The Prophecy Farce

From *The Skeptical Review*, May/June 1998:

By Farrell Till 

What about all of the prophecy fulfillments? Biblicists almost always ask this question when their belief in biblical inerrancy is challenged. No doubt those who ask the question sincerely believe that prophecy fulfillment is irrefutable proof that the Bible was divinely inspired, but in reality the question reflects a naive view of the Bible for which no credible evidence exists. The "evidence" most often cited by prophecy-fulfillment proponents will usually fall into two categories: (1) Unverifiable claims by biased biblical writers that certain events fulfilled certain prophecies. (2) "Fulfillments" of prophecies that were probably written after the fact. Anyone can successfully refute prophecy-fulfillment assertions by simply demanding clear evidence when confronted with either category of claims. In other words, if a biblicist cites a New Testament claim that such and such event fulfilled such and such prophecy, simply insist on seeing reliable nonbiblical corroboration that the alleged fulfillment event actually happened. Herod's massacre of the children in Bethlehem would be an example of an uncorroborated event. The massacre allegedly fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy (Matt. 2:18), but no one has ever found an extrabiblical source that corroborates the lone biblical reference to this event. If corroborating evidence of a fulfillment event should exist, then demand evidence that the "prophecy" of this event was undeniably written before the event. In the debate over Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy, which resumes in this issue of TSR (pp. 4-11), the demand for clear, undeniable evidence that this prophecy was made before the fact has proven to be an insurmountable hurdle for Dr. Price, who has yet to produce extrabiblical corroboration of the prophecy.

Another--and even more effective-- counterargument to use against those who claim that prophecy fulfillment proves the inspiration of the Bible requires sufficient knowledge of the Bible to show that many Old Testament prophecies obviously failed. Anyone who is willing to put the time into learning just a few of those failures will have no problems rebutting the prophecy-fulfillment claims of any biblicists he/she may encounter. The prophetic tirades of Isaiah (13-23) and Ezekiel (24-32) against the nations surrounding Israel provide a treasure house of unfulfilled prophecies. Ezekiel, for example, prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Egypt and leave it utterly desolate for a period of 40 years, during which no foot of man or beast would pass through it (chapter 29), but history recorded no such desolation of Egypt during or after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

Bible Biology

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1991 March-April:

By Farrell Till 

An earlier article ("What About Scientific Foreknowledge in the Bible?" Fall 1990), debunked the fundamentalist claim that the truth of verbal inspiration can be verified by places in the Bible text where writers demonstrated knowledge of scientific facts that were unknown at the time the Bible was being written. The intent of the claim is to "prove" that Bible writers "foreknew" these scientific facts because God revealed them through the process of verbal inspiration, but, as my article showed, scientific foreknowledge in the Bible can be found only in the eisegetical interpretations of bibliolaters shamelessly bent on clinging to an untenable view of the Bible. In reality, there is no more "scientific foreknowledge" in the Bible than in any other literature of the same era.

If it were really true that Bible authors revealed in their works scientific facts that were not discovered until centuries later, this would indeed be a formidable argument for the verbal inspiration of the Bible, but the evidence that bibliolaters point to to prove their theory is entirely too speculative to be convincing. Some inerrantists, for example, have absurdly seen evidence that the Bible foresaw the potential for using electricity to send messages. In speaking to Job from the whirlwind, Yahweh asked him, "Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). In Why We Believe the Bible, George DeHoff made this comment on the verse:

Job could not do this but we are able to do so today as we talk on the telephone and radio and send our messages by telegraph. Truly the lightning goeth and saith for us (p. 55).

There are so many absurdities in this application of the verse that I hardly know where to begin commenting on them. For one thing, it violates a principle of common sense that should tell DeHoff and his inerrancy cohorts that a clear-cut, undeniable case of scientific foreknowledge would have to be stated in language so obvious in meaning that there could be no disagreement in interpretation. In my response to Jerry McDonald's article elsewhere in this issue, I used the rule of Occam's razor to discredit his claim that Hosea meant for "the blood of Jezreel" to refer to the murder of Naboth. The rule is equally applicable to DeHoff's claim of scientific foreknowledge in a simple statement about lightning. As long as it is possible for the statement to mean something less complex than the supernatural insight of a primitive writer into the physics of transmitting sound by electricity, then there is no force at all to the claim that this is an example of scientific foreknowledge.

The Absence Of Evidence (2)

From *The Skeptical Review*, March/April 2002:

By Farrell Till 

A favorite saying of apologists who have no evidence to support their positions is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, they mean that just because they cannot find evidence that a biblical event happened or a biblical character or place existed is not evidence that what the Bible says did not happen or did not exist. We saw Everette Hatcher pursuing this line of reasoning when he was unable to cite extrabiblical evidence to corroborate the claim in Daniel that "Darius the Mede" was an actual historical character. In defense of the absence of any extrabiblical references to "Darius the Mede," Hatcher took a familiar track and argued that because such references to Darius the Mede had not yet been found did not mean that they would never be found. He quoted a comment that Dr. Wayne Bindle, a professor at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, had made to him in a personal e-mail. It seems that professor Bindle thinks that I haven't learned very much from the archaeological discoveries in the past 200 years of biblical names that had previously been unknown in extrabiblical records (TSR, March/April 2001, p. 3). The professor didn't cite any examples, so I have no way of knowing what specific names he was talking about. His argument, however, was obvious: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In this case, Bindle was carrying the argument a step further and suggesting that although no such records of Darius the Mede have yet been found, they will very likely be discovered someday.

Hatcher has joined the Errancy internet list to continue our debate on the authorship and inerrancy of the book of Daniel, and he continues to rely on the absence-of-evidence argument as a catch-all explanation to any lack of real evidence to support his claims. On January 1, 2002, he said the following in defense of his position that "Darius the Mede" was an actual historical person.

Archaeology is silent on the point of who Darius the Mede was, and if Till wants to base his argument on this kind of silent evidence he needs to remember how fast theories against the Bible like this have disappeared in the past when the spade of the archaeologist has turned up new information about ancient civilizations. The Hittites are just one example from the last century.

This is actually an argument that assumes biblical inerrancy, because the person who so reasons is really saying that if evidence to corroborate biblical claims hasn't yet been discovered, it probably will be found someday, since everything the Bible says is true. I'm sure that Hatcher or any other biblical inerrantist wouldn't be at all impressed if a Mormon used the same argument in support of archaeological silence about pre-Columbian civilizations mentioned in the book of Mormon, because he would recognize that it is probable that archaeology is silent about claims in the book of Mormon for the simple reason that the places, people, and events in those claims were not real.

A Question For Readers Of This Blog

The following question is directed to anyone who may be reading this. I ask for an answer as well as an explanation of your answer to this question. Thank you in advance for your participation. I hope that your answers and explanations will help start a lively and rewarding discussion of this important issue:

The Bible teaches that its God is all knowing, all powerful, all loving and compassionate, complete and perfect, therefore having no needs, as well as being sovereign. However, the Bible also teaches that its God will send the majority of people to its eternal hell to suffer forever (Matt 7:13-14). Do you agree that these two teachings contradict each other? Please explain.

The Absence Of Convincing Evidence For An Historical Jesus Christ

An excellent discussion on the absence of any unbiased, disinterested, 
contemporary historical evidence for Jesus Christ. Why wouldn't  the 
god of the Bible, if he is the true God, have providentially provided such 
considering the extreme, eternal consequences for unbelief? From the 
Errancyn Discussion list, 7-21-98:

Till

If the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is so

overwhelming, why can't you produce records and references that were 

left by disinterested contemporary parties?

KENT

Obviously Mr. Till, any writing which mentions Jesus Christ you would

consider either a "biased writing" or in error. Luke was a Greek doctor

writing an account of Jesus' life and the early church for a Greek

(Theophilus)... but oops! He mentions Jesus... he's a biased religious

writer. Don't you see the fallacy of your position?

TILL

Do you deny that Luke was a proponent of Christianity? After all, he

alleged in the book of Acts that he was a companion of the apostle Paul on

his missionary journeys. That hardly sounds like a disinterested, unbiased

spokesman. So, no, I don't see the fallacy of my position. Why don't you

find records from contemporaries who hated and despised Jesus, just as we

can find contemporary references to Thomas Paine that were made 

by people who disliked him? That kind of evidence would be convincing, 

but, alas, there is no such evidence, and so you can do nothing but cry and 

accuse me of fallacious reasoning.

Is Jesus A Counterfeit?

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1994 / May-June:

By Farrell Till 
In the Till-Dobbs Debate, fundamentalist preacher and editor Buster Dobbs asserted  that the Book of Mormon is an obvious counterfeit and then proceeded to parrot the trite old argument that says the existence of a counterfeit proves the existence of the real thing. A counterfeit dollar, for example, can exist only because real or authentic dollars exist. To Dobbs, needless to say, the Bible is the "real" inspired book that the Book of Mormon counterfeited.

The argument is absurd, of course, because entirely theoretical objects can be conceptualized and made without proving the existence of real or authentic specimens of whatever the objects are supposed to represent. One could make metal coins and claim that they are replicas of coins that are used on Mars, but the existence of these "counterfeits" would in no way prove that Martian coins really do exist. In the same way, the writing of a phony "bible," which a religious group tries to present as a book that was inspired of God, does not prove that a "real" divinely inspired book exists. It is far more probable that such a book is just one more example of a holy book for which sincere but mistaken claims of divine origin are made.

For the sake of argument, however, let's just grant Mr. Dobbs his point: the existence of a counterfeit known as the Book of Mormon does prove that a "real" divinely inspired book exists. Even with this concession, his argument begs the question by assuming that the Bible is the genuine holy book that was divinely inspired. One could just as logically argue that the Book of Mormon counterfeited the Avesta, an allegedly inspired book that antedates the Bible by many centuries. Dobbs, however, would never agree that the Book of Mormon "counterfeited" the Avesta, because he doesn't believe that the Avesta was divinely inspired. He would ridicule the logic of anyone who would use such an argument to prove the divine origin of the Avesta, yet he apparently can't see that the argument has no more merit when applied to the Bible.

What Franchise?

By Emo Philips:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"

He said, "Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"

He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"

He said, "Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

* Voted 44th funniest joke of all time in "The 75 Funniest Jokes of All Time" in GQ magazine (June 1999).