Yes, Historic and Prophetic Claims Aren’t the Same Thing. However, Both First Require Skepticism Followed by Good Evidence Before They’re Accepted
Kevin R. Henke
December 1, 2022
In Henke (2022bv), I said the following about the gullibility of the followers of false prophet Kenneth Copeland:
“Well, after demonstrably false prophet Kenneth Copeland incorrectly “predicted” in a March 13, 2020 video on YouTube (also see this article here) that Covid would immediately disappear, months later thousands of people still attended his convention.”
Lundahl (2022z) then gave the following reply:
“The thing is, they arguably did that by forgetting that prophecy and concentrating on the next one.
My main analysis was however, a historic claim is different from a prophetic claim.”
Selective memory is certainly a big problem in these religions. People tend to remember any fortuitous successes and forget or ignore any failures of the popular “prophets” and scriptures. This is not new.
Yes, a historic claim is very different than a prophetic claim. However, the first reaction to both of them should be skepticism (Henke 2022dv). They are then evaluated for accuracy based on the evidence. A historical claim requires forensic, archeological or other external evidence. In contrast, there’s currently no valid evidence that prophecy has ever occurred. Like any supernatural claim, prophecy would have to be tested under strictly controlled conditions (Henke 2022b). Biblical “prophecies” and vague and non-specific “prophecies” that can be interpreted in many different ways aren’t good enough. A test for a “prophet” might be for him/her to give the exact times and dates, and epicenter locations in longitude and latitude for the next five magnitude 6.5 or higher earthquakes.
Conservative Christians like to claim that Jesus “fulfilled” many Old Testament prophecies (e.g., McDowell 1999, pp. 164-202). However, these are either cases of the Gospel and other authors taking Old Testament verses out of context (e.g., Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1), using verses that are vague enough to fit almost any situation (e.g., Genesis 3:15) or rewriting Jesus’ biography to fit the prophecy. For example, both the contradictory Nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem to “fulfill” the prophecy in Micah 5:2. However, John 7:40-43 indicates that there was a controversy over where Jesus was born. Not everyone was convinced that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. After presenting the controversy, the author of the Gospel of John immediately drops the issue without resolving it. Apparently, he too was uncertain about where Jesus was born.
Reference:
McDowell, J. 1999. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, TN, USA, 760pp.