Biblical Prophets, the Church, and the Natural World

[Simon Bridge]

"Remember, the Earth is like a grain of sand. Only much much heavier."
-- Kellog Allbran the Profit

Every good Christian knows that you shouldn't follow false prophets. So, presumably, you need to be able to tell the false ones from the true ones. This is important since a false prophet can only found a false religion and the followers thereof will all roast in Hell... or something like that.

(Aside: is this a flaw in Pascal's wager.)

Now - not being a Christian myself, I don't have much reason to go into the Bible in any great depth. However,

I understand that we are supposed to tell the true from the false by the fact that the false prophets do not recieve the word of God. Theredore, they will tell untruths - like make prophecies that did not come true. Should anything said by someone claiming to be a prophet, which said person claims came direct from God[1], turn out to be false (correct me here) then this person is a false prophet and all instituions raised on their preachings are also false.[2]

This is kinda neet. I mean, this is an empirical statement right? Should any of the biblical prophets have made any statement about the nature of the physical/natural world, then we can use science to check them out can't we? :D

This would strike me as a pretty fundamental conflict between Science and Churches.

I mean, all the prophets were basically creationists right? They tell us that God told them that God created everything right? But if Darwin was right... then they were all false prophets weren't they? By their own rules, yes?

So - does anyone know of any statements by church-endorsed prophets which have turned out to be scientifically false?

----------
[1] presumably not every utterance came from God - like "I really need to take a leak" or "Uggerbay, it's cold!" Somehow I don't think even the most ardent christian theist would attribute the uttterance made after striking ones thumb with a hammer (Jesus was a carpenter remember) to the Almighty.

[2]I've been looking for a reference here - the best I've got it the sermon on the mount (matthew something) "By their fruits shall you know them." Anyone help me out here? Anyway, it seems here that Jesus is encouraging us to be skeptical about prophets...

[David Swidler]

The Darwin point is flawed; neither Darwin nor the TOE says anything about the origin of the world/life, just what how it got to be the way it is once it came into existence. Any prophecy referring to divine origins of the universe (and there are a bunch) do so in reference to an assumed familiarity with the creation narrative, and do so for moral effect, not to make a statement regarding that origin per se.

Similarly, the symbolic/metaphorical language of most prophecy - especially the really esoteric stuff such as the opening chapter of Ezekiel - kind of renders the test moot. Can you think of any specific predictions that are necessarily understood as plainly literal for us to test in this way?

[Simon Bridge]

Oh... well... I bow to your judgement David.

It's just, well, I thought the Bible made out that God created fish, say, and that Darwin says they evolved from simpler forms???

I am aware that any prophecy about the physical world could be taken as metaphorical - I understand that the idea is that God is more interested in mankind's spiritual development than his understanding of worldly matters.

Do I take it then, that you see no conflict between Biblical pronouncements and Darwinism?

[David Swidler]

Correct. It's hard to support the claim that the Genesis creation narrative was even meant to be taken literally by the author(s).

[SirPhilip]

Correct. It's hard to support the claim that the Genesis creation narrative was even meant to be taken literally by the author(s). That's a central point I like to bring up whenever I'm forced to deal with someone taking it literally. Much of it is narrative and vague metaphor for something else. It's a failure to recognize that every culture has folk tales. When you read an african folk tale about a talking hyena, do you believe that too?

[David Swidler]

What's interesting, in my view, is that the Biblical creation account was most likely taken directly from contemporary (or older) legends. What the author probably did was take material with which the audience would already be familiar and adapted it, weaving in other things.

It's not an isolated case. For example, I think in Lamentations there appears the line, "Death has come up through our window." Mot, the ancient Near Eastern god of death, was characterized by entering houses through the window. The Hebrew word for death uses the same Semitic root: m-w-t(h). The metaphor carried extra meaning for the contemporary audience, who were familiar with the surrounding culture.

[phildonnia]

FWIW, Some contradictory advice from the Bible on recognizing false prophets:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. ... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.(Mat 7:15-20)

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.(Mat 24:24)

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that of antichrist, ... (1Jn 4:1-3)

[jjramsey]

FWIW, Some contradictory advice from the Bible on recognizing false prophets:

Wow, what frightful contradictions. Everyone knows that it's impossible for a miracle worker to bear evil fruit and not confess Jesus as Christ. :rolleyes:

[Simon Bridge]

Correct. Great! :D

...er... which bit was correct?

[Melendwyr]

Wow, what frightful contradictions. Everyone knows that it's impossible for a miracle worker to bear evil fruit and not confess Jesus as Christ. :rolleyes: Everyone knows that it's impossible to bear good fruit and not confess Jesus as Christ... right?

:rolleyes: yourself.

[jjramsey]

Everyone knows that it's impossible to bear good fruit and not confess Jesus as Christ... right?

Wrong.

:rolleyes: yourself.

Same to you.

[Melendwyr]

Wrong. Then you're acknowledging those statements as contradictory, which is a position you just explicitly rejected.

Oh, if only you could experience the profound distress this kind of idiocy causes me. It's like fingernails-on-a-blackboard and the "World's Most Annoying Noise" from Dumb and Dumber COMBINED.

[jjramsey]

Then you're acknowledging those statements as contradictory, which is a position you just explicitly rejected.

Actually, what I'm acknowledging is the Bible never went so far as to say that only Christians could be good people.

Oh, if only you could experience the profound distress this kind of idiocy causes me. It's like fingernails-on-a-blackboard and the "World's Most Annoying Noise" from Dumb and Dumber COMBINED.

I know what you mean, Melendwyr, probably better than you do.

[Melendwyr]

Actually, what I'm acknowledging is the Bible never went so far as to say that only Christians could be good people."Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that of antichrist, ..."

Combine that with:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. ... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Therefore, everyone who does not affirm the precepts of Christianity does not follow God, one way or another. Those who preach false ways can be identified by their "fruits" as well.

Since leading people away from God is necessarily evil, and leading people according to systems that do not come from God is leading people away from God, all people who follow such paths are following evil. Since, as the Bible informs us, evil may be known by its fruits, such people cannot bring forth good fruits.

Ergo, no one who does not affirm the principles of Christianity can do good.

[jjramsey]

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that of antichrist, ..."

Combine that with:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. ... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Hold it. There are two issues here. One is the original issue brought up by phildonna, which is whether it is contradictory to treat


False prophets are known by their bad fruit.
False prophets can do signs and wonders.
False prophets do not confess Jesus Christ in the flesh as of God.


That these statements are contradictory is transparently false. As I pointed out in an earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1361762&postcount=8), it is logically possible for a false prophet to do all three things: perform miracles, bear bad fruit, and not confess Jesus Christ in the flesh as of God.

The other issue is the one which you, Melendwyr, brought up:

Everyone knows that it's impossible to bear good fruit and not confess Jesus as Christ... right?

First, this is irrelevent to phildonna's contention, since you, Melendwyr, changed "bear evil fruit and not confess Jesus as Christ" in my earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1361762&postcount=8) to "bear good fruit and not confess Jesus as Christ." Now I can accuse you of dishonesty as you did to ceo_esq in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1362044&postcount=31), or I could conclude that though switching "evil" to "good" is a pretty bad mistake, you got confused by the multiple negations in my earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1361762&postcount=8). Which would you prefer?

Second, you introduced a new issue, which is whether anyone--not just a false prophet--who does not confess Jesus as Christ can bear good fruit, yet all the verses that you used had to do with false prophecy. Thus, you drew an overly broad conclusion.

[Melendwyr]

Oh, Good Lord.

I pointed out the case that's incompatible with the Bible statements, and you're complaining that I've brought up new information?!

Let me make this argument even simpler - maybe you'll be able to understand it.

1) Whoever does not preach Christianity cannot be from God.
2) God is the source of all truth.
3) Whoever does not preach Christianity must therefore preach falsehood.
4) All people who make statements about the divine but do not preach Christianity are therefore false prophets.
5) False prophets can be identified by the nature of their works.
6) Good teachings lead to good works, and false teachings lead to evil works.
7) No one who does not preach Christianity can perform good works.

[Melendwyr]

Those statements both contradict themselves ("you shall know them by their works" vs. "they shall do great signs and wonders, deceiving even the elect") AND real-life experience (people who do not preach Christianity and even explicitly reject it do good works all the time, for a generally-accepted sense of "good works").

There are no grounds to argue otherwise.

[jjramsey]

I pointed out the case that's incompatible with the Bible statements, and you're complaining that I've brought up new information?!

No, I'm saying that in an attempt to attack my pointing out the flaws in phildonna's contention, you (a) got one of the propositions backwards and (b) tried to support your contention with Bible verses that didn't quite fit.

Let me make this argument even simpler - maybe you'll be able to understand it.

1) Whoever does not preach Christianity cannot be from God.


Your argument is a failure at the very first premise.

Those statements both contradict themselves ("you shall know them by their works" vs. "they shall do great signs and wonders, deceiving even the elect")

This presumes that "works"--which is your replacement for "fruits"--is synonymous with "signs and wonders." You also misquoted Matthew 24:24: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

[Melendwyr]

No, I'm saying that in an attempt to attack my pointing out the flaws in phildonna's contention, you (a) got one of the propositions backwards You idiot! That's not a proposition, it's a conclusion drawn from the bible verses.

[jjramsey]

That's not a proposition, it's a conclusion drawn from the bible verses.

Call it a "statement," "proposition," "premise" or whatever you like. The fact of the matter is that you switched "bear evil fruit and not confess Jesus as Christ" to "bear good fruit and not confess Jesus as Christ." You mixed up the word "evil" with its opposite. That's a problem regardless of whether the statements came from the Bible or not.

You idiot!

For some reason, you have had a short fuse lately, as evidenced on another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50004&page=2) where you wrote off Darat as an idiot. I don't know what's with you, but it is making you trollishly unreasonable.

[Melendwyr]

Call it a "statement," "proposition," "premise" or whatever you like. The fact of the matter is that you switched "bear evil fruit and not confess Jesus as Christ" to "bear good fruit and not confess Jesus as Christ." You mixed up the word "evil" with its opposite. That's a problem regardless of whether the statements came from the Bible or not. That's intentional, jjramsey. One of the implications of the quoted sections is that no one who does not confess Jesus as Christ can do good works.

No one messed up anything, except you, trying to comprehend the discussion.

[ZirconBlue]

I think the passages mean that a true prophet sells produce for Jesus.

[jjramsey]

One of the implications of the quoted sections is that no one who does not confess Jesus as Christ can do good works.

Actually, the implication is that the works (or "fruits") of false prophets are bad, which is a narrower conclusion than you want to imply. False prophets, of course, don't profess Christ either. This was discussed above.

[LW]

1) Whoever does not preach Christianity cannot be from God.
2) God is the source of all truth.
3) Whoever does not preach Christianity must therefore preach falsehood.
4) All people who make statements about the divine but do not preach Christianity are therefore false prophets.
5) False prophets can be identified by the nature of their works.
6) Good teachings lead to good works, and false teachings lead to evil works.
7) No one who does not preach Christianity can perform good works.

In (3) you have a false dilemma. It is possible that a person doesn't preach anything.

Also, you are unnecessarily assuming universality in (7). It is reasonable to interpret a person doing 10 good and 20 bad works as "bearing evil fruit".

[Melendwyr]

In (3) you have a false dilemma. It is possible that a person doesn't preach anything. Point taken.

3) Anyone who preaches things without preaching Christianity preaches falsehood.

Also, you are unnecessarily assuming universality in (7). It is reasonable to interpret a person doing 10 good and 20 bad works as "bearing evil fruit". Ah, but Christ himself rebuked those who claimed his healing powers came from the Devil. That interpretation is not compatible with Christian theology.

[LW]

But speaking of false phophets, there's the interesting verse of Ezekiel 29:19:
Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army.


While Nebuchadrezzar did win a major victory at Carchemis against the Egyptian pharaoh, his Egyptian campaigns ended in failure and he did not conquer Egypt or plunder its riches.

[LW]

3) Anyone who preaches things without preaching Christianity preaches falsehood.

But now you have a problem with (7) since if a person doesn't preach anything, he or she is not a false prophet so you can't say anything about his or her fruits.

Ah, but Christ himself rebuked those who claimed his healing powers came from the Devil. That interpretation is not compatible with Christian theology.

Actually, it is very compatible with standard Christian theology. It is not compatible with your interpretation of the Bible.

[Melendwyr]

But now you have a problem with (7) since if a person doesn't preach anything, he or she is not a false prophet so you can't say anything about his or her fruits. If a person doesn't preach anything, the argument doesn't apply either way, due to the new wording. Huzzah!

Actually, it is very compatible with standard Christian theology. It is not compatible with your interpretation of the Bible. Not really, no.

[Simon Bridge]

Wow - this went on a while after I stopped watching it.

BTW: I found the passage in the Bible where we are instructed to use empirical tests on prophets ... it's Deuteronomy 18:20+.

http://simonbjournal.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-to-be-false-prophet.html

[TimCallahan]

As to judging prophets by their works, consider Deuteronomy 13:1 - 3:

If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, "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 to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD our God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

So, if a false prophet predicts something that doesn't com true, kill him. If what he predicts does come true, he's still a false prophet, because Yahweh is only testing you. The only question is, should his followers have stoned Hal Lindsey to death when the Tribulation didn't begin on schedule in 1988?

[Complexity]

Why not regard all prophets as insane and/or charalatans and be done with it?

100% accurate and very efficiient.

There is no need to consult a book of woo to learn how to detect woo.

[Simon Bridge]

As to judging prophets by their works, consider Deuteronomy 13:1 - 3:

If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, "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 to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD our God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
That's not such a problem - all that says is that people who show you cool stuff (signs and wonders) but lead you to worship other gods are not prophets of God. Which makes sense to me.

Some Xians want to get atheist-scientists on this - they show signs and wonders and lead people away from their god. Well OK, but the accused argue that he is not leading anyone to any other gods either. This is why some of the more radical try to claim that atheism is a religion and science a god.

Is any of this on topic?

[Simon Bridge]

Why not regard all prophets as insane and/or charalatans and be done with it?

100% accurate and very efficient..
Be that as it may, how does this approach aid the purpose in the thread topic?

The main problem in reality is that there are whole institutions based on some of these prophets being considered True. Some of them have nuclear weapons and/or influence in our legislatures.

An interesting side effect of the deuteronomy passage I presented is that it has God advocating empiricism over authority. He's telling the faithful to do their research and base decisions on the evidence. So if you are ever arguing with anyone insisting on Faith, just point this out to them and see what they say.

I'll bet its along the lines of: "But it doesn't really mean that." People who rely on biblical readings tend to be selective.

[Complexity]

Be that as it may, how does this approach aid the purpose in the thread topic?


Euthanasia.

[CriticalSock]

"Remember, the Earth is like a grain of sand. Only much much heavier."
-- Kellog Allbran the Profit

Every good Christian knows that you shouldn't follow false prophets. So, presumably, you need to be able to tell the false ones from the true ones. This is important since a false prophet can only found a false religion and the followers thereof will all roast in Hell... or something like that.

(Aside: is this a flaw in Pascal's wager.)


Yes it is a flaw in Pascals wager. There are thousands of mutually exclusive denominations of Christianity. Which one should you choose to base the wager on? And what on earth do you do if the muslims had it right all along??


Now - not being a Christian myself, I don't have much reason to go into the Bible in any great depth. However,

I understand that we are supposed to tell the true from the false by the fact that the false prophets do not recieve the word of God. Theredore, they will tell untruths - like make prophecies that did not come true. Should anything said by someone claiming to be a prophet, which said person claims came direct from God[1], turn out to be false (correct me here) then this person is a false prophet and all instituions raised on their preachings are also false.[2]

This is kinda neet. I mean, this is an empirical statement right? Should any of the biblical prophets have made any statement about the nature of the physical/natural world, then we can use science to check them out can't we? :D

It's a great idea in principle, but in practice the bible and especially the prophecies in the bible are so malleable and open to interpretation that it's almost impossible to make anything stick. There's a prophecy for example that babylon will be torn down and not a stone will stand upon a stone and only owls and squirrels will inhabit it for the rest of time etc. etc. People have (of course) built on the land where babylon was since then, even Saddam Hussein built there if I remember right. But I haven't been able to convince any of my family (they're strongly christian) that the prophecy is therefore false. I must have the wrong place on the map... those aren't permanent dwellings... Those aren't people living there it's squirrels in turbans... blah blah blah.

Try nailing fog to the wall. It's easier.


This would strike me as a pretty fundamental conflict between Science and Churches.

I mean, all the prophets were basically creationists right? They tell us that God told them that God created everything right? But if Darwin was right... then they were all false prophets weren't they? By their own rules, yes?
<snip>

The Genesis creation account is in direct opposition to the theory of evolution. That's why so many christians kick up such a fuss about it. Most christians treat Genesis as more than myth. The animals were created "according to their kind" and they're never going to change into anything new.

On the other hand the Genesis flood account is impossible without some form of evolution (an incredibly rapid and directed evolution) or a second act of creation which isn't mentioned in the bible and would have been!

[Simon Bridge]

Euthanasia.I think we should take care of our own kiddies first ;)
Try nailing fog to the wall. It's easier.I think it is fair to say that no argument is going to convince anyone who is infected by the "believe it even if it does not make sence, don't listen to counter-arguments" meme. So that's not really what I'm talking about here.

OTOH: the fog-nailing exercise can be a usefully instructive demonstration for the audience. I especially like the bit about God advocating sceptical empiricism.

We also sometimes meet people who advocate that there is no conflict between science and religion and attempt to reconcile them - usually as different ways of describing things. These people need their attention drawn to this fundamental conflict.

At some point the precise correlation between the information claimed to be Divinely communicated, and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bare.