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 
“and nate, dont hold anything against mike for saying that I was lying. I forgive him and hope you will as well.”
LOl forgive me for what. You were BARE FACED lying to say you were not accusing me of lying when you said I couldn’t answer but would not admit it. Any half way intelligent person could see that
LikeLike
“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.”
ah, thanks for the clarification, and sorry you keep thinking I missed that point…
I dont think they necessarily lead to the supernatural. I”ve stated this before and gave the example of newton and gravity between celestial bodies. he thought that it was a supernatural force that kept planets in their orbits, but much later physicists showed that it was quite natural.
So while I dont know exactly what caused the universe, i feel confident that something did. I expect that in time it will be shown to be natural, but if it turns out to be supernatural:
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?
5) and if everything needs a beginning and a cause, why doesnt god?
6) and if god doesnt need a beginning or a cause, isnt that basically saying that NOT everything needs a beginning or a cause?
LikeLike
“LOl forgive me for what. You were BARE FACED lying to say you were not accusing me of lying when you said I couldn’t answer but would not admit it. Any half way intelligent person could see that”
I can only say that i wasnt. But i can apologize anyways if that makes us on friendly terms again?
sorry. I’ll try not to imply you’re a liar again.
it would help if you answer just a few questions though:
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?
5) and if everything needs a beginning and a cause, why doesnt god?
6) and if god doesnt need a beginning or a cause, isnt that basically saying that NOT everything needs a beginning or a cause?
LikeLike
“So while I dont know exactly what caused the universe, i feel confident that something did. I expect that in time it will be shown to be natural,”
So in other words you have faith without any evidence to that whatsoever 🙂 🙂 🙂
That was worth the price of admission but ummmm no.
You just showed you don’t even understand the point much lest answered my question.
Same goes for Ruth. If something has no explanation or cause all of science indicates it isn’t what we call natural.
LikeLike
“I can only say that i wasnt. ”
The whole idea of saying someone is lying is to say they are saying something they know not to be true. Saying I would not admit to it was saying I was lying. You can lie till the cows come home on that
anyway Enjoy the rest of your week. things are getting busy with me right now.
LikeLike
“So in other words you have faith without any evidence to that whatsoever 🙂 🙂 :)” – mike
how’s that, exactly? if you want to say that it’s faith to think some natural cause is behind natural events… then okay. i wouldnt define it that way, but if you want to.
“Same goes for Ruth. If something has no explanation or cause all of science indicates it isn’t what we call natural.” – mike
I think you’re confused. If they dont have an explanation, they keep looking for one – they dont jump to the supernatural. Science has never indicated “supernatural,” but if this is indeed what you’re claiming, we can make providing the evidence of such as Question #7.
so now that you have an answer:
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?
5) and if everything needs a beginning and a cause, why doesnt god?
6) and if god doesnt need a beginning or a cause, isnt that basically saying that NOT everything needs a beginning or a cause?
LikeLike
“The whole idea of saying someone is lying is to say they are saying something they know not to be true. Saying I would not admit to it was saying I was lying. You can lie till the cows come home on that”
no, it’s saying you wouldnt admit to it. this almost looks like a confession to lying, though. I forgive you.
If you said you could jump over a fence, i’d say you couldnt. that doesnt mean that you’re lying about it. You may think you can do it – i’m telling you know because I dont want to see you fall on your face.
but if you can answer them, here’s another chance:
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?
5) and if everything needs a beginning and a cause, why doesnt god?
6) and if god doesnt need a beginning or a cause, isnt that basically saying that NOT everything needs a beginning or a cause?
7) when has science ever indicated that “supernatural” was the answer to anything?
LikeLike
Same goes for Ruth. If something has no explanation or cause all of science indicates it isn’t what we call natural.
No, if something has no explanation all of science indicates it has no explanation. But if we say the jury is still because we don’t have evidence of any cause yet then we are having faith in science. I’ll will go ahead and concede your point on that. I have faith in science. Because science self-corrects. Science tests, experiments, verifies.
So, you can have faith in a ‘supernatural cause’ which has no explanation with no evidence, or I can have faith in a system which is constantly searching for evidence, and which has proved time and again that it will seek to find an actual answer.
Supernatural is not in itself an answer or a cause. Supernatural is more questions. With ‘I don’t know answers’. Which is where we are now. Except that science will continue to seek an answer and theism (not deism) purports to know an answer such that no matter how many answers science does provide, if it can’t or doesn’t provide them all, then ‘supernatural.
I await evidence. I’m not sure how that’s wrong. I’m not sure why it’s necessary to concede a supernatural cause simply because we have no explanation. If that is what you are after, then you have betrayed your own bias. I concede, I’m biased toward science. Conceding a supernatural cause does nothing to level a playing field. It only affirms your own bias toward the supernatural.
LikeLike
I don’t have time for this crap right now.
Mike and William, stop accusing one another of things. If you can’t converse without resorting to that, then just stop commenting. I’m sick of it, and I think others are as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AMEN to that, Nate!
LikeLike
okay
LikeLike
“No, if something has no explanation all of science indicates it has no explanation. But if we say the jury is still because we don’t have evidence of any cause yet then we are having faith in science. I’ll will go ahead and concede your point on that. I have faith in science. Because science self-corrects. Science tests, experiments, verifies. ”
Ruth real quick because at least you are beginning to grapple with the issue I put out
The jury is in that everything in nature is dependent on a cause. Thats where the science is now. and FOREVER will be. Thats the nature of science. Science cannot research anything that is not dependent on cause and effect natural processes and repeatability. Going beyond science to say as you do that nature does not have to depend on cause is going beyond where science is now. its you putting your faith not in science but what you want or think science will one day say that it has not.
Thats often the problem with these appeals to “science”. So often the person using the name science is acting like science speaks for them and their position when in fact science does not speak to any position. its simply them saying science does.
Furthermore the claim that I dunno is acceptable because we just don’t know is utterly false as it relates to the conclusion of a supernatural quality of reality.. We do know enough and the evidence does point to the fact that cause and effect has to come to a point that terminates. its what science teaches us as a natural consequence of nature being based on cause and effect. Its based on the same rational conclusions we use with everything in science. facts and logic derived form the facts make the conclusion inescapable. Besides You really can’t say logically that natural processes don’t have to have a cause because processes ARE cause and effect based.
So saying I dunno is not a way out because we don’t like where logic and the scientific facts carry us in regard to what reality is. its just an out. You would not allow it from any Christian and you are pretty much going back to the rainchek evidence basis you claimed before
– Science does not say but I think it will so thats an answer.
LikeLike
As Nate has asked me not to insult Mike by calling him a D……, that word I can’t use, I won’t, But it has become patently clear that he has no sensible answer to any question,and no intention of offering one either and is simply intent on demeaning all and sundry and merely behaving like a D….. Therefore, we must presume he is either a poor indoctrinated misguided sole (sic) and treat him like we would anyone who has been subjected to religious inculcation, or assume he does know what he is talking about and was simply brought up to be be a complete D……. that word I can’t use.
I am plumping for the latter and, far be it for me to say, as he adds nothing constructive to this thread a banning would bring on a cheer from the peanut gallery. 😉
LikeLike
Ark, while I appreciate the self-censorship, I’d prefer we’d not even allude to stuff like this. Let’s just please leave the personal stuff out of it.
Mike, if the supernatural exists, why must we point all the way back before the Big Bang for an example of it? I know there are people who claim to have experienced the supernatural, so I don’t blame them for believing in it. But why do you suppose this experience with the supernatural isn’t universal? Why do we have to point back to something none of us knows about in an effort to show it’s real?
LikeLike
“Ark, while I appreciate the self-censorship,”
ROFL…Where is the self censorhip? leaving off three letters after D when every adult known what he is calling me? This after you deleted me saying rightfully someone was intellectually dishonest.
HAHAHAHAHAHA Nate your bias is a think of pure beauty in its perfection.
Ark thanks man. Seeing Nate tell you he appreciates you for some fake censorship while calling me a Dick has me chuckling in an otherwise bland day. roll tape
LikeLike
The jury is in that everything in nature is dependent on a cause. Thats where the science is now. and FOREVER will be. Thats the nature of science. Science cannot research anything that is not dependent on cause and effect natural processes and repeatability. Going beyond science to say as you do that nature does not have to depend on cause is going beyond where science is now. its you putting your faith not in science but what you want or think science will one day say that it has not.
If everything in nature is dependent on a cause and the causes of the things that scientists can research are natural why does any cause for anything necessarily need to be supernatural? Scientists have not posited a supernatural explanation for the cause of the Universe. As I understand it, you are making a “first cause” type of argument.
I’ll have to do more reading about this. Why can’t there be infinite regress where everything has always been in various states and forms for, well, infinity?
LikeLike
And still no answers from mike, just avoidance. It’s happened so often I suspect hes doing it intentionally.
LikeLike
“If everything in nature is dependent on a cause and the causes of the things that scientists can research are natural why does any cause for anything necessarily need to be supernatural? ”
You just basically said the answer – because that which doesn’t have a cause is a break in what nature tells us and yet the logcal consequence of that is that there must be a termination of cause and effect or else infinite regress is the only answer
“Why can’t there be infinite regress where everything has always been in various states and forms for, well, infinity?”
Fair question and I applaud you for being the ONLY one that is willing to at least begin to deal with the issues surrounding this. the answer is because infinite means never ending and never beginning in reference to the past so essentially everything you see now would be a big miracle – absolutely nothing would have an ultimate cause.
LikeLike
Mike, wanna address the questions now?
Your exchange with ruth points out that your “logic” is rooted in assumption after assumption.
So, provide the evidence that supports it… and if you cannot, and have not, and have tried your best to avoid doing, I’m going to stick with: mike is just making stuff up, much like Matthew, in order to reach his preconcieved conclusion.
LikeLike
“Fair question and I applaud you for being the ONLY one that is willing to at least begin to deal with the issues surrounding this.”
We’ve gone wildly off-topic.
the answer is because infinite means never ending and never beginning in reference to the past so essentially everything you see now would be a big miracle – absolutely nothing would have an ultimate cause.
So it’s your contention that if there is no first cause – miracle?
If there is a first cause – miracle?
I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions. Just because there isn’t an ultimate cause doesn’t mean that evolution doesn’t happen.
LikeLike
“And still no answers from mike, just avoidance. ”
You and Ark’s narrative just flopped. Ruth has at least begun to deal with the issues I was asking about. As long as that continues along its present lines she can then ask me anything she wants. Fair game. So its Ruth from now on and I won’t be even reading you much less responding to anything you have to say in this thread.
As much as this blog can allow it you are officially on my ignore. You can ask Ruth to ask me a question.
LikeLike
Also, I’m definitely NOT the best person to be making cosmological arguments. So any holes you punch in whatever I say can most definitely be argued better by someone who knows what the hell they’re talking about.
LikeLike
“So it’s your contention that if there is no first cause – miracle? ”
NO In fact the evidence says here has to be but it can’t be a natural process or we are back to depending on things that have causes and an infinite regress where every thing is a miracle.
“If there is a first cause – miracle?’
its an appropriate word to me but if you prefer Super (beyond) natural (what we see in nature now). Fine
“I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions. Just because there isn’t an ultimate cause doesn’t mean that evolution doesn’t happen”
WHen did I conclude that evolution doesn’t happen? and what are you talking about when you refer to evolution – biological? – stellar?
LikeLike
Something I’ve always wondered about is why MUST there be a cause and effect? Just because we happen to live in a world that tends to demonstrate this doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the way it is. I feel Ruth is heading in the right direction with her question: Why can’t there be infinite regress where everything has always been in various states and forms for, well, infinity?
LikeLike
Flopped? My position is that youre dodging questions, which is only confirmed and reconfirmed everytime you avoid answering.
Youre kidding yourself if you really think otherwise. But talk to ruth, she’s intrlligent and honest – but unless you answer, you’ll still be dodging
LikeLike