2014 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive / $36,687.89 of $40,000.00
Support Us! By providing information which is nearly impossible to find elsewhere, the Secular Web has sought to level the playing field by offering arguments and evidence challenging supernatural beliefs. In an ocean of religious confusion, help us maintain a drop of sanity!
91.72%
 

The Uniqueness of the Bible (1997)

Farrell Till

 


What Does Uniqueness Prove? | Continuity | Circulation, Translation, and Survival | Teachings | Influence | Related Resources


In ETDAV, McDowell begins his defense of the Bible with the claim that it is unique. He parades before us an array of "scholars" to testify to various features of the Bible that qualify it to be considered "different from all others" [books], as if anyone would seriously try to deny that the Bible is unique, i.e., different from all others. At the very beginning of my analysis of this chapter of ETDAV, I will concede that the Bible is undeniably unique. Certainly, there is no other book like it, but this fact, as we will see, becomes more of an embarrassment to the Bible than proof of its divine origin.

What Does Uniqueness Prove?

The answer to this question is that it doesn't prove anything. If one wanted to quibble, he could argue that all books are unique in that each is different from all others, but nothing is ever gained by quibbling, so let's cut to the heart of what McDowell really means when he speaks of the "uniqueness" of the Bible. He means that its storyline, its survival, its circulation, its influence, etc. aren't just slightly but radically different from all other books. McDowell develops points like these at length (aided by the testimony of carefully selected "scholars" who, of course, have nothing but words of praise for the Bible) only to arrive at a rather anti-climatic conclusion. "The above does not prove the Bible is the Word of God," he states at the end of this chapter, "but to me it proves that it is unique (different from all others; having no like or equal)." So all of the "evidence that demands a verdict" on this particular point leads McDowell to the conclusion that none of the evidence about the uniqueness of the Bible proves that it is the word of God, but the uniqueness of the Bible certainly proves that it is unique. His circular conclusion was hardly worth the effort he put into reaching it.

Although I certainly don't consider Josh McDowell a profound biblical scholar, I will credit him with more intelligence than his conclusion to this chapter implies. When he said this, he probably understood principles of persuasion enough to know that nothing that he had said in this entire chapter in any way proved the divine origin of the Bible, but he also understood human nature sufficiently to know that uncritical readers would nevertheless be impressed with his parade of "scholars" testifying to the uniqueness of the Bible. We might equate his strategy here to that of a trial lawyer who makes a statement in court that he knows the judge will not allow the jury to consider, but the lawyer also knows that no matter how much the judge tells the members of the jury that the statement is inadmissible as evidence, they will still take it into consideration. So what McDowell very likely wanted his readers to do was to read his "evidence that demands a verdict" with a preconceived notion that the alleged uniqueness of the Bible has established its divine origin before any other type of evidence has even been considered.

Examination in detail of all of the "scholarly" testimony to the Bible's uniqueness that McDowell presented in this chapter would require the writing of an entire volume, so I will have to confine myself to general rebuttals of what he apparently hoped to imply by his major examples of uniqueness. Then we will look at some unique characteristics of the Bible that McDowell conveniently left out of his array of "evidence that demands a verdict."

THE BIBLE: Unique in Its Continuity

In this section of the chapter, McDowell makes a hackneyed appeal that has been elevated almost to the status of creed in many fundamentalist denominations. The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years (so the appeal goes) by 40 different writers, living in different places and even on different continents, writing in different languages, working in different occupations, etc., etc., etc., yet despite all of this diversity, the Bible presents a unified theme from beginning to end. The implication, of course, is that such marvelous continuity could not have been achieved without divine guidance.

The central point of McDowell's claim is simply not true. Without even attacking the overstated tradition of the circumstances under which the Bible was written, one can easily show that the Bible is not unified in its theme. In 1C.9, McDowell stated that the Bible "includes hundreds of controversial subjects" and then went on to explain that "(a) controversial subject is one which would create opposing opinions when mentioned or discussed." McDowell's claim is that such opposing opinions on controversial issues don't exist in the Bible. "Biblical authors spoke on hundreds of controversial subjects," he claims, "with harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revelation."

I could cite dozens of examples that dispute McDowell's claim that the Bible is completely unified in its theme, but space constraints must limit me to just a few examples of disharmony and discontinuity in the Bible. First, there is the obvious fact that disagreement among prophets in biblical times did exist. Jeremiah, in particular, complained about prophets that didn't agree with him on contemporary issues:

"Concerning the prophets: My heart is crushed within me, all my bones shake; I have become like a drunkard, like one overcome by wine, because of Yahweh and because of his holy words. For the land is full of adulterers; because of the curse the land mourns, and the pastures of the wilderness are dried up. Their course has been evil, and their might is not right. Both prophet and priest are ungodly; even in my house I have found their wickedness, says Yahweh. Therefore their way shall be to them like slippery paths in the darkness, into which they shall be driven and fall; for I will bring disaster upon them in the year of their punishment, says Yahweh. In the prophets of Samaria I saw a disgusting thing: they prophesied by Baal and led my people Israel astray. But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a more shocking thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from wickedness; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomorrah. Therefore thus says Yahweh of hosts concerning the prophets: 'I am going to make them eat wormwood, and give them poisoned water to drink; for from the prophets of Jerusalem ungodliness has spread throughout the land.' Thus says Yahweh of hosts: Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you; they are deluding you. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of Yahweh. They keep saying to those who despise the word of Yahweh, 'It shall be well with you'; and to all who stubbornly follow their own stubborn hearts, they say, 'No calamity shall come upon you.' For who has stood in the council of Yahweh so as to see and to hear his word? Who has given heed to his word so as to proclaim it? Look, the storm of Yahweh! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will burst upon the head of the wicked. The anger of Yahweh will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intents of his mind. In the latter days you will understand it clearly. I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. Am I a God near by, says Yahweh, and not a God far off? Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them? says Yahweh. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says Yahweh. I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying, 'I have dreamed, I have dreamed!' How long? Will the hearts of the prophets ever turn back--those who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart? They plan to make my people forget my name by their dreams that they tell one another, just as their ancestors forgot my name for Baal. Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let the one who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? says Yahweh. Is not my word like fire, says Yahweh, and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces? See, therefore, I am against the prophets, says Yahweh, who steal my words from one another. See, I am against the prophets, says Yahweh, who use their own tongues and say, 'Says Yahweh.' See, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, says Yahweh, and who tell them, and who lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or appoint them; so they do not profit this people at all, says Yahweh. When this people, or a prophet, or a priest asks you, 'What is the burden of Yahweh?' you shall say to them, 'You are the burden, and I will cast you off, says Yahweh.' And as for the prophet, priest, or the people who say, 'The burden of Yahweh,' I will punish them and their households. Thus shall you say to one another, among yourselves, 'What has Yahweh answered?' or "What has Yahweh spoken?' But 'the burden of Yahweh' you shall mention no more, for the burden is everyone's own word, and so you pervert the words of the living God, Yahweh of hosts, our God. Thus you shall ask the prophet, 'What has Yahweh answered you?' or 'What has Yahweh spoken?' But if you say, 'the burden of Yahweh,' thus says Yahweh: Because you have said these words, 'the burden of Yahweh,' when I sent to you, saying, You shall not say, 'the burden of Yahweh,' therefore, I will surely lift you up and cast you away from my presence, you and the city that I gave to you and your ancestors. And I will bring upon you everlasting disgrace and perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten" (23:9-40, NRSV with Yahweh substituted for "the LORD").

This quotation was long, but it was necessary to establish that even the Bible itself acknowledges that serious disagreements and wranglings among prophets were common in biblical times. If there is any truth at all to Jeremiah's narration of contemporary events, Judah in his day was filled with prophets uttering lies. This complaint was recurrent in his book (27:9-10; 29:8-9), and in chapters 28 and 29:21-32, he even singled out individuals by name and accused them of speaking false prophecies. Inerrantists like McDowell, of course, will argue that these others were false prophets, and so what they prophesied cannot be compared to what was spoken and written by "true" prophets of Yahweh. This, however, would be a naively simplistic view that ignores the Bible's own allusions to the prevalence of prophets in biblical times. Prophecy was a sort of national institution, and there were even schools maintained to train them, where the students were known as "sons of the prophets" (2 Kings 2:3; 4:1; 9:1). Prophets were so common that kings could summon them by the hundreds to give them advice in times of national emergency, and 1 Kings 22:1-28 relates an incident involving rival opinion between 400 prophets, whose counsel king Ahab had asked for prior to an attack on Ramoth-gilead, and Micaiah, a prophet whom Ahab despised for always "speaking evil" against him.

In such a scenario as this, it would be naive to think that no differences of opinion found their way into the biblical text. Just as winners always write the histories of nations, we can be certain that the same principle prevailed when the "inspired" books were arbitrarily selected by those whose theological views had triumphed, so this alone would account for whatever degree of unity there may be in the biblical canon. The process, however, was far from successful, because some dissenting views managed to survive the cutting. In 2 Kings 9-10, for example, the story of Jehu's massacre of the royal family of Israel at Jezreel is related with the obvious approval of whoever wrote the account. At the end of this account, the writer declared Yahweh's approval of Jehu's actions: "Yahweh said to Jehu, 'Because you have done well in carrying out what I consider right, and in accordance with all that was in my heart have dealt with the house of Ahab, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel'" (10:30). The following chapters relate the reigns of Jehu's sons, who were described as kings who "did evil in the sight of Yahweh"; nevertheless, the writer claimed that Yahweh allowed them to reign to the fourth generation in order to fulfill his promise to Jehu. When Zechariah, the fourth-generation descendant of Jehu was assassinated in Samaria after a reign of only six months, the writer said in summarizing the end of the dynasty that began with Jehu, "Shallum son of Jabesh conspired against him [Zechariah], and struck him down in public and killed him, and reigned in place of him. Now the rest of the deeds of Zechariah are written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel. This was the promise of Yahweh that he gave to Jehu, 'Your sons shall sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.' And so it happened" (2 Kings 15:1-12).

Whoever wrote the record of Jehu's and his descendants' reigns obviously thought that Jehu had pleased Yahweh in the massacre of the royal family of Israel in order to usurp the throne. Several years later, however, the prophet Hosea expressed an entirely different opinion of Jehu's actions. When his wife Gomer bore a son, Hosea claimed that Yahweh said to him, "Name him Jezreel; for in a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel" (Hosea 1:4). So the writer of 2 Kings heaped praise on Jehu for the Jezreel massacre of the royal family, but years later the prophet Hosea apparently said that Yahweh would avenge the blood of Jezreel and end the reign of the house of Jehu. This was apparently a retrojected prophecy to explain the assassination of Zechariah, the last Israelite king from the house of Jehu, but, regardless, in making the "prediction," Hosea put himself into obvious disagreement with the writer of 2 Kings, who thought that Jehu had done "all that was in [Yahweh's] heart" in the matter of Jezreel. It's hard to see perfect agreement and harmony in these two views of the same event.

I would have to write a book to discuss in detail even a fraction of all of the inconsistencies and conflicting theological views in the Bible, but just a few more briefly analyzed examples should be sufficient to show the absurdity of McDowell's claim that the Bible is perfectly harmonious. All through the Old Testament, there are stories of animal sacrifices that were both commanded and savored by Yahweh. The book of Leviticus, in fact, is for the most part a catalog of the various sacrifices that Yahweh required of his "chosen people." Here and there, however, we see indications that some biblical writers were in disagreement with this practice. The prophet Jeremiah even claimed that Yahweh said, "For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices" (Jer. 7:22). This statement stands in flagrant contradiction of what the last four books of the Pentateuch say in too many places even to list a fraction of them. Biblical inerrantists have leaned over backwards to try to explain this discrepancy by claiming that what Jeremiah really meant was that Yahweh wanted sincerity, honesty, and mercy to accompany the outward compliance to his commands concerning burnt offerings, but this is not what the text says. It plainly states that Yahweh did not speak to the Israelites or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. If Jeremiah had meant only that Yahweh wanted certain inward attitudes to accompany the offering of sacrifices, he could have said so. But he didn't.

If Jeremiah were the only biblical writer to express this opinion, we could perhaps be convinced that we have misunderstood this particular passage, but the same view was stated elsewhere. In Psalm 40:6, the writer speaking to Yahweh said, "Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required." Isaiah 11:10-11; Psalm 51:16; Jeremiah 6:20; and Amos 5:22 are other passages that show that some writers did not attach to sacrifices and offerings the supreme importance that was expressed in the book of Leviticus, which was undoubtedly written by an Aaronic priest intend on securing his livelihood, which would have been dependent on a continual parade of animals to be sacrificed at the temple altar.

The Bible also states that God shows no favoritism to people (Acts 10:34; Deut. 10:17; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6: Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1 Peter 1:17), but it also states that Yahweh selected one people "above all people on the face of the earth" to be his chosen people (Deut. 7:6). That hardly sounds like perfect unity and harmony.

The Bible claims in far too many places to try to list them all that God is a god of love, mercy, and kindness, but the Old Testament is filled with atrocities that Yahweh presumably commanded his chosen people to commit against non-Hebraic people. In Deuteronomy 7:3, he commanded the Israelites to invade Canaan and "utterly destroy" the people living there and "show no mercy to them." Joshua 10:40 and 11:11 state that the Israelites obeyed these orders by utterly destroying the people in the Canaanite cities and leaving nothing alive to breathe. Joshua 11:15, 20 declares that in doing these things, they were merely obeying what Yahweh had commanded Moses.

There are many more points of contradiction and inconsistency in the Bible, but even these few of the hundreds known to exist are sufficient to show that it can hardly be claimed that the Bible is "unique in its continuity."

THE BIBLE: Unique in Its Circulation, Translation, and Survival

In these three sections, McDowell seems to be arguing that numbers are somehow sufficient to establish truth. His claim is that the Bible has been circulated more, translated into more languages, and survived more attacks and criticisms longer than any other book; therefore, the Bible must be the word of God. Any beginning student of logic knows that truth is never decided by the number of those who adhere to a premise or claim, so there is nothing in any of these points that even comes close to establishing the truth of the Bible. Most of what McDowell said in these sections can be explained by the personal zeal and fanaticism of those who have believed the Bible through the centuries. Because of their commitment, these believers circulated the Bible, translated it, and protected it more than is usual for books. No one denies that zealous commitment has long been characteristic of Bible believers, but much more than this is required to establish the truth of any philosophical belief.

Being a Christian, McDowell would believe that although Judaism was originally instituted by Yahweh, it is no longer his true religion, but it has been the dedication of believers in this religion that has enabled it to survive through centuries of persecutions and tribulations that have far exceeded anything that Christians have had to endure. Furthermore, the circulation and survival of almost two thirds of the books in the Bible have been the result of dedicated adherents of Judaism, but McDowell would certainly not see this as any indication that Judaism is the religion that God now wants people to practice.

Much of what McDowell sees as biblical "uniqueness" is actually the result of political and social chance and circumstance. Christianity happened to take root and thrive in a geographical area that became more technologically advanced than other parts of the world, and it also enjoyed favored status from governmental institutions that suppressed opposition to it. In such circumstances, it is no wonder that the adherents of this religion would take advantage of the favored status to propagate their religion as extensively as possible. The growth and prosperity of any institution will always be the result of many factors, so it is naively simplistic of Christians to believe that their religion has thrived only because it is the "true" religion.

As for the Bible's survival of more criticisms and attacks than any other book, McDowell surely knows that public criticism of the Bible has only recently become possible where Christianity has for centuries been the dominant religion. Until the evolution of democratic ideas within the past two centuries--and even more recently than that in some places--public criticism of the Bible was punishable by imprisonment and, in some instances, even death. As recently as the 19th century, the Reverend Robert Taylor, a clergyman who became a critic of the Bible, was imprisoned in England for blasphemy as a result of publishing materials deemed offensive to Christianity. In such an environment, criticism of the Bible could not have been as widespread as McDowell apparently wants his readers to believe. Now that freedom of expression is granted by most democratic societies where Christianity is the dominant religion, there is no wonder that the Bible has become the target of widespread critical analysis. There is much in it that needs to be criticized.

While western societies have moved in a direction that permits freedom to criticize religion, this has not been so in other societies in which Christianity is just another minority religion. A critic of the Qur'an in an Islamic society takes a great risk and understands that he could be imprisoned or even executed for blasphemy. In such an environment attacks on the Qur'an will be very limited. If, however, freedom of religious expression should be adopted in Islamic societies, does McDowell doubt for a moment that Qur'anic criticisms will increase substantially?

As for the survival of the Bible, it isn't nearly as old as some holy books. Sections of the Zoroastrian Avesta are older than even the oldest parts of the Old Testament and so are many of the Hindu Vedas. To argue that the length of time a religion has survived is somehow an indicator of its truth, would make many religions "true religions." The history of religion is that they arise out of political and social circumstances of the times, thrive, decline, and die. There is no reason to believe that the same will not happen to Christianity and other ancient religions that have survived for centuries. Information is religion's greatest enemy, and in an age when information is just a few keyboard strokes away from anyone with a computer, this is going to pose a greater threat to Christianity than anything it has yet "survived."

THE BIBLE: Unique in its Teachings.

Of all the unique attributes that McDowell listed in the opening chapter of ETDAV, this one is probably second in absurdity to his perfect-continuity-and-harmony claim. A serious study of the history of religions will show that there is nothing unique about the teachings of the Bible. The first 11 chapters of Genesis were derived from Babylonian mythology, as all serious Bible scholars know. The Hebrews thought their god Yahweh could be appeased by incinerating animals in homage to him, but all of the societies around them believed that they too could appease their gods with animal sacrifices. The Hebrews built a temple to their god, but the nations around them also built temples to their gods. The Hebrews believed that their god rewarded them when they acted "righteously" and punished them when they "did that which was evil in Yahweh's sight," but contemporary records like the Moabite Stone and pagan temple inscriptions show that the nations around them believed the same. Not even the highly touted "monotheism" of the Hebrews was unique to them, because Egyptian records show that monotheism was introduced in Egypt by Pharaoh Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV) before it had established roots with the Hebrews.

The New Testament story of a virgin-born, miracle-working, dead-and-resurrected savior-god was not unique to Christianity. Such figures abounded in the pagan religions that preceded Christianity. Even the famous golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) had its counterpoint in the ethical teachings of other religions that required its adherents to believe that they should not do to others anything that they would not want done to them.

Much of this section of McDowell's "uniqueness" chapter was devoted to the subject of prophecy, which was about the worst topic that he could have chosen to try to make a case for the inspiration of the Bible. McDowell quoted Wilbur Smith, who said, "It [the Bible] is the only volume ever produced by man, or a group of men, in which is to be found a large body of prophecies relating to individual nations, to Israel, to all the peoples of the earth, to certain cities, and to the coming of One who was to be the Messiah." Whether no other religious book has presented any sizable body of prophecies is a matter I am not qualified to speak to, but I certainly do feel qualified to say that there is a twofold problem in what Smith has alleged here: (1) many of the prophecies that have been identified by New Testament writers and Christian apologists are prophecies only in the fertile imaginations of those who have claimed them to be prophecies, and (2) many of the prophecies that were undoubtedly intended by their writers to be understood as prophecies were never fulfilled.

The Old Testament prophecies against Tyre and Egypt are excellent examples of prophecy failure. Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would completely destroy Tyre and that it would never be rebuilt (26:7-14, 21; 27:36; 28:19). We know from historical records, however, that Nebuchadnezzar's invasion destroyed only Tyre's mainland villages, but his siege of the island stronghold was unsuccessful. Even Ezekiel himself acknowledged later in his book that his prophecy against Tyre had failed, and so Yahweh, as compensation for his unpaid labors at Tyre, was going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar (29:17-20).

That prophecy also failed miserably, as we will notice later, but first there is a matter of contradiction between Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre and one that Isaiah also made that we should look at first. As Ezekiel did, Isaiah uttered prophecies of destruction against the nations around Israel, and one of those prophecies was against Tyre. In 23:1, he said, "The burden of Tyre. Howl you ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Kittim it is revealed to them." The prophecy continues in typical fashion through the chapter, predicting waste and devastation, and beginning in verse 13, Isaiah clearly indicated that the destruction of Tyre would be only temporary, not permanent:

13 Look at the land of the Chaldeans! This is the people; it was not Assyria. They destined Tyre for wild animals. They erected their siege towers, they tore down her palaces, they made her a ruin.
14 Wail, O ships of Tarshish, for your fortress is destroyed.
15 From that day Tyre will be forgotten for SEVENTY YEARS, the lifetime of one king. At the end of SEVENTY YEARS, it will happen to Tyre as in the song about the prostitute:
16 Take a harp, go about the city, you forgotten prostitute! Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that you may be remembered.
17 AT THE END OF SEVENTY YEARS, Yahweh will visit Tyre, and she will return to her trade, and will prostitute herself with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth.
18 Her merchandise and her wages will be dedicated to Yahweh; her profits will not be stored or hoarded, but her merchandise will supply abundant food and fine clothing for those who live in the presence of Yahweh.

So we see that Isaiah had a very different opinion of Tyre's destiny. He said that it would be destroyed and forgotten 70 years but at the end of the 70 years, Yahweh would visit Tyre and it would be restored. Obviously, one could make a much better case for the fulfillment of this prophecy than for Ezekiel's. Nevertheless, Isaiah's prophecy against Tyre poses a serious problem for biblical apologists. They must explain why Isaiah predicted only a temporary destruction of Tyre, whereas Ezekiel predicted an everlasting destruction.

That brings us back to Ezekiel's promise that Yahweh would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as compensation for his failure to receive "wages" for his labors against Tyre. The prophecy against Egypt was very specific: Egypt would be laid completely desolate by Nebuchadnezzar and remain so for a period of 40 years.

Ezekiel 29:1 In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the twelfth day of the month, the word of Yahweh came to me:
2 Mortal, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against all Egypt;
3 speak, and say, Thus says the Lord Yahweh: I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon sprawling in the midst of its channels, saying, "My Nile is my own; I made it for myself."
4 I will put hooks in your jaws, and make the fish of your channels stick to your scales. I will draw you up from your channels, with all the fish of your channels sticking to your scales.
5 I will fling you into the wilderness, you and all the fish of your channels; you shall fall in the open field, and not be gathered and buried. To the animals of the earth and to the birds of the air I have given you as food.
6 Then all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know that I am Yahweh because you were a staff of reed to the house of Israel;
7 when they grasped you with the hand, you broke, and tore all their shoulders; and when they leaned on you, you broke, and made all their legs unsteady.
8 Therefore, thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will bring a sword upon you, and will cut off from you human being and animal;
9 and the land of Egypt shall be a desolation and a waste. Then they shall know that I am Yahweh. Because you said, "The Nile is mine, and I made it,"
10 therefore, I am against you, and against your channels, and I will make the land of Egypt an utter waste and desolation, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia.
11 No human foot shall pass through it, and no animal foot shall pass through it; it shall be uninhabited forty years.

Notice that the prophecy is very specific in stating that Egypt would be "an utter waste and desolation, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia." Ethiopia was on the southern border of Egypt, and Migdol was in the northern delta of the Nile. Hence, the prediction was that the country would be laid waste from its northern border to its southern border. The next verse says that no human foot or animal foot would pass through it for 40 years. There is no historical evidence of any kind to suggest that Egypt was ever desolate and uninhabited for the space of 40 years. Hence, the prophecy obviously failed.

Some inerrantists try to claim that this is a prophecy that will be fulfilled at a future date, but the prophecy was specifically addressed to Pharaoh king of Egypt, and the rule of the pharaohs ended long ago. Furthermore, as the verses below show, the prophecy made Nebuchadnezzar Yahweh's instrument of vengeance against Egypt, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead for 25 centuries.

Ezekiel 29: 12 I will make the land of Egypt a desolation among desolated countries; and her cities shall be a desolation forty years among cities that are laid waste. I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse them among the countries.
13 Further, thus says the Lord Yahweh: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered;
14 and I will restore the fortunes of Egypt, and bring them back to the land of Pathros, the land of their origin; and there they shall be a lowly kingdom. >15 It shall be the most lowly of the kingdoms, and never again exalt itself above the nations; and I will make them so small that they will never again rule over the nations.
16 The Egyptians shall never again be the reliance of the house of Israel; they will recall their iniquity, when they turned to them for aid. Then they shall know that I am the Lord Yahweh.
17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of Yahweh came to me:
18 Mortal, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had expended against it.
19 Therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will give the land of Egypt to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army.
20 I have given him the land of Egypt as his payment for which he labored, because they worked for me, says the Lord Yahweh.
21 On that day I will cause a horn to sprout up for the house of Israel, and I will open your lips among them. Then they shall know that I am Yahweh.

The tirade against Egypt continued on into the next chapter. An analysis of the chapter would show other specific details in the prophecy that were never fulfilled, but these are enough to establish that this is a clear example of a prophecy failure. Biblicists like Josh McDowell, who boast of perfect fulfillments of biblical prophecies, depend upon the ignorance of their readers to accept this claim without bothering to verify it, but it is a claim that is patently false.

THE BIBLE: Unique in Its Influence

McDowell has parroted that old Christian claim that if the Bible were destroyed, it could be reproduced in its entirety from biblical quotations that could be found in books on the shelves of city libraries. This may be true, but I seriously doubt if this is a claim that would be uniquely true. Does McDowell doubt that the Qur'an, if destroyed, could be reproduced from quotations found in books on the shelves of Islamic libraries? There are even Islamic zealots who have committed the entire Qur'an to memory and could be depended on as sources to reproduce it if it were ever destroyed. Essentially all that McDowell has focused on in this chapter are factors that result from the fanaticism of religious zealots, but much of what he has said would be true of other religions too. This just isn't as apparent to him as the "uniqueness" of the Bible is, because he lives in a society that is permeated with and dominated by Christian thinking.

In many other ways, however, I'm inclined to agree with McDowell's claim that the Bible has been unique in its influence. Of all the religious holy books that I personally know about, I know of none whose influence has been as negative and detrimental to society as the Bible has been. I know of no book that rivals it in the barbarity and cruelty of the god that it presents as the creator of the world and then has the audacity to call him supremely "good." In that respect the Bible is certainly unique, but this is a uniqueness that biblical apologists like McDowell never want to talk about. They prefer not to mention the unique doctrine of eternal punishment in hellfire for all who do not obey even the pettiest of the Bible god's decrees. They prefer not to mention the uniqueness of the persecutions, inquisitions, intolerance, and ignorance that the Bible has left in its historical wake. McDowell's smorgasbord approach of selecting only those features of the Bible that present it in a favorable light and even at times flagrantly falsifying facts such as his claim of perfect "continuity" in the Bible is unworthy to be called biblical "scholarship." About the only truth in this chapter was McDowell's admission that the alleged "uniqueness" of the Bible "does not prove [that it] is the Word of God."


Related Resources

"Biblical Errancy Subject Index in the Secular Web's Modern Library [ Index ]

Links to various essays which address the errancy of the Bible.

"The Jury Is Insane: Chapter 1: A Tekton Parody" (Off Site) by James Patrick Holding

A childish parody of a previous version of my essay largely devoted to insults and name-calling.

"Who's Minding the Till?" (Off Site) by James Patrick Holding

Holding's substantive rebuttal to this essay. (Strangely, Holding does not provide a link to this essay.)

Top