning mental illness. Obviously, they didn’t think that every kind of sickness was from a demon, but it still seemed to be a ubiquitous problem in Jesus’ day.
Interestingly, now that medical science has greatly improved, we never see anyone being diagnosed with demon possession. I was going to ask Mike about this, but since he believes that it still happens today, I don’t guess there’s much point.
LikeLike
“You believe this and proselytizing is part of the Christian mandate ”
ah so I get it now. You think you are in some position that I want to get you out of. That I am in search of your lost soul so that means I must answer your questions but you can fudge answering mine. That somehow that puts you in the drivers seat as the arbiter of what I present. ..um…. Nope. Wrong again.
I would be willing to have a long solid debate of the evidences in a rational step by step process despite your vast silliness and vitriol (so bad even your comrade had to delete it). Start out with the basic ground rules, continue to prophecies that nate doesn’t even have on this site etc. You know all adult and rational like you can’t handle. All that given there are some ground rules and some reasonableness (which I know would be dubious)
but To save your soul? Nope no one can do that for you. To show you and others you are full of nonsense? Honestly? That would be closer to the truth
Let me give you all the 411 on how Christians view people who deny the faith and leave it because I get the sense there are some illusions you have that may give you a bit of arrogance like people are trying to win you back. Theres a good bit of NT teaching that someone who abandons the faith is not someone who sees truth very well. The words for them as I am sure Nate knows is apostate (its not a bad word its just a description). So Christians who engage you online who know their stuff are more likely posting online with you for others – not you primarily ( if some light cracks through to you then thats good as well).
Hope that clears up this whole I am trying to proselytize you bit. Although given how much you guys like my style I would have thought it would be apparent that I had no such goal.
LikeLike
“Here’s what I’m reading:”
Well as long as we are sharing how we are reading Ruth. Here is what I am reading
Atheist: your world view in which you accept anything supernaturals is absurd on the face of it. So if you hold to miracles anywhere regardless if you present it as evidence or not makes your position suspect
theist presents a logical argument based on the facts that the atheist position too must logically end in a supernatural and ask them how that affects the issue
Atheists scatter and run
LikeLike
Sooo, mike, you’re basically just saying that you wont answer the question given to you, about providing the evidence you have that supports your origin story, because you dont like the other sides answer of “i dont know.”
makes sense, if you’re unable to provide such evidence and have too much pride to say that you also dont have any or just dont know.
If god created everything, which god(s)?
if jesus created it all, do you have evidence for it?
I hope nate doesnt block you. I can tell that;s what youre going for – that way can avoid these questions while being able to claim you would have answered them had nate not blocked you.
I would say it’s clever – but it isnt.
If god created everything, which god(s)?
if jesus created it all, do you have evidence for it?
LikeLike
“Interestingly, now that medical science has greatly improved, we never see anyone being diagnosed with demon possession. I was going to ask Mike about this, but since he believes that it still happens today,’
Nonsense. When was anyone ever been DIAGNOSED with Demon possession prior to these alleged medical advancements. has nothing to do with medical advancements. it was NEVER considered a medical issue.
LikeLike
“When was anyone ever been DIAGNOSED with Demon possession prior to these alleged medical advancements.” – mike
I think they’re referring to the bible, when it says so and so had a demon, etc.
LikeLike
Right, I understand the proselytizing bit. Thank you for clarifying. Now, will you please explain how the character Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator of the Universe?
LikeLike
“Atheist: your world view in which you accept anything supernaturals is absurd on the face of it. So if you hold to miracles anywhere regardless if you present it as evidence or not makes your position suspect”
I’ll admit that I am skeptical of miraculous claims. Many times they turn out to be nothing more than hoaxes or have some natural explanation. Why is it wrong to be skeptical of supernatural claims with little or no evidence that the claim is, in fact, supernatural?
“theist presents a logical argument based on the facts that the atheist position too must logically end in a supernatural and ask them how that affects the issue theist presents a logical argument based on the facts that the atheist position too must logically end in a supernatural and ask them how that affects the issue”
This is where ‘I don’t know’ comes in. Maybe the material isn’t all there is. But I don’t know how that affects the issue. Is this supernatural entity a deity? Is it a force with no conscience whatsoever? I don’t know. That’s not a scatter and run. That’s honesty. How does the claim of a supernatural causation affect the issue? How do we make the leap that that supernatural entity is necessarily the Christian God?
LikeLike
“Consider this an official warning. Stop labeling people’s motivations. Just because they don’t agree with you does not mean they are being dishonest or hypocritical. You’re not “calling a spade a spade,” you’re simply being obnoxious.”
You just yesterday questioned my sincerity yet considered it not the least bit of obnoxious behaviour. There is no fundamental difference between stating you are not sincere and you are intellectually dishonest. Thats total nonsense borne out of your bias.On another ocassion you accused me of Obfuscation and lying like Clinton. You then followed it up and confirmed the same sentiment again in the same thread (After complaining I was ungracious to accept your previous claim you had not meant it).
We both know this is about getting answers and points you don’t like shown to you
You wish to ban me for purely ideological reasons. We BOTH know that. Its your blog so thats fine. I have no tears no fears. So Nate why dont you just do it? and get it over with? Seriously your threats and making up excuses makes no sense to me. Its your blog
Is it because you won’t be able to honestly say after that you don’t ban people for disagreeing with you? Because “warning” me because I say someone is dishonest while you maintain the right to call those who disagree with you insincere/ twisters as you do often doesn’t wash logically
Its just evident hypocrisy and your blog does not mean enough to me to warn me that I cannot speak the truth (and if yu think you can make my response to this charge just all go away – You can’t -the page has already been screen recorded).
I do wish you the best Nat even God who is best despite are strong words but in my opinion you did and do need someone to burst through your STRONG self delusion that you are unlike those you criticize and are not filled with your own bias. Some times the sweet sugar pill is not what we need. its the bitter pill to swallow.
LikeLike
Thanks Nate for your comments. I concede that my assessments aren’t always 100% Bias Free. I don’t believe anyone’s are. I also make mistakes and I do misspeak from time to time. Most bloggers who frequent your posts aren’t out to play “The Gotcha Game” . This is why others might feel we are all trying to defend each other when in reality we try to give each other a little slack , believers and non-believers alike.
What I don’t understand is when a poster starts an answer with a personal attack. To me, it shows they have NO intent of engaging in a meaningful dialogue.
Personal attacks in the middle of a dialogue typically means they have a low tolerance for the previous example.
You have a tough job as a moderator. I frequent your posts because I feel you try to allow everyone enough leeway to make their point or hang themselves.
I think you have once again accomplished this here. 🙂
LikeLike
“You wish to ban me for purely ideological reasons. We BOTH know that. Its your blog so thats fine. I have no tears no fears. So Nate why dont you just do it? and get it over with?”
my guess is that you wish it. you want to get kicked off so you avoid answering your claims, and act like you’ve been kept from doing so.
And I dont mind your vitriol. I can avoid it without the aid of a deity, yet cannot avoid it despite your savior making all things possible for you.
so again, getting back to point:
1) How do you prove god(s) is the cause to everything?
2) How do you know the bible god is that god?
3) what evidence do you have that shows the man jesus created everything?
4) where does the bible specify the root causes to disease?
LikeLike
DOH! revise to read:
“And I dont mind your vitriol. I can avoid it without the aid of a deity, yet you cannot avoid it despite your savior making all things possible for you.”
LikeLike
“I hope nate doesnt block you. I can tell that;s what youre going for – that way can avoid these questions while being able to claim you would have answered them had nate not blocked you.?’
William you can’t read very well can you? I don’t need to feign ay tactic. Its your side that refuses to deal with a simple foundational issue and are running like mad ants from. Whether Nate bans me (and of course he will because he can’t take having some of his points dismantled upon which he made life changing decisions) its immaterial because if you don’t answer the debate will not go on anywhere anyway.
LikeLike
mike, still trying your best not to answer the questions.
1) How do you prove god(s) is the cause to everything?
2) How do you know the bible god is that god?
3) what evidence do you have that shows the man jesus created everything?
4) where does the bible specify the root causes to disease?
if i missed your questions, you are free to ask them again. I thought your questions are betting answered. Ask, and I’ll do my best to address them.
LikeLike
“That’s honesty. How does the claim of a supernatural causation affect the issue? How do we make the leap that that supernatural entity is necessarily the Christian God?”
Sigh. You don’t. I’ve said it like five times but it just goes all over your heads. its a foundational question. and no it does not mean that you must accept anything with no evidence but it does help to clarify what the vacuous never defined overwhelming extraordinary evidence that you claim must be provided actually is whenever something includes a supernatural reference
Nah I am not going to write it all out again. Keep going with the nonsense of not reading that allows you to claim you can sidestep the issue.
LikeLike
Sigh. You don’t. I’ve said it like five times but it just goes all over your heads. its a foundational question. and no it does not mean that you must accept anything with no evidence but it does help to clarify what the vacuous never defined overwhelming extraordinary evidence that you claim must be provided actually is whenever something includes a supernatural reference.
Okay. I’m with you on that.
But how does being willing to concede that the universe may have a supernatural cause eliminate the need for extraordinary evidence of such? I think that’s where we’re getting bogged down. I would like evidence of that. Not just conjecture that because every natural thing must have a cause, that cause must be supernatural. That is why scientists keep looking, right? What am I missing?
LikeLike
Mike, you probably honestly believe that my asking you to tone things down is because I can’t handle your actual points. That’s not the case, but I understand this is how you see it. I’ve conversed with many people on here who have made more substantial points than the ones you’ve raised, yet we’ve usually been able to have a civil conversation despite our disagreements.
But that’s not the main issue. I’m not perfect — I readily admit that. I have lost my patience with you a time or two, so I apologize for that. But I’m asking that we let the past go and focus on the future — will you make an effort to be more considerate to those you interact with? And I’ll expect the same from them…
LikeLike