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 
“mike, still trying your best not to answer the questions.”
I can answer them all but you will answer the one I put to you first. You can type all day. its not going to work. You don’t answer my question I am under no obligation to move forward and you would have my hand on Bible I won’t.
You need to understand something. this blog isn’t my first rodeo. I debate with ground rules and reasonable assumptions because I know how online debates can go. Theres plenty of great evidence to get to from the Bible and in prophecies Nate doesn’t even know about but as long as someone says we won’t accept good evidence but Extraordianry evidence (when there no indication of where that bar is even set) then it becomes an all purpose nonsense escapee hatch for atheists to run through when the evidence gets too hot to handle.
Nates blog but you are not wasting my time with that standard atheist garbage technique and good night especially since people like ARk already has been foaming at the mouth with fury and spittle against anything that has the supernatural attached.
You all can go waste your own time convincing yourself because you REFUSED to answer a question the theist can’t answer yours
Rubber stamping each other is what this blog is about anyway. SO whats new? Anyway enough of this blog for now. IF nate doesn’t ban me (yet) then you all can think of something to address the perfectly legit foundational issue I addressed. I have things to do .
LikeLike
Guys, I suggest we drop this conversation here. Mike has said he won’t accept “I don’t know” as an answer, so he’s not going to offer his response. I suppose that leaves us nothing left to discuss.
However, Mike, I’d still like an answer to my last question concerning etiquette.
Thanks
LikeLike
“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”
Nate You conveniently left yourself out of that almost as under the same delusion you are exempt. You calling someone insincere is the same thing as saying something is intellectually dishonest.
all these are on your blog and even some in your own posts
“Kidding themselves”
“insincere”
“twisting”
“fudging”
“obsfucation”
“lying to themselves”
You are playing a little game. with the possible exception of the last those are all comments on people being intellectually dishonest. Any rational unbiased person would concede they imply the same thing. You allow ALL OF THEM and write some yourself. and the only person you have an issue with suggesting intellectually dishonesty is me because I disagree with your points ad have shown some of them to be false.
So straight up no. You can ban me but I will call a spade a spade just like you do if I am not banned. As long as you accuse me, my fellow believers and apologists of that then you have no rational nor moral point and are being totally hypocritical.
Seriously just do what you are going to do and want to do. All this preamble and trying to split hairs to justify it is pointless. That you allow yourselves to call people insincere but then turn around and take issue with it from me makes things even more apparent as to exactly why wish to ban me.
Just calling a spade a spade. Just get it over with
LikeLike
“However, Mike, I’d still like an answer to my last question concerning etiquette.”
Just answered it Nate. You extend it you get it. If you don’t as you haven’t then its a false etiquette being used as an excuse for another agenda.
LikeLike
Mike,
I for one would be very interested in reading your answers to this questions William asked.
LikeLike
Mike, I guess your last comment is the closest I’ll get to agreement, so I’ll take it. Thanks
LikeLike
Mike, If your explanations helps me get closer to the truth, I want to read it. If your points will help me understand certain things better then id love you to take the time to answer those questions 🙂 but of course it’s up to you
LikeLike
“I for one would be very interested in reading your answers to this questions William asked.”
good then get working and encourage someone to actually answer the questions I posed and have a civil reasoned discussion about the plain brute fact that the supernatural MUST be invoked at some point for reality. Its about creating a more rational level playing field not saying anyone on the basis of it should accept any god or anything like that it just creates a rational base to move forward looking at real evidence
LikeLike
“Mike, I guess your last comment is the closest I’ll get to agreement, so I’ll take it. ”
If you call exact opposites and total disagreement close then feel free just don’t claim I am going back on anything when I call them on intellectually dishonesty because I make no pledge that I won’t if I see it. In fact I most definitely will while I see the same being done in any other words on your blog.
LikeLike
“i’d love you to take the time to answer those questions”
Love is more than a feeling its also an intent. So get busy to getting someone or yourself answering my question so that I can fulfill your stated desires. Fair enough? 🙂
LikeLike
Ok I’ll try,
I could put on my “atheist” hat and answer your questions from that perspective if you like.
It’s 2:26am where I am though, and I have work at 8am so please be patient and I can give you an answer tomorrow/today
LikeLike
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?
You cant answer them… at least not with anything meaningful, and you’re too stubborn to admit it. that’s fine. I’m not judging you – I couldnt answer them either.
and again, I thought your questions had been answered, but if i missed one, tell me what it was and I’ll give the best answer i’m able to. I’ll even answer it without making up rules about who has to answer first.
LikeLike
“Guys, I suggest we drop this conversation here. Mike has said he won’t accept “I don’t know” as an answer”
Its not a don’t know question. Its a matter of logic and reason. If You see a stack of dominos falling over in a domino train you have two options
A) an initial domino was hit over by something that was not a domino to get it going or
B) there are an infinite amount of dominos falling over before it and the force active hitting over present dominos comes from nowhere.
saying I dunno to the only two choices is just ducking the question.Not exploring the ramifications of what that means for a debate about the supernatural isn’t serious conversation
NO ducks. give answers
LikeLike
And to clarify, to save confusion. my “hat” would not be a reflection of what I think is necessarily true.
But more following a line of thinking that presupposes there is no god…
LikeLike
“A) an initial domino was hit over by something that was not a domino to get it going or
B) there are an infinite amount of dominos falling over before it and the force active hitting over present dominos comes from nowhere.”
I’m sure I’m showing my naivety/ignorance here, but why are these the only two choices? So, everything is a domino or it’s supernatural?
LikeLike
“Its not a don’t know question. Its a matter of logic and reason. If You see a stack of dominos falling over in a domino train you have two options
A) an initial domino was hit over by something that was not a domino to get it going or
B) there are an infinite amount of dominos falling over before it and the force active hitting over present dominos comes from nowhere.”
I choose “C,” something started the dominoes in motion, whether it was another domino, or something else. beyond that answer I’d be guessing.
But let’s say, for argument sake, that god started the dominoes in motion…
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
…or are those premises just your assumptions for “C”?
LikeLike
“You cant answer them… at least not with anything meaningful, and you’re too stubborn to admit it.”
If I didn’t know better (and I don’t) I would say that you were claiming I was lying about being able to answer the question. Wheres nate to warn you about calling people intellectually dishonest?
Careful you might even get banned
ROFL
LikeLike
“I choose “C,” something started the dominoes in motion, whether it was another domino, or something else. beyond that answer I’d be guessing.’
thats just restating the A and B choice and saying I dunno to avoid answering again……..Yawn.
I Might check in on the weekend to see if you guys get more serious.
LikeLike
“If I didn’t know better (and I don’t) I would say that you were claiming I was lying about being able to answer the question. Wheres nate to warn you about calling people intellectually dishonest?”
oh, thanks for the heads up. I didnt mean to imply that you were lying, I assume that you really think you can, I jsut think you cannot – at least not in any meaningful way, that is.
I do think your purposely dodging them – trying your best to keep from doing it, though. Have I miss read?
LikeLike
“thats just restating the A and B choice and saying I dunno to avoid answering again……..Yawn.
I Might check in on the weekend to see if you guys get more serious.” – mike
I’m sorry, but youre mistaken. It’s the only answer I have – which is obvious – you’re just looking for excuses to step out and not answer the questions spurred by your comments and claims.
If you leave, you wont be missed by many here, and it will end with you not answering questions under the pitiful guise that “we havent answered a question” when in actuality, you just dont like the answer.
I mean, i wasnt holding my breathe anyways, I would have been extremely and utterly surprised had you answered any of the below questions with anything substantial.
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
“oh, thanks for the heads up. I didnt mean to imply that you were lying,”
Sure you did. Now thats just you being obviously BLATANTLY intellectually dishonest. If someone says that they can answer and you say they cant and the reason they won’t admit it (which is saying they know they can’t) is because they are stubborn you are bare faced telling them they are lying
Nate can have a cow or ban me. I’ll call that lying every time because its the living truth
thats why I say the illusion on this board that you are all honest and above board is just that – your delusion
LikeLike
so mike, you’re really still making more noise to avoid answering the questions or is it more to try and distract everyone from the fact you’re not answering them?
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?
and nate, dont hold anything against mike for saying that I was lying. I forgive him and hope you will as well.
Mike, you could show us the right answer, as you believe it to be, to your own question since we keep getting it wrong.
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
“I’m sorry, but youre mistaken. It’s the only answer I have”
Nope my question was how do you handle the issue of the supernatural that those scenarios naturally lead to in dealing with the supernatural in general. You gave squat. You ducked and ran like all the rest.
“If you leave, you wont be missed by many here”
Really… and here I was thinking I was so greatly loved here
“I mean, i wasnt holding my breathe anyways, ‘
I hear you. If I waited for atheists to have a reasonable nonbias slanted debate with theists I’d be indistinguishable against a blue sky.
LikeLike
Am I the only one for whom a supernatural cause isn’t actually an answer? A supernatural cause would be ineffable.
I get that to some, the supernatural is the only possible explanation, but why is that every natural thing must have a cause? If the supernatural doesn’t have to have a cause, why must the natural?
LikeLike