Biblical prophecies

If you pick up any of the four Gospels and read them at random, it will not be long before you learn that such and such an action or saying, attributed to Jesus, was done so that an ancient prophecy should come true. If it should seem odd that an action should be deliberately performed in order that a foretelling be vindicated, that is because it is odd. And it is necessarily odd because, just like the Old Testament, the "New" one is also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right. There are numerous Biblical prophecies, some vaguely fulfilled, others strangely unfulfilled. Of course, like the Bible, the Quran also contains what its followers maintain are fulfilled prophesies. Christians tend to find these unconvincing or silly — which is coincidentally the attitude which non-Christians have towards the claimed biblical prophecies.

Some Christians claim that fulfilled prophecies — if they actually existed — would prove that the Bible is inerrant or even literally true. Creationists conclude it is accurate even on scientific subjects.

This article examines various prophecies from the Bible and gives an analysis of whether or not they have been fulfilled.

The nature of prophecy in the Bible
It almost goes without saying that the fulfillment of any prophecy (from your daily horoscopes to those in the Bible) largely depends on how one interprets it. Some prophecies in the Bible, such as the ones about Jesus, seem to be fulfilled only because the Gospels twisted unrelated verses in the Old Testament to convince their various audiences to become Christians (and sometimes even made things up to convince readers, like the fake genealogy numbers of Matthew 1:17). Other prophecies make very vague predictions, and so all kinds of events could occur that would "fulfill" them. Still others were never predicted until after the event took place. And since there's also a large number of unfulfilled prophecies, alleged prophecy-fulfillment does not suffice to compel belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

The actual nature of the prophetic literature can differ dramatically. Prophecies can take the form of simple predictions about military conquests, or they can be descriptions of grandiose apocalyptic events. Most major prophets will usually flip-flop between these two genres of simple military affairs to grandiose eschatology.

The Bible's own attitude towards prophecy differs from later takes. This is evident, for example, in the book of Jonah, a fictional parable about a reluctant prophet. God has given him a command to travel to the pagan metropolis of Nineveh to preach the city's doom. Given this task, Jonah boards a ship headed in the opposite direction, apparently towards Tarshish — a land which is now either lost to history or fictitious. This leads to the familiar adventure with the giant fish. Eventually Jonah makes it to Nineveh, where the inhabitants receive his message of doom surprisingly well. The people repent, and God changes his mind and spares the city. In the Bible itself, prophecy is a call for moral improvement, not an inexorable doom.

Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre
In, God states that Nebuchadnezzar II (a neo-Babylonian monarch, reigned circa 605 to circa 562 BCE, notable for his ambitious military conquests ) would conquer, sack, and completely destroy the city of Tyrus (Tyre) and that Tyre's land would never be built upon again:

However, this never occurred. After a 13-year siege, and accepted his authority without being destroyed. Despite being conquered and razed by Alexander the Great 240 years later, Tyre still exists.

Ezekiel even admits that Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre three chapters later in

Ah well — perhaps the texts reference some other sea-side place called "Tyrus"/"Tyre", yet to be unearthed by diligent Bible-believing archaeologists...

Ezekiel
In, God states that Egypt will be made into a desolate wasteland:

This passage is one of the most erroneous in the Bible. Since Ezekiel was penned, Egypt has never been recorded as a 'desolate waste'. There is no historical evidence of a time when people have not walked through Egypt; when for forty years Egypt was uninhabited after the civilization started there; or for when Egypt has been surrounded by other desolate countries. God sets out a checklist of specific events that will occur:


 * 1) Egypt and everything from the tower of Syene to Ethiopia will be desolate and waste
 * 2) God will own the Nile
 * 3) No humans will walk through Egypt
 * 4) No animals will walk through Egypt
 * 5) Nobody will live in Egypt for 40 years
 * 6) Egyptians will leave Egypt and be scattered among other nations
 * 7) After 40 years of scattering, Egypt will be repopulated by the scattered Egyptians
 * 8) Egypt will be a weak kingdom, and will never control "the nations"

Never happened.

There are two main apologist responses to this failed prophecy.

First, Christian apologist John Gill argued that this verse was meant symbolically:

However, Gill provides no textual evidence for this. Again, the false prophecies are suddenly considered "symbolic".

Second, Christian apologist John Oakes argued that Egypt was, in fact, depopulated:

Joel
There are a number of destruction prophecies targeting Egypt, one of the less complicated and up front ones is found in the book of the minor prophet Joel.

In, God declares that Egypt will become desolate for their violence against the Hebrews.

Once again, from the establishment of the Pharaonic monarchy to modern day, Egypt has never been uninhabited, let alone "desolate".

Ezekiel
In, God claims that Egypt will be conquered by Nebuchadnezzar:

It is not known whether Nebuchadnezzar actually campaigned in Egypt; however, it is certain that he did not actually conquer the land of Egypt proper.

Jeremiah
Another major prophet, Jeremiah, also declares that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Egypt. He does this twice. The first example is here in :

Only a few specifics are given here. Nebuchadnezzar will apparently desecrate Egypt's religious sites and break the Obelisks in the city of Heliopolis. Jeremiah foresees Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Egypt again in, which goes into more detail.

There's a lot of information we need to go over, but the first most significant aspect of this text is that it quite specifically states that Nebuchadnezzar will "smite" the land of Egypt, and then goes on to describe this event.

Jeremiah names two major ancient Egyptian cities, Memphis and Tahpanhes. He says that "the sword shall devour within them", and also states that Memphis will be "laid waste". He also names the city of Thebes, but doesn't discuss any major details. This prediction concludes with the ambitious declaration that God will "bring punishment on Egypt, Pharaoh, and those who trust in him". Another interesting aspect of this is that Jeremiah tells the Egyptians to "prepare baggage for exile". If this passage was written after the Babylonian captivity, it is entirely possible that this author was simply projecting what happened to his people onto a people he disliked.

Anyways, Memphis was never destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, and neither was Tahpanhes. He didn't touch Heliopolis either. Nebuchadnezzar never "smote" Egypt, certainly not to the extent described here. The only known military conflict between Nebuchadnezzar's forces and Egyptian forces was the, which didn't even take place in Egypt.

Finally,, the last verse in this chapter, tells us that God will destroy the nations to which he has driven the Israelites.

Egypt was one of the nations he drove them to (Jeremiah 43-44). This appears to imply that Egypt will be destroyed, something which definitely didn't happen.

Ezekiel
In, God promises to dry up the Nile:

There is no evidence that this has happened in recorded history. At least not yet?

There are two main responses to this verse as well:

First, Christian apologist John Gill argues that the verse is actually symbolic:

That's great. So, when God says, "I will do X", he's really just spouting metaphors. Lovely.

Second, Christian apologist John Oakes argues that the verse does not, in fact, assert that the Nile itself will dry up:

Isaiah
In, God said that the Nile river would dry up and the "waters shall fail from the sea":

The prophet blatantly identifies the dried-up river (Isaiah 19:5) with the Nile (Isaiah 19:8). And he goes even further to say one of the seas Egypt borders will drain, and this appears to coincide with the Nile River drying up. There is absolutely no hint of this prophecy being interpreted symbolically or metaphorically. Isaiah actually goes out of his way to stress the literal, physical, carnal fulfillment of this prophecy.

Christian apologist John Oakes argues that the skeptics are misinterpreting this verse and it did, in fact, happen:

Zechariah
The prophet Zechariah makes some audacious and even absurd predictions, but one that happens to stick out is his prophecy that the Nile River will be dried up.

tells us the following:

Once again the Nile has never been 'dried up'.

Triumph of Judah
In, God tells the king of Judah that he shall not be harmed by his enemies.

Yet it did come to pass, and his enemies did harm him. As the Bible itself in tells us:

The Fall of Babylon
The prophetic literature of the Old Testament predicts the destruction of the city of Babylon in a number of ways. The first example is Isaiah 13, which is Isaiah's prophecy concerning Babylon. Another much longer description of the fall of Babylon is Jeremiah 50-51. The actual fall of Babylon does not fit with either of these descriptions. The first example that must be covered is, which reads as follows:

The first and most obvious flaw in this prediction is that Babylon did not fall to the Medes. It fell to the Achaemenid Empire. Another flaw in this prediction is that when Babylon did fall to the Achaemenid Empire, it was not destroyed. The conquerers simply occupied the territory, assimilating it into their empire without wreaking the total destruction described in Isaiah 13. This is why many Babylonian structures are still intact today. Babylon certainly was not rendered "like Sodom and Gomorrah on the day that God overthrew them". Jeremiah 50-51 essentially makes the same prediction, only it takes way longer to explain it. Either way, Babylon was not utterly devastated by the Medes the way Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 50-51 predict.

Damascus would be destroyed
tells us that Damascus will be laid waste, and it will remain uninhabited forever.

Damascus is currently the capital of Syria and has a population of approximately 1.5 million people. But it is remarkable that the words "for ever" are completely absent in the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew version of the Bible officially in use among Jews) and the Text of the Great Isaiah Scroll (the oldest complete copy of the book of Isaiah), but in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of Hebrew Bible) one can find the expression "εις τον αιώνα" meaning literally "till the age", that in certain contexts can mean "for ever". It could be an addition of a translator.

Egyptians will speak the language of Canaan
Isaiah:

Not only has the Canaanite language never been spoken by Egyptians, but it is now an extinct language. There is the very unlikely possibility Isaiah was referring to Hebrew, which is technically a Canaanite language. However, Hebrew was also never adopted by the Egyptians. And according to the context of this passage, Isaiah is specifically referring to Pagan Egypt, which ceased to exist in the 4th century (see above). So even if Egyptians started speaking Hebrew at this very moment, it would still be an inaccurate prediction, unless again they begin doing these things (highly unlikely). Also, it's worth noting that Isaiah believes the Egyptians will convert to Mosaic Judaism and start offering sacrifices to the LORD shortly after this incident (Isaiah 19:21)—a practice no longer done by Jews since the Temple was destroyed and priesthood lost.

Christian apologist John Gill argues that the Canaanite language was Hebrew, so this already counts:

TLDR: It's another "symbolic" passage.

Second, Christian apologist John Oakes argues that the Jews, in fact, entered Egypt:

Egypt and Assyria would convert to the Hebrew religion
One of the more radical assertions made in Isaiah is that the nation of Egypt would convert to Judaism. The passage which declares this appears to imply that Assyria would also convert. This prophecy is built upon the prophecy discussed above that says the Nile River would dry up. Isaiah 19 as a whole appears to predict that God would terrorize the Egyptians into a conversion. What makes this prophesy so radical and catastrophic is that implies that when Egypt and Assyria do convert, they will become equal to Israel as God's people.

reads as follows:

This never happened. There was never a day in which the Egyptians and Assyrians collectively converted to Mosaic Judaism and practiced the Hebrew sacrifices. They also never became conjoined to Israel. Isaiah 19 as a whole describes an extremely specific event. It essentially describes an individual day in which the following events occur:


 * 1) The Lord will terrorize Egypt (19:1, 19:16-17)
 * 2) The Nile River will dry up and the "waters will fail from the sea". (19:5-8)
 * 3) Some Egyptians will speak the language of Canaan. (19:18)
 * 4) The Lord will make himself known to the Egyptians and they will sacrifice to him. (19:19-22)
 * 5) There will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria and they will apparently worship with each other. (19:23)
 * 6) Egypt, Assyria, and Israel will become conjoined together as God's people. (19:24-25)

Precisely 0% of this actually occurred. Isaiah 19 is one massive failure.

Israel will extend from the Red Sea to the Euphrates
(NIV):

God makes a few promises:
 * 1) Once the Israelites conquer Israel, they will have no lack of food or water or have sickness or infertility
 * 2) The Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites will be driven out, during many years
 * 3) Israel will extend from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates

1: It's almost certain that Israelites don't have 100% food, water, and health security. The fact that Israelites had infertility is documented by the Bible: Elizabeth and Zacharias, the mother and father of John the Baptist, were both "advanced in age" and thus unable to make a kid.

2: Eventually, Israel did take control of the land. If, however, the are the same as the historical  then YHWH didn't drive them slowly from the Levant - instead the Hittite Empire rather suddenly disappeared in the

3: Israel's borders have rarely reached the Red Sea, and have never reached the Euphrates, which passes through northern Syria.

The chosen people's land promises
In the Bible, God allegedly made promises to Abraham to deliver him land then under the control of other tribes. For example, upon Abraham entering Canaan, states, in part, "The LORD appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.'" (NIV) This promise was reiterated in slightly different ways throughout the books of Genesis and Exodus.

However, this did not reasonably soon thereafter come to be, as illustrated by, which, regarding Abraham's descendants, states,

"All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. (NIV)"

Similarly, in God promises to give the Israelites all the land from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and from the Euphrates River to "the desert." Historically this never happened.

Joshua was also promised specific land. Per :

"I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Great Sea on the west. No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you. (NIV)"

Strangely, indicates that he did indeed take the land:

"So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war. (NIV)"

However, history and the Bible indicate all the land was not taken. Per :

"When Joshua was old and well advanced in years, the LORD said to him, 'You are very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over. This is the land that remains: all the regions of the Philistines and Geshurites: from the Shihor River on the east of Egypt to the territory of Ekron on the north, all of it counted as Canaanite; the territory of the five Philistine rulers in Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron—that of the Avvites from the south, all the land of the Canaanites, from Arah of the Sidonians as far as Aphek, the region of the Amorites, the area of the Gebalites; and all Lebanon to the east, from Baal Gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo Hamath. (NIV)"

Israel will live in peace with its neighbors
predicts that Israel will live in peace with its neighbors:

"No longer will the people of Israel have malicious neighbors who are painful briers and sharp thorns. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I gather the people of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered, I will show myself holy among them in the sight of the nations. Then they will live in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their neighbors who maligned them. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God. (NIV)"

A consistent aspect of history is that Israel has never gotten along with its neighbors even when there was no Jewish state. (Or, if you prefer, that its neighbors have never gotten along with it.) There's still hope that Israel and the neighborhood will be peaceful one day, but it requires everyone in the region to stop "inflicting punishment" on each other.

Davidic line will endure forever
At several instances in the Old Testament God promises David that the descendants of Solomon will rule Judah forever. For example, in (NIV) God tells the prophet Nathan:

There is no indication that this is anything other than a literal promise. In fact the promise is reiterated during times when the future of the earthly kingdom is in doubt. In (NIV):

Unfortunately for the prophet Nathan, the ended with King Zedekiah in about 586 BCE. Biblical inerrantists, spotting a possible loophole, claim that Jesus, being descended from David, fulfilled this prophecy. (NIV):

However, there are many reasons this is an unsatisfactory solution. Aspects of the 2 Samuel reference above, specifically "When he does wrong," do not seem consistent with Christian doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God. Additionally, the line of kings is described as being continuous. Consider (NIV):

This leaves unexplained the near 600-year gap between Zedekiah and Jesus. Further, there is the question of the Davidic line after Jesus, as he apparently died ascended childless. Note: Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55 as evidence for Jesus' siblings. Note: A precedent is previously set for biblical linage being a mantel rather than genetic linage due to Gen. 24 and 27, Jacob's theft of Esau's blessing and the selling of the birthright.

In reality the only evidence available that Jesus is a descendant of David is in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. The alleged prophecy stresses the literal descendancy from David. We read in (NIV):

However, if the virgin birth doctrine be valid then Jesus is not actually the son of Joseph, making virgin birth seem incompatible with Jesus' descendancy from David.

Finally, several Bible verses seem to indicate that Jesus is in fact not of the line of David. For example (NIV) states:

Indeed.

Christian apologist John Oakes argues that Jesus actually fulfilled this prophecy:

The Universal conversion of the Nations
One consistent theme throughout the Biblical prophecies that a reader will notice is the worldwide conversion to the Hebrew God. Imagery and predictions about this concept are a common theme throughout many Prophet books, and are not isolated to a specific book. This idea is often accompanied by similarly audacious and ridiculous predictions. We will explore and analyze some of the expressions of this idea.

The first expression of this concept is found in, which states the following:

This verse has catastrophic consequences for the New Testament. In many Bible translations, this passage opens with "In the last days", so this is essentially an End Times prophecy. The problem is that it contradicts just about all of the Book of Revelation, and especially Jesus' statement that one of the signs of the end would be war. This opens with a few passages about how The Lord's 'mountain' (which some people believe to be the Temple in Jerusalem) will be exalted and raised above all other mountains. This passage then goes on to specifically state that all the nations of the Earth will flock to Jerusalem and worship the Hebrew God. It then goes on to describe some form of world peace, in which nations no longer 'train for war'. This completely contradicts Jesus' statement in which says that wars and international conflicts will characterize the last days. Essentially, Isaiah 2:1-4 provides its own unique idea about the end times. Despite its conflict with New Testament eschatology, we are noting this passage for its prediction that the nations will convert and flock to Jerusalem. This passage is repeated verbatim in. The author of Micah likely plagiarized it.

gives a similar vision.

Once again, all the peoples of the Earth are involved in this prophecy. It appears to be optimistic, with "The Lord wiping away tears from all faces".

Chapters 40 to 55 of The Book of Isaiah comprise a separate work known as 'Second Isaiah' or Deutero-Isaiah. This piece of writing is considered to have been written at around 540-535 B.C.E. It is sometimes cited as the first expression of Jewish eschatology. This piece of writing contains many visions of foreign nations converting and acknowledging the Hebrew God.

describes Israel's exalted status in God's eyes, and how Egypt and Ethiopia will recognize the Hebrew God.

In God commands all ends of the Earth to turn to him:

A similar and slightly more aggressive statement is made here in

We find similar imagery employed here in

This promise turns into a bit of a threat in

Writing like this subtly reminds us that the Hebrew God isn't a very nice guy. Another example of the rather threatening and less friendly versions of these visions is found here in :

Wait a minute, when did God make a new heavens and a new Earth? Regardless of that, God blatantly declares that all flesh will come and worship him. A similar prediction is made by the prophet Micah, in

More of these bold prophecies are found in the Book of Zechariah. One dramatic vision is here in

Despite all of the literature above, these ideas culminate in this obviously acid-inspired masterpiece in Zechariah.

This prophecy,, describes an apocalyptic and almost downright eschatological event. Zechariah essentially prophecies the following event:


 * 1) There will be a day in which all the nations of the Earth declare war on Jerusalem.
 * 2) God will personally fight for Jerusalem and rot the flesh of their enemies.
 * 3) This day will be characterized by continuous, unending light. (Cosmic aberrations are a common mythological motif in apocalyptic literature.)
 * 4) God will become King over all the Earth, and his name will become one. (This appears to imply that God will unite the world under one language, an idea that also appears in .)
 * 5) The nations that survive this will come and worship God at Jerusalem. (God will apparently withhold rain from anyone who fails to do this.)

Needless to say, Zechariah is a pretty wacky piece of writing. We could go on for longer, but a full analysis of the expression of this idea throughout the prophetic literature would take way too long.

That fact that these absurd visions are the wishful pipe-dreams of possibly intoxicated mystics is transparently obvious. None of these radical claims have any historical basis. There has never been a time when the entire world has collectively converted to the worship of the Hebrew God, and it's safe to say that such an event will never happen. One could argue that some of these predictions simply haven't come true yet, but until they do come true, they will continue to look very silly.

The eternal glory, prosperity, and security of Israel
Another common recurring theme found throughout Biblical prophecy is the eternal glory and security of Israel. This concept is almost always tied into the universal conversion prophecy. This, like the universal conversion of the nations discussed above, is a nonspecific concept that is scattered throughout many books. We will explore and analyze how this idea is presented. The first major expression of this idea is God's promise to the Israelite's who were recently emancipated from Egyptian captivity in. This prophecy is discussed above since it contains a failed territory promise. The second major expression of this idea is also discussed above, when God promised that the Davidic monarchy will never end, a promise made in. Both of these promises are remarkable illustrations of the idea we are discussing, yet the promise of Israel's perpetual prosperity finds much more dramatic and often euphoric expression later on, especially in the beatific visions characteristic of the Book of Isaiah.

The divine protection of Jerusalem is first articulated in :

An identical message is conveyed in :

See the images on the right.

, a similar vision, reads as follows:

makes a hilarious statement.

The easiest way to falsify Isaiah is to buy your uncircumcised friend a plane ticket to Jerusalem. The prophet goes on to promise Israel eternal peace here in :

Comparable imagery is located here in :

makes this fantastical promise:

The prophet Ezekiel also promises Israel that they will live in peace with their neighbours in

Visions like this are scattered all over the prophets. , the finale of the Book of Amos, says this:

Euphoric visions of Israel's future glory are so frequent throughout the prophetic literature that we cannot discuss all of it. Nonetheless, the mere existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the historical conquests of Jerusalem (some of which were ironically due to Jerusalem's depiction in The Bible), and the rest of Israel's not-so-peaceful history are enough to refute most of these "prophecies".

Apocalyptic literature in the Old Testament
This section will explore the various examples of apocalyptic literature throughout the Old Testament. Apocalyptic literature is worth discussing here since it is all invariably insane and entirely pseudohistorical.

Isaiah's Apocalypses
The Book of Isaiah when read in detail appears to be a hotspot of doomsday fear-mongering. Apocalyptic literature in the Old Testament seems to be concentrated in Isaiah.

The first notable example is

The prophecy of Isaiah 2 is essentially warning of a catastrophic event brought on because of the Israelites' disobedience. It uses quite frightening language, and is considered to be the first expression of apocalyptic expectation in The Bible.

However, Isaiah certainly doesn't stop it there. Another cataclysmic event is prophesied in Isaiah 13, which is supposed to be a destruction prophecy targeting Babylon, but Isaiah manages to tie the rest of the world in as well.

reads as follows:

Cosmic aberrations (in this case, the sun and moon being darkened) are a common mythological motif in apocalyptic literature. Isaiah is describing an event which will be preceded by such aberrant events (Isaiah 13:10). We should also note that similar imagery is described in the apocalyptic literature of the New Testament, where Jesus says that Judgement Day will be foreshadowed by similar cosmic aberrations in. Back in Isaiah 13, God's statement that he will "make men more rare than gold" appears to imply that most humans will be killed in the event predicted by Isaiah 13.

The next example is considered by some to possibly be a separate author. Isaiah 24-27 is sometimes distinguished as 'Apocalypse Isaiah'.

It opens with the announcement that the world will be destroyed:

An interesting thing about Isaiah 24 is that after this destructive event is prophesied, the author shifts from prophetic tense to present tense. He proceeds to explain that the Earth is currently experiencing a cataclysmic event throughout. One notable phrase is, which reads as follows:

So the event predicted in the first three verses had apparently arrived. According to Isaiah 24, the world ended a long time ago.

Isaiah 24:6 specifically states that most humans have perished.

Another strikingly obvious instance of apocalyptic prophecy in Isaiah is. Which reads as follows:

Here we again see the mythological motif of aberrant cosmic phenomena. God is enraged against all the nations for some unnamed reason, and is about to manifest some divine retribution.

Needless to say, absolutely none of these ludicrous ravings actually came true.

Jeremiah's Apocalypse
Jeremiah, another major Old Testament prophet, also took his shot at writing an apocalyptic prophecy.

tells us that the "cup of God's wrath" will be handed to all the nations of the Earth, and those slain by The Lord on that day will extend from one end of the Earth to the other.

Jeremiah is describing a divine mass execution that will apparently be worldwide in scale. We would like biblical literalists to explain to us when and how they believe this happened.

Haggai's Apocalypse
The book of the Prophet Haggai is a very brief writing. Haggai is one of the minor prophets that most people who read the Bible tend not to bother looking at. However, using absurdly vague language, Haggai manages to prophecy an imminent worldwide cataclysm. states the following:

This cataclysmic event is further explained here in :

The language is annoyingly vague, what does Haggai mean by "Shake the heavens and the earth, overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and destroy the strength of the kingdoms?" We can't exactly be sure, but it's still quite obviously a major worldwide event. The fact that this prophecy culminates with Zerub'babel's exaltation as God's 'signet ring' (whatever that means, more vague language) implies that this apocalyptic event would occur during the reign of King Zerubabel. However, if a worldwide catastrophic cataclysm really did occur around 2500 years ago, we would expect be slightly more aware of it. There is no historical event that can be correlated to Haggai's prophecy.

Zephaniah's Apocalypse
Another minor prophet, Zephaniah, is distinct since he boldly asserts that the absolute destruction of the world is imminent.

literally says the following:

What makes this unique from other apocalyptic literature, is that God actually plans to kill every human, as explains:

God explains that his plan to murder everyone will come to fruition very soon, in.

Fortunately, the imminent mass extinction event prophesied by Zephaniah never came.

Joel's Apocalypse
Joel is another minor prophet. He predicts an apocalyptic event which doesn't seem as destructive or cataclysmic as what is described in Zephaniah, yet it's still dramatic enough to include here.

says the following:

Here we again find the mythological motif of cosmic aberrations. In Joel's case, he is describing the sun darkening and the moon becoming blood. After those events occur, God will bring all the nations of the earth to the Valley of Jehoshaphat and "judge" them there.

The imminence of the Second Coming
Christians today tend to believe that Jesus didn't put an expiration date on the Second Coming, and that he simply said he was coming back 'very soon' (which is itself a questionable claim considering how much time has elapsed since he supposedly said that). Eschatological hopes are usually gradually extinguished, but the 'I am coming back very soon' doctrine doesn't seem to bother Christians for some reason.

However, statements like this can be found throughout the Gospels. In, Jesus says the following:

Hmm, so the Second Coming was supposed to happen around the 1st century while some of Jesus' listeners were still alive. That would make Jesus about 2000 years late and counting. Similar promises are made in, , and elsewhere. Apologists are forced to argue that 'the Son of Man coming in his kingdom' isn't actually talking about the Second Coming, and is referring to something else. But the preceding phrases like "Then he will reward each person for what they have done" make it quite clear that he is in fact talking about the Second Coming.

Another way in which the imminence of the Second Coming is illustrated is in Matthew 24. This chapter is often titled "The Signs of the End". Jesus explains the signs that will foreshadow the Second Coming, then describes the Second Coming, and then he makes a rather peculiar prediction about that event.

reads as follows:

That generation passed away a long time ago and none of those events took place. The same prediction is made in and. Apologists will argue Jesus is referring to a non-dead generation that was alive 2000 years ago but is somehow also alive today. They will likely say that when Jesus used the word generation, he didn't literally mean that generation. (You'd then have to wonder why he bothered saying it at all if he didn't really mean it.) This isn't as certain of a mistake as the other example, but it still requires an elaborate series of mental gymnastics to resolve.

Post-event prophecies
Prediction is writing about something that will occur in the future.

Postdiction is writing about something that has already happened, also known as "history". It is easy to predict what has already happened.

Cyrus will conquer Babylon
100prophecies.org claims that before 681 BCE the prophet Isaiah predicted Persia would defeat Babylon and furthermore that this prophecy was fulfilled in 539 BCE. Bible inerrantists would have us believe that Isaiah prophesied specifically that Cyrus would be Babylon's conqueror and would enter through gates, and that he made this prediction over 140 years before the event. They cite (NIV) as predicting that "Babylon's gates would open for Cyrus":

This claim is ridiculous, on two grounds.

First, Isaiah's reference to gates, although the actual means Cyrus used to gain entry to the city of Babylon, was nonetheless meant figuratively. This is evidenced by noting the continued use of obviously figurative language in the next verse (NIV):

Furthermore, Babylon is not actually mentioned anywhere in the chapter.

Second, in reality, this section of Isaiah was likely written approximately 537 BCE. Even if the "prediction" was not made after the event, its occurrence was hardly impossible to foresee and the name of Cyrus would have been well known. Imagine someone in the future who digs up a document from late 2002 which "prophesies" the Iraq War and the defeat and death of Saddam Hussein - how impressed should our future reader be of the author's oracular powers?

Christian apologist John Oakes flatly rejects this prophecy as a failure:

Non-prophecies
I would submit to you that it is a part of our standard hermaneutic that the new covenant scriptures define how the old covenant scriptures are fulfilled in them. This came up in cross-examination, let me give you an example. Sometime next year, Lord willing, I will be debating one of the leading Islamic apologists in the English-speaking world, and one of the topics that we are going to be debating is whether Mohammad is prophesied in the Bible. And interestingly enough, this man said, 'I'll debate you on that, however, first, you must debate me on whether Jesus is prophesied in the Old Testament. Now isn't that interesting? Now, I have a feeling that Brother Shisko [his debate opponent] and I would make almost identical presentations concerning the Messianic prophesies. But we would do so by allowing the new covenant scriptures to fulfill--to determine how the old covenant scriptures are fulfilled. Have you ever noticed how you can go to many of the Messianic Psalms, and there are sections of those Messianic Psalms that were not fulfilled in the life of Christ? They had to do with David. And so if we go from--if we go backwards, if we go from the Psalm and say 'this is how it must be fulfilled,' we would have a hard time even proving the Messiahship of Jesus.

This section is for alleged prophecies alluded to that were never made or that were not intended to be prophetic.

The messiah will be born to a virgin
Matthew alleges that Jesus' birth fulfilled a prophecy by being born to a virgin. This is (1) very, very unlikely and (2) not actually prophesied.

The messiah will be born in Bethlehem
Matthew alleges that Jesus' having been born in Bethlehem fulfills a prophecy. In (NIV) King Herod is concerned about the birth of the "King of the Jews."

While the quote from the prophet, Micah, appears to predict Jesus will come from the city of Bethlehem, he was not quoted precisely. (NIV):

Several translations make it clear that Micah was referring to a clan named Bethlehem Ephrathah, not a city.

Alternately, (KJV) states:

This translation is particularly troubling for Matthew. There are not thousands of towns in Israel, much less the subsection of Judah, today. It makes more sense that thousands refers to the people of Judah, rather than the towns of Judah.

There is also evidence that Bethlehem Ephrathah refers to the descendants of Ephratah. states:

The Septuagint (which Matthew usually uses, but apparently did not here) is even more explicit. (Brenton Translation):

The word house was often used in Hebrew to signify a family or a clan as in "the house of Judah" or "the house of David." It was never used in the sense of "land" as Matthew applied it here.

Thus, the "Bethlehem" spoken of in Micah 5:2 was the "Bethlehem [of the house of] Ephratah" spoken of in Chronicles above.

The Micah quote has also been taken out of context, originally showing no indication of being a messianic prophecy, instead referring to a military leader. :

Micah stated this in the context of the "many nations [that] have gathered against you [Judah]", especially the Assyrians. It makes sense to assume that Micah, rather than predicting a distant Messiah, was promoting a leader to help Judah against the contemporary Assyrian threat. There is serious doubt that Micah intended his statement to be a Messianic prophecy.

Finally, there is no evidence outside of Matthew and Luke that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem. To trust Matthew and Luke on Jesus' prophetic fulfillment is circular, since the point of prophecy is to prove that the Bible is trustworthy. There are no historical documents supporting a Jesus born in Bethlehem. Besides, even Matthew and Luke do not agree on the details. Luke has Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem from Nazareth for the dubious reason of partaking in a census in 6 CE, while Matthew has them starting in Bethlehem and escaping to Nazareth by way of Egypt at least ten years earlier.

On the other hand, John does not mention Bethlehem at all, and insists Jesus is from Nazareth in Galilee.

Jesus will be a Nazarene
In the Bible, Jesus is born in Bethlehem but grows up in Nazareth. Matthew credits the Nazareth upbringing as a fullfilment of prophecy:

Matt. 2:23 And [Mary, Joseph, and Jesus] came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.

Unlike most of the other "prophecies" in this category, we can't even tell which Old Testament passage, if any, Matthew is twisting to fit the story; no OT prophecy seems relevant. It's almost as if he's just flat-out declaring that this was prophecied and hoping no one calls his bluff. Of course, even this one isn't too big a stone for apologists to swallow. As web page dedicated to this particular problem puts it: "First, it is necessary to point out that a genuine textual problem only exists if one has exhausted every possibility of interpretation, and there simply is no reasonable explanation that resolves the difficulty."

The most popular Christian explanation is that "Nazarene" is a figurative expression for anyone who is despised or rejected, as Jesus is at various points in the New Testament and the Messiah at various points in the old. Not only is that a heck of a cop-out, but if it's Matthew's intention, then it makes little sense for him to say that Jesus moving to a literal Nazareth is a fulfillment of the "figurative Nazarene" prophecy. A likelier possibility, and one which makes the author of Matthew look less dishonest and/or stupid, is that "the prophets" doesn't mean the Old Testament authors, but some other person or group of people, or an oral tradition. Of course, in that instance the case for a "fulfilled prophecy" is left empty-handed (and it's a catch-all excuse for similar failures).

One potential concept for the misaligned statement was referring to various prophesies that Jesus would be a Branch of David, Jeremiah 33:15 "In those days and at that time, I will raise up a righteous branch from David’s line, who will do what is just and right in the land." The Hebrew term for branch is ne·tser and the Book of Numbers, chapter 6, denotes becoming a Nazirite to consecrate yourself to God. This is supported by the note that no pre-Christian texts denote a town of Nazareth at all, and the etymology in the name originates from that Hebrew word ne·tser. But this doesn't really explain why the 'He shall be a Nazarene prophecy' was fulfilled by Jesus moving to a literal town called Nazareth.

Jeremiah predicted Herod's massacre
claims that Herod's massacre of the infants was prophesied by Jeremiah. The verse reads as follows:

Yet when we read the verse cited in its context, a few problems emerge.

It is transparently obvious that Jeremiah 31:15-17 is talking about the Babylonian captivity. Rachel's children are quite clearly not dead.

Jesus will be called out of Egypt
cites Jesus' return from Egypt as being the fulfillment of a prophecy:

The source is :

Note that the quote as it appears in Matthew is incomplete. The first part, the reference to Israel, is missing. In fact, the passage in Hosea is not a prophecy of Jesus leaving Egypt but rather a reference to the exodus of the Israelites.

In defense of the claim that Matthew gave an incomplete quote to hide the fact that Hosea was not intended as a prophecy, biblical inerrancy site AboutBibleProphecy.com notes, "Matthew wasn't trying to hide anything, he was trying to show that the life of Jesus had many parallels with the history of the Jewish people." It should be noted, however, that per Matthew's own words he in fact intended to show that the words of "the prophet" were "fulfilled" and not to show a parallel.

It should also be noted that among the gospel accounts the journey of Jesus to Egypt is unique in Matthew.

Jesus will be pierced
(KJV) claims that Jesus being pierced in the course of his execution fulfills a prophecy:

The source of this prophecy is (KJV):

The verse in John is an inaccurate quote, leaving out the word "me." This is problematic for assuming the verse refers to Jesus: The "me" is the one who is pierced, while the "him" is the one who is mourned for. Jesus cannot be both and fulfill the prophecy.

Furthermore, the context of Zechariah 12 is of an invading army, not a Messianic prophecy of Jesus.

The suffering servant

 * Main article: Fourth Servant Song

The Fourth Servant Song, -53:12, is frequently referred to in the New Testament as being the source of prophecies allegedly fulfilled therein. Although many Christian scholars maintain the author had foreshadowed Jesus' crucifixion, other (especially Jewish) scholars maintain that he had meant instead to refer to the mistreatment of the nation of Israel.

Jeremiah prophesied Judas' silver
Before Judas commits suicide in Matthew, he renounces the money he got for betraying Jesus. It is stated that the chief priests used that money to buy a field, and this act somehow fulfilled a prophecy made by Jeremiah.

explains this:

The problem is that no such verse exists anywhere in the Book of Jeremiah.

The opening of Mark
The Gospel of Mark opens with an alleged prophecy fulfilment in the following four verses :

Only part of the passage used here is actually found in the Book of Isaiah. Mark 1:3 appears to be quoting :

This verse appears to be what Mark 1:3 is using, and we can see that a fundamental aspect of the text has been altered. Mark says "A voice crying in the wilderness", and proceeds to say that this fulfils John the Baptist's preaching in the wilderness. Yet Isaiah 40:3 clearly says "A voice cries: In the wilderness--". In Isaiah 40:3, a voice is crying about the wilderness, it's not a voice crying in the wilderness. One could argue that this appears to fit in other translations, and that argument could work. However, the entire context of Isaiah 40 (and all of Isaiah 40-55) is the divine emancipation of the Israelites out of the Babylonian captivity. There is no textual evidence that it is prophesying anything else.

That brings us to the second aspect of this supposed prophecy fulfilment, Mark 1:2. The verse used here is not actually in Isaiah. Some footnotes say that Mark 1:2 is quoting, which says the following:

When we examine this in the context of Malachi 3 (and the entirety of the Book of Malachi), we see that the author of Mark left out the rest of the passage in Malachi concerning this "messenger", and that this isn't a messianic prophecy at all. The Book of Malachi is essentially just 4 chapters of God complaining about how the Israelites aren't sacrificing to him properly. Let us examine the passage referenced in Mark 1:2 in its original context. reads as follows:

It is transparently obvious that Malachi 3:1-4 is talking about someone who will guide the Israelites back to properly practicing Levitical law, something which Jesus definitely didn't do.

So that concludes our analysis of Mark 1:1-4. The author took two passages from different books, slapped them together, changed the text of one to fit their context, and declared them to be a continuous passage from one book.

The great disappointment
In, it claims that:

William Miller, a Baptist preacher, predicted and preached the imminent return of Jesus Christ to the earth. He first assumed that the cleansing of the sanctuary represented purification of the Earth by fire at Christ's Second Coming. Then, using an interpretive principle known as the "day-year principle", Miller, along with others, interpreted a prophetic day to read not as a 24-hour period, but rather as a calendar year. Miller stated: "My principles in brief, are, that Jesus Christ will come again to this earth, cleanse, purify, and take possession of the same, with all the saints, sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844." Nothing happened, aside from a lot of confused Christians suddenly noticing and starting up Seventh-day Adventism.

Vague prophecies
A prophecy should be obvious as predicting an event before the occurrence of the event. If the prophecy is not obvious as having predicted the event even after the occurrence of the event, then it suffers from vagueness.

Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream
In the prophet is asked to interpret the king's dream. The vision is described as follows: You looked, O king, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. (NIV) Daniel explains that the gold head of the statue apparently represents the Babylonian Empire and the remaining parts represent kingdoms that would follow.

The 100prophecies.org website claims Daniel herein predicted the rise of three specific historic kingdoms. They claim the silver chest and arms predicted the Medo-Persian Empire, which conquered the Babylonian Empire. They offer as evidence the observation that the two arms represent the Medes and the Persians.

The proper name for the Medo-Persian Empire is the which formed when Persia conquered Media and other nations. With this understanding it becomes unclear why the chest and arms should suggest this empire more than any other. Daniel describes this second kingdom as being "inferior" to the first in. It is not stated why this contextual observation or that this part of the statue is made of silver should suggest the Achaemenid Empire.

The website claims the brass belly and thighs predict the Grecian Empire, which conquered the Medo-Persian Empire. They offer as evidence the observation that the empire started out united under Alexander the Great but was divided up after his death.

The proper name for the Grecian Empire is, a kingdom existing well before Persia defeated Babylon, and one which the Greeks of the various considered at best as semi-Greek or half barbarous. Macedonia grew to briefly take over territories previously controlled by the Persian Empire under Alexander the Great before fracturing as established their own successor states in various parts of the former empire. Ultimately, these states were absorbed by the Roman Empire, although remained largely unchanged until well after the birth of Christianity. With this understanding it becomes unclear why the concepts of unification and division should suggest Macedonia more than any other empire that has risen and fallen or why the observation that this part of the statue is made of bronze should suggest this empire. In verse 39 Daniel predicts this third kingdom "will rule over the whole earth."

The website claims the iron legs and feet partly of iron and partly clay predict the Roman Empire, which conquered the Grecian Empire. No evidence is presented to support this claim.

In Daniel predicts that the fourth kingdom "will crush and break all the others." No attempt is made to show that the Roman Empire defeated the Babylonian or Achaemenid empires. Daniel further predicts that the fourth kingdom "will be a divided kingdom" and "will be partly strong and partly brittle"  and its people "will be a mixture and will not be united." It is not stated why either these contextual observations or that this part of the statue is made of iron and clay should suggest the Roman Empire.

It is unclear why the alleged prophecy should suggest the mentioned empires more so than any other kingdoms. Pharaonic Egypt, Phoenicia, Edom, Media, and Ptolemaic Egypt and the various Persian empires, for example, had great influence on the region of ancient Israel as well and all, in addition to many subsequent empires, would seem to as adequately meet the criteria of the Bible verses. In fact some of these kingdoms are included in several alternate interpretations that have been proposed by various Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and Jehovah's Witness camps as to Daniel might have been predicting. If this passage is unambiguously predicting the rise of future kingdoms why can the precise identity of the kingdoms not be determined? (At least after the occurrences, such a retrospective identification ought to be easy)

Daniel's Seventy Weeks Prophecy
Dispensationalists claim the seventy weeks prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 predicts the crucifixion of Jesus and the Antichrist, in which the Antichrist will enter a third temple and commit a blasphemous act. This is false. According to Daniel 12, the Day of Judgement was supposed to happen 3 and a half years after Antiochus' persecution of the Jews in the 2nd Century BCE. This would make Daniel a false prophet but most Christians still insist that it's describing a future Great Tribulation.

Instead of predicting Jesus, most contemporary scholars think The Messiah (or Prince Messiah) in verse 26 is Onias the third, a pious religious leader who opposed the Hellenization of the Jews and was murdered. Jews considered religious leaders and rabbis to be "annointed ones".

The coming prince that will destroy Jerusalem and commit the Abomination of Desolation is describing Antiochus Epiphanes' reign of terror against the Jews during the Maccabean Revolt, not the Antichrist. Historical data shows that Antiochus committed the "abomination that causes desolation" when he sacrificed a pig to a statue of Zeus in the 2nd temple and forced the Jews to end their daily sacrifices. This occurred 3 and a half years after he established a covenant with the Jewish people and subsequently annulled it. The Books of Maccabees describes Antiochus Epiphanes in greater detail and goes so far as to describe Antiochus in the same manner as the coming prince in the seventy weeks prophecy. The entire chapter of Daniel 11 is obviously describing Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus considered himself divine and God incarnate.

All references to the Abomination of Desolation in the New Testament are basically rehashes of the Book of Daniel. Paul wrote an epistle around 50 CE that said the "man of lawlessness" would enter the second temple and declare himself divine. However, since the temple was destroyed in 70 CE and none of Paul's prediction came true as Paul said it would, Christians have reinterpreted the prophecy to mean that the Antichrist would enter a revived 3rd temple and declare himself divine. This proves that Paul was oblivious about the temple's imminent destruction and was probably a false prophet.