Difficulties of Biblical Prophecy

[socraticmethod]

Hello all,

I’m a college student (and former Catholic) who is regaining an interest in religious matters for a number of reasons, which I won’t go into here.

The purpose of this thread is to address one of the issues that I have with Catholicism, and see if anyone can provide me with a satisfactory answer.

That issue is this:

It seems to me that there are many instances where biblical prophecies have been proven wrong. Ezekiel’s prophecies are the best example of this, such as his prediction that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, and later Egypt:
Ezekiel 26:

For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water. And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard. And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

.
Ezekiel 30:

This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his army—the most ruthless of nations— will be brought in to destroy the land. They will draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain

If these prophecies failed, and the Bible clearly says that any prophet whose predictions fail to come true is a false prophet, and must be killed, than doesn’t that make Ezekiel a false prophet? And if that’s true, doesn’t the whole idea of the Bible being the word of God start to fall apart?

 

[HansTrappist]

Hello all,

I’m a college student (and former Catholic) who is regaining an interest in religious matters for a number of reasons, which I won’t go into here.

The purpose of this thread is to address one of the issues that I have with Catholicism, and see if anyone can provide me with a satisfactory answer.

That issue is this:

It seems to me that there are many instances where biblical prophecies have been proven wrong. Ezekiel’s prophecies are the best example of this, such as his prediction that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, and later Egypt:
.

If these prophecies failed, and the Bible clearly says that any prophet whose predictions fail to come true is a false prophet, and must be killed, than doesn’t that make Ezekiel a false prophet? And if that’s true, doesn’t the whole idea of the Bible being the word of God start to fall apart?

Some prophecies are conditional.

Take for instance the prophecy of Jonah concerning the impending chastisement on Ninevah. This was an example of a conditional prophecy. The Ninevites reformed their behavior and thus their city was spared from God’s impending Justice.

 

[socraticmethod]

Some prophecies are conditional.

Take for instance the prophecy of Jonah concerning the impending chastisement on Ninevah. This was an example of a conditional prophecy. The Ninevites reformed their behavior and thus their city was spared from God’s impending Justice.

Well sure. But I’m not sure if that really works in this case, because the prophecies that I listed above don’t seem to contain any kind of conditions, as far as I can tell.

 

[PoorKnight]

“I’m not sure…”

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…” 2 Pet 1:20

We may never know, for certain, how a prophesy was meant, or how, or why, it was or was not fulfilled. I know that’s ‘unsatisfying’ but many things are… like what was Jesus’ life like between the ages of about 12 and 33… we’ll never know this side of heaven.

These prophesies could very well have been fulfilled, but just not recorded in Scripture (not all things are recorded in Scripture (Jn 21:25)); or they could be refering to something other than a physical battle, with the language there just being figurative…

Hope that helps somewhat

God Bless you

 

[bitznbitez]

Your question is a good one. The story of Jonah is a response. In this example note the prophecy and the response.

Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2“Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you.” 3So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city,a three days’ journey in breadth.b 4Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” 5And the people of Nineveh believed God. They called for a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.

The People of Nineveh Repent
6The word reachedc the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water, 8but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.”

10When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.

This is an example of the very thing you are pointing to, a prophecy not fulfilled and the reason given for its non fulfillment.

 

[socraticmethod]

“I’m not sure…”

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…” 2 Pet 1:20

That’s fine and well, but there doesn’t seem to be any ambiguity in the prophecy such that it would require “interpretation”.

We may never know, for certain, how a prophesy was meant, or how, or why, it was or was not fulfilled. I know that’s ‘unsatisfying’ but many things are… like what was Jesus’ life like between the ages of about 12 and 33… we’ll never know this side of heaven.

Sure, but that’s a response that could get any prophet or fortuneteller off the hook. You could literally never disprove any prediction by that criteria. Imagine if I went to a casino and bet on red, only to have the wheel land on a black space, and I tried to demand my money, saying that my bet could be metaphorically understood as a prediction for black, once it was put in its proper context and interpreted through the lens of revelation. Do you think I would receive any money?

These prophesies could very well have been fulfilled, but just not recorded in Scripture (not all things are recorded in Scripture (Jn 21:25));

But these events(such as Nebudchanezzer’s campaigns) were recorded in history. They were simply recorded as being the opposite of what the Bible predicted (he failed to take Tyre, despite a 12 year siege, and was beaten by the Egyptians as well).

or they could be refering to something other than a physical battle, with the language there just being figurative…

Again, that could be used to justify any belief. I could say that my uncle’s prediction that Al Gore would win the 2000 election was, in fact, true, because it was really a metaphor for the way that green energy will one day overpower the oil industry. But I doubt anyone would take me seriously.

Your question is a good one. The story of Jonah is a response. In this example note the prophecy and the response.

This is an example of the very thing you are pointing to, a prophecy not fulfilled and the reason given for its non fulfillment.

This was mentioned above, the prophecies I mentioned don’t seem to contain any such kind of condition. If we’re aloud to invent conditions simply because the prophecy didn’t come true, than no prediction could ever be proven false.

 

[farpinho]

tektonics.org/uz/zeketyre.html

tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2005_56_1_02_Udd_EzekielTyreProphecy.pdf

apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

 

[bitznbitez]

Again, that could be used to justify any belief. I could say that my uncle’s prediction that Al Gore would win the 2000 election was, in fact, true,

Well thats still up for debate. I know many people who would say your uncle is right and Al Gore did win the election but wasn’t awarded the presidency

 

[PoorKnight]

That’s fine and well, but there doesn’t seem to be any ambiguity in the prophecy such that it would require “interpretation”.

Sure, but that’s a response that could get any prophet or fortuneteller off the hook. You could literally never disprove any prediction by that criteria. Imagine if I went to a casino and bet on red, only to have the wheel land on a black space, and I tried to demand my money, saying that my bet could be metaphorically understood as a prediction for black, once it was put in its proper context and interpreted through the lens of revelation. Do you think I would receive any money?

But these events(such as Nebudchanezzer’s campaigns) were recorded in history. They were simply recorded as being the opposite of what the Bible predicted (he failed to take Tyre, despite a 12 year siege, and was beaten by the Egyptians as well).

Again, that could be used to justify any belief. I could say that my uncle’s prediction that Al Gore would win the 2000 election was, in fact, true, because it was really a metaphor for the way that green energy will one day overpower the oil industry. But I doubt anyone would take me seriously.

This was mentioned above, the prophecies I mentioned don’t seem to contain any such kind of condition. If we’re aloud to invent conditions simply because the prophecy didn’t come true, than no prediction could ever be proven false.

Ok what I was getting at, and I’ll try to be more direct this time: there is probably no answer that will 100% satisfy you. There are mysteries in Scripture that can never be solved or understood. Scripture is intended to aid you in getting to heaven; Not satisfy your every curiosity about everything in the world. The Scriptures are inerrant, in the way God intended them to be, not the way YOU think they should be.

The passages you cite are intended to be there for some purpose, but maybe not the purpose YOU think they’re there for. Maybe try asking God (and the writer of those verses to intercede for you) what purpose those passages serve.

This was, and is, one of the most difficult parts of Catholicism: Catholicism is not about ME or what I think, or what I want. It is about Him and what He thinks and what He wants. Daily I must struggle to align myself with His wants and desires… not to align Him with MY wants and desires…

Keep asking these questions. Keep wrestling with them! It is only in wrestling with God and His will, desire and Love for us, that we are changed forever!

God Bless

 

[Mijoy2]

Ok what I was getting at, and I’ll try to be more direct this time: there is probably no answer that will 100% satisfy you. There are mysteries in Scripture that can never be solved or understood. Scripture is intended to aid you in getting to heaven; Not satisfy your every curiosity about everything in the world. The Scriptures are inerrant, in the way God intended them to be, not the way YOU think they should be.

The passages you cite are intended to be there for some purpose, but maybe not the purpose YOU think they’re there for. Maybe try asking God (and the writer of those verses to intercede for you) what purpose those passages serve.

This was, and is, one of the most difficult parts of Catholicism: Catholicism is not about ME or what I think, or what I want. It is about Him and what He thinks and what He wants. Daily I must struggle to align myself with His wants and desires… not to align Him with MY wants and desires…

Keep asking these questions. Keep wrestling with them! It is only in wrestling with God and His will, desire and Love for us, that we are changed forever!

God Bless

As much as I appreciate this answer I also have substantial difficulty with it.
Let me see if I can articulate the problem I have with this approach to answering questions like the OPs without looking like I am attacking the good attention of the answer.

To answer a question like a percieved (or apparent) unfullfilled prophecy which I believe is the main giust of the question with something like:

“There are mysteries in Scripture that can never be solved or understood. Scripture is intended to aid you in getting to heaven; Not satisfy your every curiosity about everything in the world.”

Appears to be a cop-out to me. What is seems to be saying to me is; yes you have a good question regarding a (contradiction; unfullfilled prophecy; illogical meaning etc etc) and catholicism does not have an answer. But because we state that we have the fullness of truth and because we state that the bible is inerrant and because we state that church doctrine (when appropriately applied) is inerrant, then all we have left to answer your good question is: because (effectively).

To me this just doesn’t satisfy. If the subject of the OPs post is in fact accurate and Ezekiels prophecy was in fact no fullfilled then it seems reasonable to assume that there is an apparent error of which there **must be **by definition, a satisfying answer.

Otherwise the statement of infalliblity becomes a “because I said so thing” as opposed to because, if you are willing to listen to reason, “because I can prove it” thing.

Hope I made myself clear. The word “mystery” I think can be abused in this context. It is our go-to answer when we do not have an answer.

 

[Mijoy2]

tektonics.org/uz/zeketyre.html

tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2005_56_1_02_Udd_EzekielTyreProphecy.pdf

apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

These are good. I scanned them all. When I get the time I will read them all in detail.
However I do not believe any of these are catholic resources. Not so certain about apologeticspress.

Can you direct me to any catholic resources on the topic?

Thanks much

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Hello all,

It seems to me that there are many instances where biblical prophecies have been proven wrong. Ezekiel’s prophecies are the best example of this, such as his prediction that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, and later Egypt:

If these prophecies failed, and the Bible clearly says that any prophet whose predictions fail to come true is a false prophet, and must be killed, than doesn’t that make Ezekiel a false prophet? And if that’s true, doesn’t the whole idea of the Bible being the word of God start to fall apart?

There are a few assumptions that may need opening up/deconstructing:
(a) Maybe Ezekial did not actually prophecy exactly what the biblical “reporter”/redactor/editor ended up making him say in the Bible.
(b) If Ezekial wasn’t actually stoned to death (and was hero enough to get his name in the Bible) obviously the people of his time weren’t aware he had failed.
(c) Re the “Bible clearly says…killed” lets remember the Bible is not a single, unanimous,harmonious work. It represents many different Hebrew sub-cultures and theologies evolving over many 100s of years…finally redacted by wealthy and well educated religious leaders attempting to impose an artificial harmony on all this disparate material by coarse editing (e.g. the 4 different material sources that were melded together to make the first 5 books of the Bible). Such editors had their own theological agenda’s too of course (urban temple priests must have loathed the back country prophets they cannot control…ahhh, lets get them by anathematising on failed prophecies).
Maybe Ezekial did make a few prophecies that didn’t really pan out but that was considered acceptable when the whole of his track record was taken into account.

I don’t think Catholicism stands or falls on prophecy or clear Biblical coherence.
It stands or falls on whether the apostles actually witnessed the Resurrection and that reality handed down by the Church faithfully describes that witness.

 

[TarkanAttila]

But it was fulfilled; the city of Tyre was once in two parts - one on the coast, the other on an island. The coastal town was called “Greater Tyre”, and the island “Little Tyre”.

Alexander built a mole - a causeway - to the island through much great effort and despite the Phoenician fleets. To build it, he completely destroyed the coastal city and used materials from it to build the causeway. The causeway exists to this day, and in fact has widened with sediment, turning modern Tyre into a peninsula.

Furthermore, many civilisations - Persia, Macedon, Cyprus, Antigonus I, Crusaders - conquered Tyre. the Apologetics Press link farpinho gave will explain it.

 

[dmar198]

Hello all,

I’m a college student (and former Catholic) who is regaining an interest in religious matters for a number of reasons, which I won’t go into here.

The purpose of this thread is to address one of the issues that I have with Catholicism, and see if anyone can provide me with a satisfactory answer.

That issue is this:

It seems to me that there are many instances where biblical prophecies have been proven wrong. Ezekiel’s prophecies are the best example of this, such as his prediction that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, and later Egypt:
.

If these prophecies failed, and the Bible clearly says that any prophet whose predictions fail to come true is a false prophet, and must be killed, than doesn’t that make Ezekiel a false prophet? And if that’s true, doesn’t the whole idea of the Bible being the word of God start to fall apart?

Re: the Tyre prophesy, if you read all of chapter 26 the destruction of the entire city wasn’t predicted but only the destruction of the mainland – see especially verses 6 and 8. This happened. I believe someone on here mentioned that the links given to refer to this were satisfactory in proving the historicity of that; so that should answer that criticism.

Re: the Egypt prophesy, the desolation and conquering of Egypt did happen in accordance with the prophesy, but the atheist misinterprets some of that and that misinterpretation results in confusion. First, part of the atheist’s confusion is that he thinks that Nebuchadnezzar was prophesied to do all the things in the prophesy. That’s not true. Civil war, emigration, and changing social conditions all played their part. The text doesn’t deny any of that. Second, the portion of Egypt that it decrees desolation upon is the portion “from the tower of Syene unto the border of Ethiopia” – Eze. 29:10. I don’t know why the atheist failed to research this, but Christian commentators have done their research and shown from history and archeology that that isn’t the whole of Egypt. Look up verse 10 at this commentary, which says: according to Herodotus (i), Syene was a city of Thebais, where he was told were two mountains, which gave rise to the Nile. Pliny (k) says it was six hundred twenty five miles from Alexandria; and it is by him, as well as Strabo (l), placed under the tropic of Cancer; who both say, in the summer solstice, at noon, no shadow is cast there; to which the poet Lucan (m) refers, It is now called Essuaen; which city, as Mr. Norden says, who lately travelled in those parts, is situated on the eastern shore of the Nile; and he relates that there remain still some marks of the place where the ancient city stood; as to the rest, it is so covered with earth, that there is nothing but rubbish, from which, in some places, one would judge that there were formerly magnificent buildings here. The utter destruction of which, with the rest of Egypt prophesied of, appears to have been fulfilled. … Josephus (s) says the south border of Egypt is Syene, which separates it from Ethiopia; and that between Pelusium (the entrance of Egypt) and Syene are two hundred and fifty miles. It lay between Egypt and Ethiopia, so that it might seem doubtful to which it belonged. Nebuchadnezzar had the victory there, thus bringing the sword, and destroying the town in that area, which is why it is in ruins.

Second, the population of Egypt emigrated partly, not entirely, and this was due to several factors, including civil war. We are aware that Ezekiel 29:11 makes it sound like a complete depopulation; this isn’t the only place in the Bible where poetic exaggeration is used as an excuse for saying that the Bible is full of errors; that’s something apologists have dealt with for hundreds of years, and if you want to see some resources that explain why exaggeration occurs and how that isn’t the same thing as errors, I can refer you to that; but once you admit the principle that poetic exaggeration is not the same as error, the objection that Egypt was never wholly uninhabited falls apart. Apart from that, you’ll notice that the atheist doesn’t mention that the depopulation was supposed to last 40 years according to Eze. 29:11-14, after which it would go into captivity, and that was fulfilled: Cyrus king of Persia conquered Babylon 43 years after that prophesy and fulfilled it. So not only do the prophesies regarding Tyre and Egypt line up with history, they are both very good examples of Biblical prophesy coming true.

 

[dmar198]

[Post deleted]]