10 Prophecies, Apologetics and Paul, Biblic

Issue No. 10
October 1983

Prophecy

Biblicists place great reliance upon the alleged accuracy of biblical prophecy to justify their position.

•In Jonah 3:4 (RSV) Jonah cried, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" But Jonah 3:10 shows that the prophecy materialized in a manner precisely opposite to that which was predicted. It states: When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he said he would do them, and he did not do it." It is no defense to say that they turned from their evil ways and, therefore, God was justified in changing his mind, i.e., the conditions under which Jonah had made his prophecy had changed. If he had been a true prophet, he would have seen this change coming. Even more important, the prophecy was not conditional. He flatly stated Nineveh would be overthrown in 40 days, which didn't occur.

•Isaiah says: "...put on thy garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean." Yet, the uncircumcised have never stopped traveling through Jerusalem.

•In John 14:12 Jesus says: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, the works that I do shall he also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." But what believer has ever done a miracle greater than those preformed by Jesus?

•In John 14:13-14 Jesus stated: "And whatsoever ye ask in my name I do, that the Father may be glorified in the son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it." In reality, millions of people have made millions of requests in Jesus' name and failed to receive satisfaction. This promise or prophecy has failed completely.

•In 2 Chron. 1:7, 12 God said the following to Solomon: "Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee: and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like." This prophecy has also proved to be erroneous. There were several kings in his day, and thousands since, that could have thrown away the value of Palestine without missing the amount. The wealth of Solomon has been exceeded by many, and is small by today's standards.

•In 1 Thess. 4:16-17 Paul stated: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: And the dead Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: And so shall we ever be with the Lord." Paul shared the delusion, taught by Jesus, in that he expected to be snatched up bodily into heaven with other saints then living, who would, thus, never taste death. The use of "we" clearly proves as much. It is difficult to deny that Paul was certain that the end of the world was coming in the lifetime of his contemporaries.

•First Samuel 27:1 says: "And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul:..." Whether stated in or out of his heart David erred decisively. He did not die by the hand of Saul as he predicted, but appears to have died of old age, according to 1 Kings 2:10, which says: "So David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David." Having died before David, Saul couldn't have been responsible.

•Gen. 15:16 predicted that: "In the fourth generation they (Abraham's descendants) shall come hither again..." God told Abraham that his descendants would return in the fourth generation. Yet, if Abraham is excluded, it actually occurred during the sixth generation. The generations were;
(1) Abraham,
(2) Issac,
(3) Levi-Ex. 1:3,
(4) Kohath-Ex. 6:16,
(5) Amram-Ex. 6:18, and
(6) Moses-Ex. 6:20.

•Jer. 34:4-5 predicted that Zedekiah would experience a peaceful death: "Yet hear the word of the Lord, O Zedekiah king of Judah; Thus saith the Lord of thee, Thou shalt not die by the sword: But thou shall die in peace...." Yet Jer. 52:10-11 shows that he died in something less than a peaceful manner: "And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekaih before his eyes: he slew also the princes of Judah in Riblah. Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death."

•John 7:52 says: "They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." The inaccuracy of this prophecy lies in the fact that several of the most distinguished Jewish prophets--Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah--were from Galilee.

•Another prophecy is found in Gen. 49:13, which predicted that "Zebulun shall dwell at the shore of the sea; he shall become a haven for ships, and his border shall be at Sidon." Two aspects of this prophecy clearly failed. The borders of Zebulun never extended to the sea, and they never encompassed Sidon. In the Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties Gleason Archer attempted on page 104 to remedy this problem:
Gen. 49:1 foretells the location of this tribe (Zebulun) near the shore, affording a convenient passage for the cargoes of ships unloading at the docks of the Mediterranean coast for transport to the Sea of Galilee and transshipment up to Damascus and beyond. While Zebulun was located on neither coast, the Valley of Jezreel afforded an excellent highway for imported goods to be conveyed to the most important inland markets. Its northern border would point in the direction of the great commercial cities of Phoenicia, of which Sidon was then the leading emporium.
In effect, Archer admits that Zebulun was on neither coast and never encompassed Sidon. The connecting link afforded by the Valley of Jezreel is irrelevant. The fact remains, Zebulun did not touch either sea. The fact that Zebulun's northern border "pointed" in the direction of Sidon is also immaterial. The prophecy clearly states Zebulun's border shall be at Sidon on the sea.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #22 From SBJ of Albany, New York (Part a) Dear Mr. McKinsey,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my request for a copy of your latest "Biblical Errancy" publication (Issue #8, Aug. 1983). Let me make my position clear to you at the outset: I am a Christian. I requested your material, because I always am interested to see what critics of the Bible have to say. What I have discovered is that, invariably, the arguments used by biblical critics reinforce, and strengthen, my Christian faith because these arguments are themselves easily proved to be erroneous. Your publication was no exception. My purpose in writing to you is not to gain one-upsmanship in an intellectual debate, or game. I will explain my purpose later. But first I shall address your arguments. To begin with, I was quite surprised to discover such a large portion of your literature addressed to the issue of slavery and women. These issues have nothing to do with errancy, in the strict sense of the term. One may not agree with the biblical teaching on these topics, but such disagreement is simply an opinion and is unrelated to the validity of the Bible.

Editor's response to Letter #22 (Part a) Dear SBJ,
I appreciate your lengthy letter and commend the relevance of your presentation. Your commentary stayed on the topic-the --Bible--and for this reason will be discussed in subsequent issues of BE as well. Having read all 12 pages of your handwritten letter, one overriding conclusion is quite obvious. You have a strong urge to leap to conclusions after a rather perfunctory analysis of the facts, a tendency no doubt arising from your exberance for a cause. You lectured and admonished a great deal and tended to switch from "prover" to "preacher" as you proceeded. Your propensity for immediate conclusions is readily apparent in your second paragraph. You stated a large portion of my literature is addressed to the issue of slavery and women. Quite the contrary, these issues were brought up only in the August issue and compose only a fraction of my literature. You have made a broad generalization based upon an analysis of only one issue. I suggest you might want to read issues to get a much better idea of what BE entails. Secondly, you alleged the issue of slavery and women have nothing to do with errancy. Apparently you missed the point of the commentary. Second Cor. 3:17 says: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (Also note Isa. 58:6, Ex. 22:21. 1 Cor. 7:23, Gal. 3:28, 5:11,13). Other verses also link the spirit of God with liberty. Yet, the Bible shows God's spirit to be one of fostering and promoting slavery and sexual subservience in scores of situations. According to the Bible, the Lord's Spirit is often one of enslavement and oppression, diametrically opposed to liberty. "Simply an opinion" is an inaccurate description of the situation.

Letter #22 continues (Part b)Your section on "Paul, the Deceptive Disciple" is more what I expected to find throughout your publication. In this section, you cite 8 "errors" or misquotations in Paul's sayings, citing 12 specific biblical references in the process. In all 8 cases, you are wrong. Let me show you: (1) You quote 1 Cor. 2:8 as, "which none of the princes of this world know; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory." Then you claim that the statement is wrong, because Jesus was not crucified by any princes but by a mob and some soldiers. The translation which you used is the KJV. The problems which you fail to recognize is that the Greek word translated as "princes" in the KJV is from (a Greek word) which means "ruler, official, authority" etc. Reliable modern Bible translations, such as the NASB and RSV translate this same word as "rulers." The very simple fact concerning Jesus' crucifixion is that it resulted from the authortative judgment of the Jewish and Roman rulers. For example, Matthew 27:1 states, "Now when morning had come, all the chief priests and elders of the people (i.e., the rulers) took counsel against Jesus to put Him to death;" In John 19:16, speaking about Pilate, John writes, "So then he (Pilate) delivered Him (Jesus) to be crucified." In other words, the mob and soldiers executed the crucifixion, but their authority to do so came from their rulers.

Letter's Response to Letter #22 (Part b) According to Strong's Concordance either "prince" or "ruler" is a correct translation. It means "the highest authority." Regardless of whether "ruler" or "prince" is used, your problem remains. Name one Roman ruler that initiated the Crucifixion. The elders or local leaders of the people were not the rulers. The entire region was under a Roman dictatorship, and only Romans were rulers. What biblical verse justifies equating the people's elders with their rulers? Pilate was the ruler and, not wanting to be involved, washed his hands of the entire matter. He only turned Jesus over to the mob when their clamor became strident. Pilate wanted to release Jesus, as John19:12 shows: "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him" and even said he wanted to wash his hands of the entire affair: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person." Pilate turned Jesus over to them in John 19:16, but he did not approve their subsequent acts, nor does any verse show he granted them any authority to act. Even if Pilate had instigated the Crucifixion, Paul's statement is still inaccurate because he said "rulers" not "a ruler" killed Jesus. So, again, I ask what rulers killed Jesus?

Letter #22 continues (Part c) You quote Col. 1:23 as "...from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister." You then make the condescending remark, "come now, Paul. At no time...." etc. Your translation is the same as the RSV. The NASB translates the Greek a bit differently: "...which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven...." Again, one must return to the original language (Greek) to get true meaning here. The Greek reads... "proclaimed in all creatures" is an accurate translation. As such, it is a term that is difficult to understand precisely, but by no means erroneous. Perhaps it is poetic, perhaps literal.

Editor's Response to Letter #22 (Part c)The KJV, the RSV, the New International and Modern Language versions all say "proclaimed to every creature." Your NASB version appears to be expedient to escape from the dilemma. But even if your version is correct, you have merely leaped from one problem to another. If you are going to keep going back to the Greek, SBJ, you'd do well to first make sure you're going to gain thereby. When was the gospel "proclaimed in all creation"? Even today, much less in Paul's time, many areas do not have preachers of the gospel. The gospel was a relatively recent introduction to the Western Hemisphere, and is virtually non-existent in China. You state that "proclaimed in all creation" is "difficult to understand precisely, but by no means erroneous." If you don't understand it, how do you know it is not erroneous? Incidentally, in Part B you said the RSV was a reliable modern Bible translation."

Letter #22 continues (Part D)(After noting the fact that one must realize the Bible often uses poetry and metaphors that should not be taken literally, SBJ says) Next, you quote Acts 20:35 and victoriously claim that "Nowhere in the NT did Jesus make such a statement." Where does the Bible ever state that the only words which Jesus ever spoke are those recorded in the NT? To claim that Paul is in error here because these words of Jesus are not in the NT is the height of irony: your whole point is to prove the Bible's lack of validity, yet you then claim that only the statements of Jesus contained in this invalid source can be used by Paul! In your desperate effort to prove the Bible erroneous, you have truly taken flight from reason.

Editor's Response to Letter #22 (Part D) I have no objection to this comment as long as you agree to the following. First, all who hear this verse are told that nowhere in the Bible did Jesus make this statement. Deception is quite common with this verse. Secondly, Paul could not have heard this statement himself, since he circulated when Jesus was no longer present. At best, Paul is quoting hearsay. Thirdly, there is no evidence, whatever, that Jesus ever made the statement. All we have is Paul's word. Where did I claim that "only statements of Jesus contained in this invalid source can be used by Paul"? Paul can quote Jesus anytime he desires. As long as he or his followers don't attempt to give people the impression that alleged quotes from Jesus, such as that found in Acts 20:35, are supported by Scripture, there is no problem. "Desperate effort" is a judgmental comment. Let's allow outside observers to determine whose position is becoming progressively more desperate with greater analysis.

Letter #22 continues (Part E) You claim a contradiction between Rom. 12:14 and Acts 23:3, saying that the latter reveals that Paul is ignoring his own advice (in the former). In the latter, Paul is not "cursing" Ananias; he is simply presenting the facts. Ananias is unjustly condemning Paul, and if he doesn't straighten up fast, God will strike him at some point.

Editor's Response to Letter #22 (Part E)
What did Paul say, SBJ? He said: "Bless them which persecute you: bless and curse not." He didn't say it's permissible when the denunciation is justified. He said don't curse, period. Paul called a man "a whitewashed wall" (RSV) and you would have us believe that this is not cursing, just "simply presenting the facts." Surely you don't mean the man really is a whitewashed wall. You were the one who used the phrase "flight from reason."

Letter #22 continues (Part F)
You claim another contradiction between 1 Thess. 2:3 and 2 Cor. 12:16. You fail to recognize that Paul is speaking sarcastically in the latter. Amazing though you may find this to be, but it is also a superb piece of literature and employs poetry and subtle literary tones (sarcasm, anger, humor, irony) throughout.

Editor's Response to Letter #22 (Part F)
There is no reason whatever to assume that Paul is speaking sarcastically in 2 Cor. 12:16, other than to extract one from the dilemma. You are fond of the NASB version, SBJ. Read 2 Cor. 12:16, which says: "crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit." The statement is either true or false. If it's true, then Paul condemned himself and contradicted what he said in 1 Thess. 2:3. If it is false, then he lied and stands condemned. Poetry and subtle literary tones aren't the problem. A crafty religious figure changing according to expediency is the difficulty.

Letter #22 continues (Part G)
In 1 Cor. 6:12 and 10:23 Paul is not viewing himself as a law unto himself. He is trying to explain that our decisions about what to do in various situations should always be based upon what is best for the other people involved. To a non Christian (such as yourself), this would require a lengthy explanation--and even then he (or you) may either reject or not understand it. Consequently, I won't bother offering this explanation here.

Editor's Response to Letter #22 (Part G)
How can you say that "Paul is not viewing himself as a law unto himself"? In 1 Cor. 6:12 he twice states: "All things are lawful for me." If that doesn't mean he is a law unto himself, what does? There is nothing in that verse or the surrounding information that would lead one to conclude that Paul means decisions "should always be based upon what is best for the other people involved." The welfare of others isn't even mentioned, either explicitly or implicitly. You need to read more and interpret less. Weren't you the one who also used the phrase "desperate effort to prove"? You are correct in saying I may reject your interpretation. There is nothing in the verse or its context that would justify your rationalization.
(Letter #22 will be Concluded in next month's issue)

Letter #23 from KEH of Sacramento, California (Part A)
Dear Dennis. Thank you for another provocative issue of BE.... You made some good points in the Sept. '83 "Commentary," but several of your other statements were rather weak. Refer to item (a) of the first paragraph. In the King James translation, I believe that "bird" was a more generic term than it is today, an idiom referring to almost any variety of flying creature. And in the original cited passages of the Pentateuch, I suspect that the Hebrew word used had the same general application.

Editor's Response to Letter #23 (Part A)
Dear KEH. I always appreciate constuctive criticism, even though it's sometimes inaccurate. Item (a) of the first paragraph of the Sept. '83 commentary rightly alleged the Bible considers the bat to be a bird. The evidence is clear. Lev. 11:13 says: "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls." The text then list nineteen animals, all of which are clearly birds. So there is no doubt that birds and only birds are being referred to. The problem arises from the fact that the twentieth, and only the twentieth in the list, is not a bird. The bat is a mammal. You used two qualifiers-"I believe" and "I suspect"--which aren't justified by anything in the text. Is there any reliable evidence to justify your suspicions, or does it just seem that this could be a reasonable explanation? Do you know of any version that has a significantly different translation? We have to go by what the text says, not by what it seems reasonable to assume it could have meant.

Letter #23 continues (Part B)
Referring to item (k), fundamentalist apologists have often stressed--and the Bible quite clearly states (Gen. 2:5-6)--that the phenomenon of rain did not occur prior to the Flood. Hence, no rainbows. I'm surprised if you were not already aware of this argument. Item (m) has the same weakness as item (a). In the English prose of the King James era, a "turtle" was a kind of dove or pigeon. In point of fact the usuage is still with us, as "turtle-dove." You might check the equivalent passage in the New American Bible to see a more accurate translation.

Editor's Response to Letter #23 (Part B)
With respect to item (k), let me repeat what I said: "The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine." Gen. 9:13 shows as much. It says: "I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth." This statement was made after the Flood, and after the rains associated with same. Clearly, rain and sunshine existed before the first rainbow. Gen. 2:5-6 isn't really relevant. All it is stating is that it hadn't rained yet. I never said it rained prior to the Flood. At the time the statement in Gen. 2:5-6 was made, it could have been true. But that has no bearing on what we are discussing. The statement in Gen. 9:13 was made after the Flood, after it had rained for 40 days, after rain and sunshine had appeared. Your point with respect to "turtles" and "turtle-doves" is well taken. The King James Version could have been mistakenly translated, although, it is difficult to believe its translators incorrectly used the word "turtle" when "dove" or "turtle-dove" should have been employed. The animals are just too dissimilar.

Letter 23 continues (Part C) Finally, in response to the first item about Jesus in paragraph 5 of your "commentary," I can easily imagine an apologist suggesting that a "dumb and deaf" spirit is a spirit that causes dumbness and deafness, in the same way that an influenza virus causes the flu.

Editor's response to Letter #23 (Part c)
With all due respect, KEH, I think the text itself shows your interpretation is inaccurate. I don't think there is much doubt that Mark 9:25-26 shows Jesus is calling the spirit deaf and dumb. It isn't causing deafness or dumbness; it is deaf & dumb.

Letter #23 concludes (Part d)
BLC of Green Bay might benefit from reading a few more books about the Shroud of Turin. Ample evidence exists, in fact, that the Shroud is a forgery. The linen cloth is in much too good a condition to have the reputed age; it is of a complex, three-to-one herringbone twill weave, foreign to the first century; the "dried blood" is suspiciously picturelike and the wrong color--red, not brown; pollen particles found impregnated in the cloth, despite popular reports, are not particular to first century Palestine; and chemical tests of the bloodstains have revealed no signs of hemoglobin but a considerable amount of iron oxide, a common ingredient of earth pigments. Other evidence exists, much of which has been downplayed or misreported by some of the partisan scientists who have examined the Shroud. I refer BLC to the excellent Shroud issue of Skeptical Inquirer (Spring, 1982), and to Inquest on the Shroud of Turin by Joe Nichell, an excellent analysis of this muddy topic.