From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: Re: Perfect Prophets?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:52:52 GMT
Summary: Barry's exception to Deut 18:20 rule has no control
Keywords: unscientific, false prophecies, misuse of rhetoric


I posted a moderately sized essay a few days ago which examined the
Deut 18:20 passage concerning the testing of a false prophet. The
essay included passages from the Bible demonstrating how three Biblical
prophets: Jonah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel would fail the Deut 18:20 rule.

In summary: Jonah failed because his prophecy did state alternative
conditions, but God changed his mind and did not carry through with
his original intention. Jonah, knowing his prophecy had failed asked
God to "take his life."

Isaiah predicted that Babylon would be sacked by the Medes, however
Babylon was never sacked by the Medes or by Alexander the Great or
by anyone else on the other side of the Christian era.

Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would take the island city of
Tyre and destroy its economy. Details over why the prophecy was directed
against Insular Tyre were presented. In addition, there is no question
whether Tyre's economy was suppose to be destroyed. In both cases,
Ezekiel's prophecy failed.

This essay also included passages from Jeremiah showing that the Lord
could tell his prophet one thing and then later change his mind. This
argument was used during the trial of Jeremiah as a false prophet. And
a specific incident was cited during Jeremiah's trial of a prophet whose
prophecy had failed, but who had still been considered a true prophet.

All of this was edited out by Barry who then stated his preference for
simplicity and that is was better to "let all prophets be liars" then
in trying to spend one's life attempting to determine which prophets are
true ones and which ones are false. If I happen to disagree with his
position, it is because the Biblical record indicates that the Deut
18:20 test was not used in the manner suggested by Barry.

To this Barry adds that perhaps if an OT prophet seems to have made a
false prophecy, then it is probably because something got left out (by
mistake).  Yes that is a possibility, but the same can be said of all
historical persons (including Joseph Smith) up through the 20th Century.
There isn't a single historian that I know of that believes that all
important revelant documents for any modern historical person have been
collected, examined, or that even the ones currently identified are
well understood. Even more disturbing, this argument introduces an
uncontrolled exception to the Deut 18:20 rule. For example:

   If my prophet appears to break the rule,
     then it is because I claim that not all relevant material is available,

   BUT if your prophet appears to break the rule,
     then he's definitely false because I will claim that all relevant
     material is available.

If Barry wishes to pick and choose among the Biblical account what he feels
so inclined to believe without any controls on his personal prejudices,
then he is free to do so. If I decline to travel the same road, it is only
because I see the lack of restraint.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc