I've been promising everyone this, "Is the Bible really ispired by God and should it be listened to". Well it took me forever to write it because, as you can see, it's huge, please David, don't get mad, I know it's a little exaggerated, but there was just so much too say.
It is widely held today that the Bible is unscientific. But is this the case? When answering that question, we have to remember that the Bible is a book of prophecy, history, prayer, law, counsel, and knowledge about God. It does not claim to be a scientific textbook. Nevertheless, when the Bible does touch on scientific matters, what it says is completely accurate.
Consider, for example, what the Bible says about our planet, the earth. In the book of Job, we read: “[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) Compare this with Isaiah’s statement, when he says: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) These words were written long before a round earth was even thought of. The picture conveyed of a round earth ‘hanging upon nothing’ in “the empty place” reminds us strongly of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of the earth floating in empty space.
Consider, too, the earth’s amazing water cycle. Here is how Compton’s Encyclopedia describes what happens: “Water . . . evaporates from the surface of the oceans into the atmosphere . . . Steadily moving air currents in the earth’s atmosphere carry the moist air inland. When the air cools, the vapor condenses to form water droplets. These are seen most commonly as clouds. Often the droplets come together to form raindrops. If the atmosphere is cold enough, snowflakes form instead of raindrops. In either case, water that has traveled from an ocean hundreds or even thousands of miles away falls to the earth’s surface. There it gathers into streams or soaks into the ground and begins its journey back to the sea.”
This remarkable process, which makes life on dry land possible, was well described about 3,000 years ago in simple, straightforward terms in the Bible: “All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again.” The water cycle was only though of centuries after.—Ecclesiastes 1:7, The New English Bible.
Perhaps even more remarkable is the Bible’s insight into the history of mountains. Here is what a textbook on geology says: “From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated.” Compare this with the poetic language of the psalmist: “With a watery deep just like a garment you covered [the earth]. The waters were standing above the very mountains. Mountains proceeded to ascend, valley plains proceeded to descend—to the place that you have founded for them.”—Psalm 104:6, 8.
The very first verse of the Bible states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Observations have led scientists to theorize that the material universe did indeed have a beginning. It has not existed for all time. Astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic in religious matters, wrote: “The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
True, many scientists, while believing that the universe had a beginning, do not accept the statement that “God created.” Nevertheless, some now admit that it is difficult to ignore the evidence of some kind of intelligence behind everything. Physics professor Freeman Dyson comments: “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”
Consider the Bible’s coverage of another field: health and sanitation. If an Israelite had a skin blemish suspected of being leprosy, he was put in isolation. “All the days that the plague is in him he will be unclean. He is unclean. He should dwell isolated. Outside the camp is his dwelling place.” (Leviticus 13:46) Even infected garments were burned. (Leviticus 13:52) This was an effective way of preventing the spread of the infection when doctors only had the technology to prove it thousands of years after.
Another important law had to do with the disposal of human excrement, which had to be buried outside the camp. (Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) This law no doubt saved Israel from many sicknesses. Even today, severe health problems are caused in some lands by the improper disposal of human wastes. If people in those lands would only follow the law written down thousands of years ago in the Bible, they would be much healthier.
The Bible’s high standard of hygiene even involved mental health. A Bible proverb said: “A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones.” (Proverbs 14:30) Only recent years, medical research has demonstrated that our physical health is indeed affected by our mental attitude. For example, Doctor C. B. Thomas of Johns Hopkins University studied more than a thousand graduates over a period of 16 years, matching their psychological characteristics with their vulnerability to diseases. One thing she noted: The graduates most vulnerable to disease were those who were angrier and more anxious under stress.
There is, however, an area where many would say that modern science and the Bible are hopelessly at odds. Most scientists believe the theory of evolution, which teaches that all living things evolved from a simple form of life that came into existence millions of years ago. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that each major group of living things was specially created and reproduces only “according to its kind.” Man, it says, was created “out of dust from the ground.” (Genesis 1:21; 2:7) Is this a glaring scientific error in the Bible? Before deciding, let us look more closely at what science knows, as opposed to what it theorizes.
The theory of evolution was popularized during the last century by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galápagos Islands in the Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of finches on the different islands, which, he deduced, must all have descended from just one ancestral species. Partly because of this observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evolution of higher creatures from lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land animals developed from fish, birds from reptiles, and so forth.
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring from a common ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles.
Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls, elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems, say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however, need to know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible must be wrong.
How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious way is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Did it? No, as a number of scientists honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there.” So obvious is this lack of evidence in the fossil record that evolutionists have come up with alternatives to Darwin’s theory of gradual change. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance of animal kinds in the fossil record supports special creation much more than it does evolution.
Moreover, Hitching shows that living creatures are programmed to reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else. He says: “Living cells duplicate themselves with near-total fidelity. The degree of error is so tiny that no man-made machine can approach it. There are also built-in constraints. Plants reach a certain size and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Mutations induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to force these to evolve into something else.
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting life.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth were far different”
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.” The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the facts.
Despite the problems inherent in the theory of evolution, belief in creation is viewed today as unscientific, even eccentric. Why is this? Why does even an authority such as Francis Hitching, who honestly points up the weaknesses of evolution, reject the idea of creation? Michael Denton explains that evolution, with all its failings, will continue to be taught because theories related to creation “invoke frankly supernatural causes.” In other words, the fact that creation involves a Creator makes it unacceptable.
Besides, the theory of evolution itself is deeply suspect from a scientific viewpoint. Michael Denton goes on to say: “Being basically a theory of historical reconstruction, [Darwin’s theory of evolution] is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science. . . . Moreover, the theory of evolution deals with a series of unique events, the origin of life, the origin of intelligence and so on. Unique events are unrepeatable and cannot be subjected to any sort of experimental investigation.” The truth is that the theory of evolution, despite its popularity, is full of gaps and problems. It gives no good reason to reject the Bible’s account of the origin of life. The first chapter of Genesis provides a completely reasonable account of how these “unrepeatable” “unique events” came about during creative ‘days’ that stretched through millenniums of time.
Next what you should ask yourself is, do I believe in miracles? Hear is a example of one:
One day in 31 C.E., Jesus and his disciples were traveling to Nain, a city in northern Palestine. As they got close to the gate of the city, they met up with a funeral procession. The deceased was a young man. His mother was a widow, and he had been her only son, so now she was all alone. According to the record, Jesus “was moved with pity for her, and he said to her: ‘Stop weeping.’ With that he approached and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still, and he said: ‘Young man, I say to you, Get up!’ And the dead man sat up and started to speak.”—Luke 7:11-15.
It is a heartwarming story, but is it true? Many find it hard to believe that such things ever really happened. Nevertheless, miracles are an integral part of the Bible record. Belief in the Bible means believing that miracles occurred. In fact, the whole pattern of Bible truth depends on one very important miracle: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Do you believe in miracles? Or do you feel that in this scientific age, it is illogical to believe in miracles—that is, in extraordinary events that give evidence of superhuman intervention? If you do not believe, you are not the first. Two centuries ago, the Scottish philosopher David Hume had the same problem. It may be that your reasons for disbelief are similar to his.
Hume’s objections to the idea of miracles included three outstanding points. First, he writes: “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.” Man has relied from time immemorial on the laws of nature. He has known that an object will fall if it is dropped, that the sun will rise each morning and set each night, and so forth. Instinctively, he knows that events will always follow such familiar patterns. Nothing will ever happen that is out of harmony with natural laws. This ‘proof,’ Hume felt, “is as entire as any argument from experience” against the possibility of miracles.
A second argument he presented was that people are easily fooled. Some want to believe in marvels and miracles, especially when it has to do with religion, and many so-called miracles have turned out to be fakes. A third argument was that miracles are usually reported in times of ignorance. The more educated people become, the fewer miracles are reported. As Hume expressed it, “Such prodigious events never happen in our days.” Thus, he felt it proved that they never did happen.
To this day, most arguments against miracles follow these general principles, so let us consider Hume’s objections, one by one.
What about the objection that miracles are ‘violations of the laws of nature’ and therefore cannot be true? On the surface, this might seem persuasive; but analyze what is really being said. Usually, a miracle can be defined as something that occurs outside the normal laws of nature. It is an occurrence so unexpected that onlookers are convinced they have witnessed superhuman intervention. Hence, what the objection really means is: ‘Miracles are impossible because they are miraculous!’ Why not consider the evidence before jumping to such a conclusion?
The truth is, educated people today are less prepared than was David Hume to insist that the familiar laws of nature hold true everywhere and at all times. Scientists are willing to speculate on whether, instead of the familiar three dimensions of length, breadth, and height, there may be many additional dimensions in the universe. They theorize on the existence of black holes, huge stars that collapse in on themselves until their density is virtually infinite. In their vicinity the fabric of space is said to be so distorted that time itself stands still. Scientists have even debated whether, under certain conditions, time would run backward instead of forward
Stephen W. Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, when discussing how the universe began, said: “In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down.” So, modern scientists do not agree that because something is contrary to the normal laws of nature it can never happen. In unusual conditions, unusual things may happen. Surely, if we believe in an almighty God, we should admit that he has the power to cause unusual—miraculous—events to take place when it befits his purpose.—Exodus 15:6-10; Isaiah 40:13, 15.
No reasonable person would deny that there are fake miracles. For example, some claim the power to heal the sick by miraculous faith healing. A medical doctor, William A. Nolan, made it his special project to investigate such healings. He followed up on numerous claimed cures among both evangelical faith healers in the United States and so-called psychic surgeons in Asia. The result? All he found were examples of disappointment and fraud.
Do such frauds mean that genuine miracles never happened? Not necessarily. Sometimes we hear of forged bank notes being put into circulation, but that does not mean that all money is forged. Some sick people put a lot of faith in quacks, fraudulent doctors, and give a lot of money to them. But that does not mean that all doctors are fraudulent. Some artists have been skilled at forging “old master” paintings. But that does not mean that all paintings are fakes. Neither does the fact that some claimed miracles are clearly fakes mean that genuine miracles can never happen.
The third objection was summed up in the expression: “Such prodigious events never happen in our days.” Hume had never seen a miracle, so he refused to believe that miracles could happen. This kind of reasoning, however, is inconsistent. Any thinking person has to admit that, before the days of the Scottish philosopher, “prodigious events” happened that were not repeated during his lifetime. What events?
For one thing, life began on earth. Then, certain forms of life were endowed with consciousness. Eventually, man appeared, endowed with wisdom, imagination, the capacity to love, and the faculty of conscience. No scientist can explain on the basis of the laws of nature that operate today how such extraordinary things happened. Yet we have living evidence that they did happen.
And what about “prodigious events” that have happened since David Hume’s day? Suppose we were able to travel back in time and tell him about today’s world. Imagine trying to explain that a businessman in Hamburg can speak to someone thousands of miles away in Tokyo without even raising his voice; that a soccer match in Spain can be seen all around the earth even as it is being played; that vessels much larger than the ocean-going ships of Hume’s day can rise from the surface of the earth and carry 500 people through the air for thousands of miles in a matter of hours. Can you imagine his response? ‘Impossible! Such prodigious events never happen in our days!’
Yet such ‘prodigies’ do happen in our days. Why? Because man, using scientific principles of which Hume had no concept, has learned to construct telephones, television sets, and airplanes. Is it, then, so difficult to believe that on occasion in the past God could have, in ways that we still do not understand, accomplished things that to us are miraculous?
Of course, saying that miracles could have happened does not mean that they did. How can we know, in this 20th century, whether back in Bible times God worked genuine miracles through his servants on earth or not? What kind of evidence would you expect for such things? Imagine a primitive tribesman who has been taken from his jungle home to visit a big city. When he returns, how can he describe to his people the wonders of civilization? He cannot explain how an automobile works or why music comes out of a portable radio. He cannot build a computer to prove that such a thing exists. All he can do is tell what he has seen.
We are in the same situation as that man’s fellow tribesmen. If God really has worked miracles, the only way we can learn about them is from eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses cannot explain how the miracles happened, nor can they duplicate them. They can only tell us what they saw. Obviously, eyewitnesses can be duped. They can also easily exaggerate and misinform. If, then, we are to believe their testimony, we need to know that these eyewitnesses are truthful, are of high quality, and have proved that they have good motives.
The best-attested miracle in the Bible is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, so why not use this as a test case, so to speak. First, consider the reported facts: Jesus was arrested on the evening of Nisan 14—which happened to be a Thursday night in our modern way of reckoning the week. He appeared before the leaders of the Jews who accused him of blasphemy and decided he had to die. The Jewish leaders led Jesus before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who succumbed to their pressure and handed him over for execution. On Friday afternoon—still Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar—he was nailed to a torture stake and in a few hours was dead.—Mark 14:43-65; 15:1-39.
18 After a Roman soldier pierced Jesus’ side with a spear to make sure he was really dead, Jesus’ body was buried in a new tomb. The following day, Nisan 15 (Friday/Saturday), was a sabbath. But on the morning of Nisan 16—Sunday morning—some disciples went to the tomb and found it empty. Soon, stories began to circulate that Jesus had been seen alive. The initial reaction to these stories was exactly what it would be today—disbelief. Even the apostles refused to believe. But when they themselves saw the living Jesus, they had no choice but to accept that he had indeed been raised from the dead.—John 19:31–20:29; Luke 24:11.
Had Jesus been resurrected, or is all this just a fabrication? One thing that people back then would likely have asked is: Is Jesus’ body still in his tomb? Jesus’ followers would have faced a huge obstacle if their opponents could have pointed to his actual corpse still in its burial place as evidence that he had not been resurrected. There is, however, no record that they ever did this. Rather, according to the Bible, they gave money to the soldiers assigned to guard the tomb and told them: “Say, ‘His disciples came in the night and stole him while we were sleeping.’” (Matthew 28:11-13) We also have evidence outside the Bible that the Jewish leaders acted in this way.
About a century after Jesus’ death, Justin Martyr wrote a work called Dialogue With Trypho. In this, he said: “You [the Jews] have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilæan deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid.”
Now, Trypho was a Jew, and the Dialogue With Trypho was written to defend Christianity against Judaism. Hence, it is unlikely that Justin Martyr would have said what he did—that the Jews accused the Christians of stealing Jesus’ body from the tomb—if the Jews had not made such a charge. Otherwise, he would have left himself open to an easily verifiable charge of lying. Justin Martyr would have said this only if the Jews really had sent out such messengers. And they would have done so only if the tomb really was empty on Nisan 16, 33 C.E. and if they could not point to Jesus’ body in the tomb as evidence that he had not been resurrected. So since the tomb was empty, what had happened? Did the disciples steal the body? Or was it removed miraculously as evidence that Jesus had really been resurrected?
One highly educated man of the first century who carefully considered the evidence was Luke, a physician. (Colossians 4:14) Luke wrote two books that are now a part of the Bible: one was a Gospel, or history of Jesus’ ministry, and the other, called the Acts of Apostles, was a history of the spread of Christianity in the years following Jesus’ death.
In the introduction to his Gospel, Luke refers to much evidence that was available to him but that is no longer available to us. He speaks of the written documents about Jesus’ life that he consulted. He also notes that he spoke with eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Then, he says: “I have traced all things from the start with accuracy.” (Luke 1:1-3) Evidently, Luke’s research was thorough. Was he a good historian?
Many have attested that he was. Back in 1913, Sir William Ramsay in a lecture commented on the historicity of the works of Luke. His conclusion? “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense.” More recent researchers have come to the same conclusion. The Living Word Commentary, when introducing its volumes on Luke, says: “Luke was both a historian (and an accurate one) and a theologian.”
Dr. David Gooding, a former professor of Old Testament Greek in Northern Ireland, declares that Luke was “an ancient historian in the tradition of the Old Testament historians and in the tradition of Thucydides [one of the highest-rated historians of the ancient world]. Like them he will have taken great pains in investigating his sources, in selecting his material, and in disposing that material. . . . Thucydides combined this method with a passion for historical accuracy: there is no reason for thinking that Luke did less.”
What was the conclusion of this highly qualified man about why Jesus’ tomb was empty on Nisan 16? Both in his Gospel and in the book of Acts, Luke reports as a fact that Jesus was raised from the dead. (Luke 24:1-52; Acts 1:3) He had no doubt at all about it. Perhaps his belief in the miracle of the resurrection was strengthened by his own experiences. While he was not apparently an eyewitness of the resurrection, he does report witnessing miracles that were performed by the apostle Paul.—Acts 14:8-10; 20:7-12; 28:8, 9.
Two of the Gospels are traditionally ascribed to men who knew Jesus, saw him die, and claimed to have actually seen him after his resurrection. These are the apostle Matthew, the former tax collector, and John, Jesus’ beloved apostle. Another Bible writer, the apostle Paul, also claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Paul, in addition, lists by name others who saw Jesus alive after his death, and he says that at one time Jesus appeared to “upward of five hundred brothers.”—1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
One whom Paul mentions as an eyewitness is James, Jesus’ fleshly half brother, who must have known Jesus since childhood. Another is the apostle Peter; the historian Luke reports that he gave a fearless witness about Jesus’ resurrection just a few weeks after Jesus’ death. (Acts 2:23, 24) Two letters in the Bible are traditionally ascribed to Peter, and in the first of these Peter shows that his belief in the resurrection of Jesus was still a powerful motivation even many years after the event. He wrote: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”—1 Peter 1:3.
Hence, just as Luke could speak with people who claimed to have seen and to have spoken with Jesus after his death, we can read the words that some of these wrote. And we can judge for ourselves whether those people were deceived, whether they were trying to deceive us, or whether they really did see the resurrected Christ. Frankly, there is no way that they could have been deceived. A number of them were Jesus’ intimate friends up until his death. Some of them witnessed his agony on the torture stake. They saw the blood and water flow out from the spear wound inflicted by the soldier. The soldier knew, and they knew, that Jesus was indisputably dead. Later, they say, they saw Jesus alive and actually spoke with him. No, they could not have been deceived. Were they, then, trying to deceive us in saying that Jesus had been resurrected?—John 19:32-35; 21:4, 15-24.
To answer this, we have merely to ask ourselves: Did they themselves believe what they were saying? Yes, without any doubt. To the Christians, including those who claimed to be eyewitnesses, the resurrection of Jesus was the whole basis of their belief. The apostle Paul said: “If Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and our faith is in vain . . . If Christ has not been raised up, your faith is useless.” (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17) Does that sound like the words of a man who is lying when he says he has seen the resurrected Christ?
Consider what it meant to be a Christian in those days. There was no gain in prestige, power, or wealth. Quite the contrary. Many of the early Christians ‘joyfully took the plundering of their belongings’ for the sake of their faith. (Hebrews 10:34) Christianity called for a life of sacrifice and persecution that in many cases ended in martyrdom by a shameful, painful death.
Some Christians came from prosperous families, like the apostle John whose father evidently had a flourishing fishing business in Galilee. Many had good prospects, such as Paul who, when he accepted Christianity, had been a student of the famous rabbi Gamaliel and was beginning to distinguish himself in the eyes of the Jewish rulers. (Acts 9:1, 2; 22:3; Galatians 1:14) Yet, all turned their backs on what this world offered in order to spread a message based on the fact that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. (Colossians 1:23, 28) Why would they make such sacrifices to suffer for a cause they knew was based on a lie? The answer is, they would not. They were willing to suffer and die for a cause they knew to be founded on truth.
Indeed, the testimonial evidence is absolutely convincing. Jesus really was raised from the dead on Nisan 16, 33 C.E. And since that resurrection happened, all the other miracles of the Bible are possible—miracles for which we also have solid, eyewitness testimony. The same Power who raised Jesus from the dead also enabled Jesus to raise the son of the widow of Nain. He also empowered Jesus to perform the lesser—but still wonderful—miracles of healing. He was behind the miraculous feeding of the multitude, and He also enabled Jesus to walk on water.—Luke 7:11-15; Matthew 11:4-6; 14:14-21, 23-31.
Thus, the fact that the Bible tells of miracles is no reason to doubt its truthfulness. Rather, the fact that miracles did happen in Bible times is a powerful proof that the Bible really is the Word of God. But there is another accusation made against the Bible. Many say that it contradicts itself and therefore cannot be God’s Word. Is this true?
Now we get in the good stuff, it’s all right if everything up to now has not really convinced you, but it was building up to proof by prophecy.
Humans cannot foretell the future with any certainty. Time and again their efforts at prediction fail miserably. So a book of prophecies that did come true has to attract our attention. The Bible is such a book.
Many Bible prophecies have come true in such detail that critics claim they were written after the fulfillment. But such claims are untrue. God, being almighty, is fully capable of prophesying. (Isaiah 41:21-26; 42:8, 9; 46:8-10) Biblical prophecies that came true are evidence of divine inspiration, not of late authorship. We will look now at some outstanding prophecies that came true—providing additional proof that the Bible is God’s word, not just man’s.
Hezekiah was king in Jerusalem for about 30 years. In 740 B.C.E. he witnessed the destruction of his northern neighbor Israel at the hands of Assyria. In 732 B.C.E. he experienced God’s saving power, when the Assyrian attempt to conquer Jerusalem had failed, with catastrophic results to the invader.—Isaiah 37:33-38.
Now, Hezekiah is receiving a delegation from Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon. On the surface, the ambassadors are there to congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery from a severe illness. Likely, though, Merodach-baladan sees Hezekiah as a possible ally against the world power of Assyria. Hezekiah does nothing to dispel such an idea when he shows the visiting Babylonians all the wealth of his house and dominion. Perhaps he, too, wants allies against a possible return of the Assyrians.—Isaiah 39:1, 2.
Isaiah is the outstanding prophet of that time, and he quickly discerns Hezekiah’s indiscretion. He knows that Hezekiah’s surest defense is Jehovah, not Babylon, and tells him that his act of showing the Babylonians his wealth will lead to tragedy. “Days are coming,” says Isaiah, “and all that is in your own house and that your forefathers have stored up down to this day will actually be carried to Babylon.” Jehovah decreed: “Nothing will be left.”—Isaiah 39:5, 6.
Back in the eighth century B.C.E., it may have seemed unlikely for that prophecy to be fulfilled. One hundred years later, however, the situation changed. Babylon replaced Assyria as the dominant world power, while Judah became so degraded, religiously speaking, that God withdrew his blessing. Now, another prophet, Jeremiah, was inspired to repeat Isaiah’s warning. Jeremiah proclaimed: “I will bring [the Babylonians] against this land and against its inhabitants . . . And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”—Jeremiah 25:9, 11.
About four years after Jeremiah uttered that prophecy, the Babylonians made Judah part of their empire. Three years after that, they took some Jewish captives, along with some of the wealth of the temple at Jerusalem, to Babylon. Eight years later, Judah revolted and was again invaded by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. This time, the city and its temple were destroyed. All its wealth, and the Jews themselves, were carried off to distant Babylon, just as Isaiah and Jeremiah had foretold.—2 Chronicles 36:6, 7, 12, 13, 17-21.
The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land notes that when the Babylonian onslaught was over, “the destruction of the city [Jerusalem] was a total one.”1 Archaeologist W. F. Albright states: “Excavation and surface exploration in Judah have proved that the towns of Judah were not only completely destroyed by the Chaldeans in their two invasions, but were not reoccupied for generations—often never again in history.” Thus, archaeology confirms the shocking fulfillment of this prophecy.
Ezekiel was another ancient writer who recorded divinely inspired prophecies. He prophesied from the end of the seventh century B.C.E. on into the sixth—that is, during the years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and then during the first decades of the Jews’ exile in Babylon. Even some modern critics agree that the book was written at approximately this time.
Ezekiel recorded a striking prophecy about the destruction of Israel’s northern neighbor Tyre, which had gone from a position of friendship with God’s people to one of enmity. (1 Kings 5:1-9; Psalm 83:2-8) He wrote: “This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘Here I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up against you many nations, just as the sea brings up its waves. And they will certainly bring the walls of Tyre to ruin and tear down her towers, and I will scrape her dust away from her and make her a shining, bare surface of a crag. . . . And your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water.’”—Ezekiel 26:3, 4, 12.
Did this really happen? Well, a few years after Ezekiel uttered the prophecy, the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, laid siege to Tyre. (Ezekiel 29:17, 18) It was not, however, an easy siege. Tyre was partially situated on the mainland (the part called Old Tyre). But part of the city was on an island about half a mile [800 m] offshore. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the island for 13 years before it finally submitted to him.
It was, however, in 332 B.C.E. that Ezekiel’s prophecy was finally fulfilled in all its details. At that time, Alexander the Great, the conqueror from Macedonia, was invading Asia. Tyre, secure on its island location, held out against him. Alexander did not want to leave a potential enemy at his rear, but he did not want to spend years in a siege of Tyre, as Nebuchadnezzar had done.
How did he solve this military problem? He built a land bridge, or mole, across to the island, so that his soldiers could march across and attack the island city. Notice, though, what he used to build the mole. The Encyclopedia Americana reports: “With the debris of the mainland portion of the city, which he had demolished, he built a huge mole in 332 to join the island to the mainland.” After a relatively short siege, the island city was destroyed. Moreover, Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled in all its details. Even the ‘stones and woodwork and dust’ of Old Tyre were ‘placed in the very midst of the water.’
A 19th-century traveler commented on what was left of ancient Tyre in his day, saying: “Of the original Tyre known to Solomon and the prophets of Israel, not a vestige remains except in its rock-cut sepulchres on the mountain sides, and in foundation walls . . . Even the island, which Alexander the Great, in his siege of the city, converted into a cape by filling up the water between it and the mainland, contains no distinguishable relics of an earlier period than that of the Crusades. The modern town, all of which is comparatively new, occupies the northern half of what was once the island, while nearly all the remainder of the surface is covered with undistinguishable ruins.”
Back in the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah, the prophet who warned the Jews of their coming subjugation by Babylon, also foretold something astounding: the total annihilation of Babylon itself. He foretold this in graphic detail: “Here I am arousing against them the Medes . . . And Babylon, the decoration of kingdoms, the beauty of the pride of the Chaldeans, must become as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation.”—Isaiah 13:17-20.
The prophet Jeremiah also foretold the fall of Babylon, which would take place many years later. And he included an interesting detail: “There is a devastation upon her waters, and they must be dried up. . . . The mighty men of Babylon have ceased to fight. They have kept sitting in the strong places. Their mightiness has run dry.”—Jeremiah 50:38; 51:30.
In 539 B.C.E., the time of Babylon’s rule as the preeminent world power came to an end when the vigorous Persian ruler Cyrus, accompanied by the army of Media, marched against the city. What Cyrus found, however, was formidable. Babylon was surrounded by huge walls and seemed impregnable. The great river Euphrates, too, ran through the city and made an important contribution to its defenses.
The Greek historian Herodotus describes how Cyrus handled the problem: “He placed a portion of his army at the point where the river enters the city, and another body at the back of the place where it issues forth, with orders to march into the town by the bed of the stream, as soon as the water became shallow enough . . . He turned the Euphrates by a canal into the basin [an artificial lake dug by a previous ruler of Babylon], which was then a marsh, on which the river sank to such an extent that the natural bed of the stream became fordable. Hereupon the Persians who had been left for the purpose at Babylon by the river-side, entered the stream, which had now sunk so as to reach about midway up a man’s thigh, and thus got into the town.”
In this way the city fell, as Jeremiah and Isaiah had warned. But notice the detailed fulfillment of prophecy. There was literally ‘a devastation upon her waters, and they were dried up.’ It was the lowering of the waters of the Euphrates that enabled Cyrus to gain access to the city. Did ‘the mighty men of Babylon cease to fight,’ as Jeremiah had warned? The Bible—as well as the Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon—records that the Babylonians were actually feasting when the Persian assault occurred. The Nabonidus Chronicle, an official cuneiform inscription, says that Cyrus’ troops entered Babylon “without battle,” likely meaning without a major pitched battle. Evidently, Babylon’s mighty men did not do much to protect her.
What about the forecast that Babylon would “never be inhabited” again? That was not fulfilled immediately in 539 B.C.E. But unerringly the prophecy came true. After her fall, Babylon was the center of a number of rebellions, until 478 B.C.E. when she was destroyed by Xerxes. At the end of the fourth century, Alexander the Great planned to restore her, but he died before the work had progressed very far. From then on, the city just declined. There were still people living there in the first century of our Common Era, but today all that is left of ancient Babylon is a heap of ruins in Iraq. Even if her ruins should be partially restored, Babylon would be just a tourist showpiece, not a living, vibrant city. Her desolate site bears witness to the final fulfillment of the inspired prophecies against her.
In the sixth century B.C.E., during the Jewish exile in Babylon, another prophet, Daniel, was inspired to record some remarkable visions foretelling the future course of world events. In one, Daniel describes a number of symbolic animals that displace one another on the world scene. An angel explains that these animals foreshadow the march of world powers from that time onward. Speaking of the final two beasts, he says: “The ram that you saw possessing the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. And the hairy he-goat stands for the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it stands for the first king. And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power.”—Daniel 8:20-22.
This prophetic foreview was fulfilled exactly. The Babylonian Empire was overthrown by Medo-Persia, which, 200 years later, gave way to the Greek world power. The Greek Empire was spearheaded by Alexander the Great, “the great horn.” However, after Alexander’s death, his generals fought among themselves for power, and eventually the far-flung empire broke into four smaller empires, “four kingdoms.”
In Daniel chapter 7, a somewhat similar vision also looked far into the future. The Babylonian world power was pictured by a lion, the Persian by a bear, and the Greek by a leopard with four wings on its back and four heads. Then, Daniel sees another wild beast, “fearsome and terrible and unusually strong . . . , and it had ten horns.” (Daniel 7:2-7) This fourth wild beast prefigured the powerful Roman Empire, which began to develop about three centuries after Daniel recorded this prophecy.
The angel prophesied regarding Rome: “As for the fourth beast, there is a fourth kingdom that will come to be on the earth, that will be different from all the other kingdoms; and it will devour all the earth and will trample it down and crush it.” (Daniel 7:23) H. G. Wells, in his book A Pocket History of the World, says: “This new Roman power which arose to dominate the western world in the second and first centuries B.C. was in several respects a different thing from any of the great empires that had hitherto prevailed in the civilised world.” It started as a republic and continued as a monarchy. Unlike previous empires, it was not the creation of any one conqueror but grew relentlessly over the centuries. It lasted much, much longer and controlled far more territory than any previous empire.
What, though, about the ten horns of this huge beast? The angel said: “And as for the ten horns, out of that kingdom there are ten kings that will rise up; and still another one will rise up after them, and he himself will be different from the first ones, and three kings he will humiliate.” (Daniel 7:24) How did this work out?
Well, when the Roman Empire started to deteriorate in the fifth century C.E., it was not immediately replaced by another world power. Rather, it disintegrated into a number of kingdoms, “ten kings.” Finally, the British Empire defeated the three rival empires of Spain, France, and the Netherlands to become the major world power. Thus did the newcomer ‘horn’ humiliate “three kings.”
The Bible indicates that the book of Daniel was written during the sixth century B.C.E. However, the fulfillments of its prophecies are so exact that critics claim it must have been written about 165 B.C.E., when a number of the prophecies had already been fulfilled. Despite the fact that the only real reason for making this claim is that Daniel’s prophecies were fulfilled, this late date for the writing of Daniel is presented as an established fact in many reference works.
Against such a theory, though, we must weigh the following facts. First, the book was alluded to in Jewish works produced during the second century B.C.E., such as the first book of Maccabees. Also, it was included in the Greek Septuagint version, the translation of which began in the third century B.C.E. Third, fragments of copies of Daniel were among the more frequently found works in the Dead Sea Scrolls—and these fragments are believed to date to about 100 B.C.E. Clearly, soon after Daniel was supposedly written, it was already widely known and respected: strong evidence that it was produced long before critics say it was.
Further, Daniel contains historical details that would have been unknown to a second-century writer. Outstanding is the case of Belshazzar, the ruler of Babylon who was killed when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E. The major non-Biblical sources of our knowledge of the fall of Babylon are Herodotus (fifth century), Xenophon (fifth and fourth centuries), and Berossus (third century). None of these knew about Belshazzar. How unlikely that a second-century writer would have had information that had been unavailable to these earlier authors! The record concerning Belshazzar in Daniel chapter 5 is a strong argument that Daniel wrote his book before these other writers wrote theirs.
Finally, there are a number of prophecies in Daniel that were fulfilled long after 165 B.C.E. One of these was the prophecy about the Roman Empire, mentioned earlier.
And those are just some of the reasons I believe in the Bible.

I believe in the Bible.... but, I also doubt it...

I will say I am Christian, although I can't honestly look at the bible and say it is infallable, or that I know that what I think it says is always "what God meant"....

and that is another reason why I can't stand some Christians.... you know the ones that you talk to that tell you that you are wrong no matter what you say about the bible (unless it agrees with them exactly).... I just don't like that....

Same here, as O Jehavah's witness I go from door to door and meat all the different people you can think of, and sometimes I can prove somthing direcly from the Bible no questions asked, and they're like: "Well... you've got me there but I still don't believe it" I mean really! Just because you're tought something at church deosn't mean it's automaticly true, there should be biblical prof!

see, I personally think people put the Bible above God.... and not the other way around....

it's the Bible's word or no word.... of course, there are plenty of crazy people saying they talk to God, or they are Jesus or something....

but it still seems like the "Word of God" has more power than God himself....

Yes I know what you mean. Some peopl worship the Bible. I have to say, I think one should follow the Bible BECAUSE it is the word of God. Lowell was an extreemist in that opinion. He though that quoting from it was putting it above God. Witch is an interesting statment (I still think it's over the top), but I wish he could try to proove that a little more.

yeah, I just prefer the emphasis the Bible has on having a relationship with God... and using the Holy Spirit to help guide your life.... and not always having to rush back to your bible to know how to respond to a situation

Well god did create the bible so it would be a roadmap for christians. It is also essential to curb false prohets and false doctrine. IE cults. I would just like to thank Light Knight for writing all this, so I will give him kudos and 1000 vizz.

Wow, zylo... I feel bad too accept this. Well If ever youre in a finatial hole, or having problems with viz, I'll give you my help. (whatever good that is) And also please feel free to ask any questions about the Bible on this thread.

Ok here is my question. How far does the bible say your able to go with your girlfriend? To me it seems like anything below the waist is wrong, but I don't know. I've heard people answer it "It depends on how strong your will is and knowing it can't go more than a certain point. Like alchahol, if they are wise enough to handle drinking without getting drunk? So I was wondering what the bible said on the topic?

to my knowledge it isn't clear on how far is too far...

however, Jesus did say that lusting after a woman in your heart is like commiting adultery.... so, even looking at a girl and wanting to "do her" is a sin... so, I bet anything else is bad too

OH man thats pretty harsh. So if you touch her that definantly committing adultry?

well... not adultery.... the proper word is fornication.... but, it could be deduced to be the case....

It would make sense that touching her could temp you to go further. So Jesus could of also ben protecting use from going to far.

I think its definantly hard with a gf though. Because one thing leads to another very easily. I am trying to stop things from getting to intimate. Its wierd though since I'm a male trying to stop things. I guess thats just how the mainstream perverts the way a man should act.

Heres just a little info i looked up:


Christ ‘was about to throw the woman Jezebel into a sickbed, and those committing adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repented of her deeds.’ Overseers dare not yield to such wicked teaching and influence, and no Christian needs to commit spiritual and physical fornication or to engage in idolatry in order to realize that the “deep things of Satan” are totally evil. If we heed Jesus’ warning, ‘we will hold fast what we have,’ and sin will not hold sway among us. Because they rejected ungodly practices, lusts, and aims, resurrected anointed ones receive “authority over the nations” and will join Christ in breaking them to pieces. Present-day congregations have symbolic stars, and anointed ones will be given “the bright morning star,” the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, when they are resurrected to heaven.—Revelation 22:16.

The Thyatira congregation was warned not to tolerate the evil influence of apostatizing women. Christ’s spirit-inspired message to the congregation helps godly women to keep their God-assigned place today. They do not try to exercise authority over men and do not lure any brothers into spiritual or physical fornication. (1 Timothy 2:12) Instead, such women set an example in fine deeds and service to God’s praise. (Psalm 68:11; 1 Peter 3:1-6) If the congregation guards what it has—pure doctrine and conduct and treasured Kingdom service—Christ will come with blessed rewards, not execution.