Ezekiel's Prophecy Against Egypt (4 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / May-June. [This is the fourth of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. The remaining three will immediately follow this one]:

by Dave Matson

The biblicist reassures us that Ezekiel's prophecy for Egypt (and certain other prophecies of the Bible) will be fulfilled some time in the future. If necessary, a new pharaoh will arise, a new Nebuchadnezzar will come into existence, and the first will be devastated by the second! Is this sound reasoning?

How do we know that such things will happen? Doesn't it all boil down to the presumption that the prophecy in question is true? Or, is it a case of claiming that something might happen just because there is still time on the clock?

In the former case, why does the biblicist even bother with reason? Reasoning is like a long anchor chain. All the links have to be there or else you lose the anchor! If you choose reason, dear Bible-believer, then it's reason all the way. That is the only way that you can collect the benefits of reason. If you are going to simply assume you are right at some difficult point, then do so at the start. Stick your head in the sand, declare all biblical prophecy to be correct, and let that be the end of the matter!

Another Prophecy Failure (3 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / March-April. [This is the third of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. The remaining four will immediately follow this one]:

by Farrell Till

Any discussion with fundamentalist Christians that questions the divine inspiration of the Bible will almost always elicit a challenge to explain all of the prophecy fulfillments. Bruce Weston's article in the previous issue of TSR (pp. 6-7) shows just how far the wool has been pulled over the eyes of the sheep on this issue. Weston has been able to see various flaws in the claim that the Bible is God's inspired word, but his rejection of this belief is apparently being held back by a concern that prophecy fulfillment just may indicate that there is some truth in the claim. An article on pages 10-11 (this issue) discusses Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre, which was one of Weston's chief concerns, and shows that only a vivid imagination could see this as an example of exact prophecy fulfillment. In coming issues, we will continue to discuss the other prophecy concerns that Weston listed in his article until it has become clear that apologetic arguments based on remarkable prophecy fulfillments are without merit.

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Where to Begin? (2 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / March-April. [This is the second of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. The remaining five will immediately follow this one]:

by Farrell Till

I am always happy to be of help to those who have taken their first steps away from Christian fundamentalism but still have lingering doubts about whether they have made the right decision. In Mr. Weston's case, he has raised so many questions that I hardly know where to begin. Since most of his concerns seem related to biblical prophecies, I will focus primarily on this issue, but first I want to assure him that after one has left a religion that he/she was indoctrinated in while growing up, it is perfectly normal to wonder if the right decision was made. I had such doubts myself for a period of time, and others who left religious fundamentalism have told me that they did too. Just the night before I began writing this article, I received a call from someone who had subscribed to The Skeptical Review after deciding to leave a sect that taught demon possession. Former associates in this sect had been bombarding him with warnings that he had put himself in danger of falling prey to demons whom God would allow to possess him as punishment for having lost his faith. The caller had been bothered with "what-if" concerns and wanted to know if I could give him advice on how to deal with them.

Pascal's Wager: The members of this sect, of course, were using a variation of Pascal's wager to try to scare a former member into coming back to the mire that he had pulled himself out of. The term "Pascal's wager" has been applied to an argument that was made by Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century French philosopher and mathematician, who argued that one should "bet" on the existence of God rather than its alternative, because "if you gain, you gain all," but "if you lose, you lose nothing." Arguing from this false dichotomy, Pascal advised that one should "wager, then, without hesitation that He is." Pascal's dichotomy was false, because the conclusion that he reached cannot be justified by dividing the problem into just two divisions, i. e., God exists or God does not exist. While it may be true that God either exists or he does not exist, the problem of "gaining" or "losing" in the sense that Pascal was talking about is far more complex than simply betting that "He is." If one is going to bet that God exists, which religion based on that division of the dichotomy is one going to bet on? Should one bet on Christianity or Islam? Hinduism or Zoroastrianism? If one chooses to bet on Islam but Christianity turns out to be the true religion of the "God-is" division, we all know what Christianity says awaits those who reject the "son of God." In this case, it would not be true that the one who had wagered without hesitation that "He is" had "gain[ed] all." He would have lost everything even though he had bet that "God is."

The Tyre Prophecy Again (1 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / March-April. [This is the first of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. The remaining six will immediately follow this one]:

by Farrell Till

The claim that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre in Ezekiel 26 was fulfilled with amazing accuracy has been thoroughly refuted, yet uninformed biblicists keep repeating it. In the article in Reason and Revelation, which executive editor Dr. Bert Thompson refused to let me reprint in TSR (see "From the Mailbag," p. 12, this issue), Brad Bromling listed six details that Ezekiel prophesied about Tyre and then said, "Each of these items came to pass exactly as Ezekiel said" (December 1994, p. 96). In the preceding issue of TSR, I published an article by Bruce Weston in which he described some of the struggles he is experiencing as he makes the transition from Bible believer to skeptic. One of those struggles concerned prophecy fulfillment and in particular Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre, so even though I have already discussed this prophecy in earlier issues of TSR, I am going to review it to show the absurdity of trying to pawn this off as an example of remarkable prophecy fulfillment. Although Apologetics Press would not permit me to reprint Bromling's article, copyright laws don't prohibit quoting it, so I will have to rely on this method to show how wrong Bromling was in his claim that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

Interesting comments from Farrell Till that "if [the Bible] is found to be erroneous in some of the things that can be verified by extrabiblical corroboration, then how can one be sure that it is right about those things that cannot be verified by extrabiblical corroboration?", from Alt. Bible. Errancy, May 31, 1998:

TILL
>No, you have misunderstood me. I would never say that the Bible is
>"useless" if it contains even one error, any more than I would say that

 any book is useless if it contains one error.

>BILL S.
>Then why did you say: "An errant Bible isn't worth the paper it is printed on"?

TILL
Admittedly, that was poorly stated. I should have made it clear that I
meant that an errant Bible used as a basis of religious authority isn't
worth the paper it is printed on.

>TILL
>>...However, I do agree with Archer's view on the trustworthiness of

 the Bible. If it is found to be erroneous in some of the things that can 
be verified by extrabiblical corroboration, then how can one be sure 
that it is right about those things that cannot be verified by extrabiblical 
corroboration? 

>BILL S.
>As we've agreed, it would be impossible to prove such things to you -
>that is why they call it "faith". If I read a newspaper, I can't be
>sure all of the facts have been perfectly reported, however I can have
>reasonable confidence that there is at least some truth in what is
>being reported. I don't stop reading the newspaper because one day it
>got it's facts wrong. Similarly, I can trust in certain "truths" in
>the bible even if the bible is shown to contain errors. 

TILL
Well, I learned a long time ago that blind acceptance of what is 
printed in newspapers is a foolish course to follow. However, you 
are comparing apples to oranges, because newspapers report 
that which is commonplace and ordinary. They make no effort to 
indicate that readers who don't believe what is printed in them run 
the risk of incurring dire consequences. If I believe an error that 
was published in a newspaper, then all I have done is believe an 
error published in a newspaper. The process usually ends there.
I don't take this error from door to door in my neighborhood in 
efforts to make others believe it, and I certainly don't continue to 
believe the error once that its falsity has been demonstrated. 
Needless to say, this is not the case with biblicists. No matter 
how much evidence may be presented to show that there are 
errors in the Bible, they will continue to believe that they are 
truth and will work feverishly to try to make others believe them
too. Surely, you can see the difference.

BILL S

>I don't expect to convinve you to beleive as I do - but I do object to
>your implications that the Bible cannot be trusted on anything if it
>can be shown to contain even one error.

TILL
As a source of authority, it cannot be trusted if it can be 
demonstrated that it contains error. If, for example, it can be 
demonstrated--as it has been--that the Bible is wrong in saying 
that Joshua destroyed a city named Ai in his conquest of Canaan 
(Josh. 7-8), then how can I be sure that the Bible is correct when 
it claims that Moses received God's law on Mt. Sinai? If the Bible 
is wrong about an ordinary, commonplace claim that an army 
once destroyed a city, by what logic does one conclude that 
even though the Bible has been shown to be wrong in 
commonplace matters, we can still trust that it is right about 
extraordinary claims that it makes. What we're really talking 
about here is the widely accepted rule of evidence that says 
"falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," which means, "False in one 
thing, false in everything." This rule of evidence doesn't actually 
mean that if a witness is shown to be wrong in one point of 
testimony, that means that he/she is wrong in every point 
of testimony. It merely means that if a witness has been caught 
in one falsehood, the jury will be justified to doubt him/her in 
anything testified to that cannot be confirmed by independent 
corroboration.

Farrell Till

Biblical Anachronisms

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / May-June:

by Farrell Till

Anachronisms occur in written documents when they make references to anything (persons, places, events, etc.) that did not belong to the era in which the documents were set. If a history of the Civil War made references to aerial bombardments and said that Thomas Jefferson was the president at this time, these would be anachronisms, because airplanes didn't exist then and Jefferson was president 50 years earlier. Anyone seeing such references in a history book would immediately realize that the writer was poorly informed about some aspects of this war. Certainly, no one would consider the author to be an infallible writer.

Slavery And The Bible

From the Alt. Bible. Errancy discussion group 7-9-99:

TIMMY:

Here is another view:

The slavery tolerated by the Scriptures must be understood in its historical context. Old Testament laws regulating slavery are troublesome by modern standards, but in their historical context they provided a degree of social recognition and legal protection to slaves that was advanced for its time (Exodus 21:20-27; Leviticus 25:44-46).
>
In ancient times, slavery existed in every part of the world. Slaves had no legal status or rights, and were treated as the property of their owners. Even Plato and Aristotle looked upon slaves as inferior beings. As inhumane as such slavery was, we must keep in mind that on occasion it was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime and the starvation of the poor during famine. It was to the people of this harsh age that the Bible was first written.
>

TILL
Well, let me just ask a stupid question.  Even though slavery was widely practiced in those days, why didn't Yahweh set a higher standard and tell his "chosen ones" that regardless of what other nations may do, they were not to enslave people?  I would add to that another suggestion.  Why didn't Yahweh tell his "chosen ones" that although other armies slaughtered entire civilian populations after battles, including even children and babies, he would hold them to a much higher standard and expect them to refrain from such barbaric conduct and to treat other people humanely?  If such standards as these were found in the Bible, I would find it much easier to believe in the Hebrew god Yahweh.  As it is, the Bible merely reflected the morality of its time, and so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that this is because the Hebrews created their god in their own image, just as the other nations of that time did.

Timmy's attempt to explain why slavery was condoned in the Bible is just another attempt to rationalize one of the serious morality problems found in it.

TIMMY
>In New Testament times, slave labor was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. About a third of the population were slaves. If the writers of the New Testament had attacked the institution of slavery directly, the gospel would have been identified with a radical political cause at a time when the abolition of slavery was unthinkable. To directly appeal for the freeing of slaves would have been inflammatory and a direct threat to the social order. (1) Consequently, the New Testament acknowledged slavery's existence, instructing both Christian masters and slaves in the way they should behave (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:2; 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:2; Philemon 1:10-21), at the same time that it openly declared the spiritual equality of all people (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 7:20-24; Colossians 3:11).
>

TILL
Well, let's suppose at the time when the NT was written, prostitution was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire.  In that case, would it have been morally appropriate for the NT to condone the practice and simply give instructions to both Christian brothel owners and their prostitutes on how they should behave?  A serious flaw in Timmy's rationalization is that the standard Christian view of morality is that it is objective (absolute). If that's the case, then there could have been no way that Christianity could have tolerated something that is objectively immoral without seriously compromising what it is supposed to stand for.  In other words, if morality toward slavery can be situational (because of economic conditions), then theoretically any immoral practice could be justified depending on the situation.  If not, why not?

TIMMY
>(2) The gospel first had the practical effect of outmoding slavery within the community of the Church, (3) and carried within it the seeds of the eventual complete abolition of slavery in the Western world.
>

TILL
Yeah, right, and it took only about 1900 years to do this.

TIMMY

>The fact that the Bible never expressly condemned the institution of slavery has been wrongfully used as a rationale for its continuance. In the American South prior to the Civil War, many nominal Christians wrongly interpreted the Bible's approach to slavery and used their misunderstanding to justify economic interests. The terrible use of African slave labor continued in spite of those who argued from the Scriptures for the equality of all races(*). 

>

TILL
But, gee, whiz, Timmy, the economics of the time required a source of cheap labor to process cotton, which was the backbone of the southern economy. My father, both grandfathers, and uncles on both sides of the family were all cotton farmers in Southeast Missouri, so I know something about the particular problems involved in producing this crop.  During my childhood, there were no mechanical cotton pickers, so the crop had to be picked by hand.  Before that, each cotton row had to have the grass and weeds removed from around the cotton plants several times, and this had to be done through a process called "chopping cotton," which was done by several individuals wielding garden hoes.  One laborer could chop about an acre of cotton per day, and my father farmed over 200 acres.  The cost of labor was high in cotton production, and a century before my time, there were no mechanical cotton gins, which at least existed when I was growing up.  These factors were all contributing reasons for slavery in the south.  So if economic conditions in the Roman empire justified slavery, why wouldn't economic conditions in the South have also justified it?

You've rationalized, but you haven't explained why a morally perfect deity would not have acted to remove slavery entirely from a nation that he had selected to be his "chosen people."

Farrell Till

There's A Living In It

From *The Skeptical Review* 1992/March-April:

by Farrell Till

A subscriber in Florida recently raised an interesting question: "Why can't these preachers simply admit that the Bible is not the inerrant book it has been proclaimed to be and stop lying to their congregations?" The question was asked in the context of comments the reader was making about the thoroughness of TSR's exposure of flaws in the inerrancy doctrine.

I have to admit that I have often wondered the same thing. Ten issues of The Skeptical Review have now been published containing over 30 major articles and several short ones that focused on discrepancies in the Bible text. In every issue, we have offered inerrancy defenders the opportunity to rebut our lead articles, but twice we had to publish without rebuttals because we could find no one willing to argue the inerrancy view on the subject we were featuring. We have been especially persistent in challenging Wayne Jackson, the editor of Christian Courier, to defend his inerrancy views, because he is especially vocal in his articles about "the uncanny reliablility" of the Bible in even "the smallest details" ("The Bible Passes the Test," Biblical Notes, Nov./Dec. 1991, p. 9). Jackson, like many of his inerrancy colleagues, has repeatedly declined our offers of space to defend his claim that the Bible is inerrant. We find it hard to understand why an inerrancy believer who writes as frequently on the subject as Jackson does would refuse an offer of free publishing space to write on the subject if he sincerely believes in what he preaches.

Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled

The following is from the October-December, 1991 issue of *The Skeptical Review*. It is a thorough refutation of the claims of prophecy fulfillment in the Bible. (Be warned, it is equivalent in length to about 44 standard type-written pages):

by Farrell Till

Prophecy fulfillment is a popular argument that bibliolaters rely on in trying to prove the divine inspiration of the Bible. They claim that the Bible is filled with recorded events that prophets foretold years and even centuries before they happened. They argue that there is no way to explain how these predictions could have been so accurately made except to conclude that the Holy Spirit enabled the prophets who uttered them to see into the future. In prophecy fulfillment, then, they see evidence of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.

A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamuses and Edgar Cayces of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:

"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, `Let us go after other gods'--which you have not known--`and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for Yahweh your God is testing you to know whether you love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut. 13:1-3, NKJV with Yahweh substituted for "the LORD").

By the Bible's own testimony, then, natural psychic ability could offer a perfectly sensible explanation for any example of prophecy that bibliolaters might cite in support of the inerrancy doctrine, but an unbiased contextual examination of the alleged prophecy will very likely uncover an even more rational explanation. Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.