Jack the Bodiless

Perhaps it would be useful to have a reminder of which parts of the "prophecy" succeeded, and which parts failed. All of this has been covered before, but this should be a handy summary for newcomers (and at least one absent-minded non-newcomer):

PROPHECY HITS:

1. Nebby and his "army of many nations" did indeed attack Tyre (both the mainland and the island fortress).

2. ...Erm, that's it.


PROPHECY MISSES:

1. Nebby failed to conquer and destroy Tyre as prophesied. Of course, we all know the apologetic response: to break up the prophecy into two parts, "Nebby's attack" and "God's destruction". This creates TWO prophecy failures where there was previously one, as we shall see.

2. Nebby's attack failed to breach Tyre's defenses after a 13-year siege. Again, we have seen the apologetic response: the "walls and towers" of Tyre were some OTHER set of walls and towers unknown to historians. Apparently, a ruanway chariot accidentally flattening an outhouse and toppling a watchtower on the mainland would satisfy this "prophecy". The unresolved problem here is that we KNOW that the island fortress had massive 150-feet-high walls and towers: these are the ones that Nebby HAD to breach, the most formidable obstacle he faced, the obstacle that would determine his success or failure. We must therefore assume a trickster God if Ezekiel was really referring to the flattened outhouse. A prediction is supposed to convey information to its recipients (why bother otherwise?), and this one did not.

3. God did not destroy Tyre (from 1). There was no Sodom-and-Gomorrah "act of God" cataclysm. Nor did he do it by proxy (more on this later).

4. The language of the prophecy plainly refers to the physical destruction of the island citadel: Tyre "in the midst of the sea" would be "scraped clean" and become a "bare rock". This has never happened. Nebby failed, and history tells us that Alexander destroyed "half" of the town: some of the ruins from the subsequent Greco-Roman period are still standing, indicating that this never happened subsequently either. Furthermore, this destruction was supposed to be permanent: but Tyre still exists and is still inhabited today. Some apologists have tried to claim that the modern "Sur" is a different town, apparently unaware of the fact that the Greek form of the Phoenician "Sur" is "Tyre". And the island was supposed to be swallowed up by the sea, but its current inhabitants seem to manage without submarines and scuba gear (amusingly, the inept apologist Gleason Archer declared that the island WAS underwater: apparently he got the wrong island).

5. Attempts to make this destruction "metaphorical" (by blatantly ignoring the Bible) have also failed. The population of Tyre survived Nebby, and many also survived Alexander (escaping to Sidon and returning afterwards). The political city-state of Tyre survived Nebby, and had voluntarily been absorbed into the Persian Empire by Alexander's time: it was never "destroyed" by any hostile attacker, mortal or divine.

6. A "prophecy" MUST be made before the event. The only information we have regarding the dating of Ezekiel is that the book was not completed until AFTER the siege of Tyre (we know this from the past-tense description of the siege aftermath in Ezekiel 29:18). Bfniii has attempted to claim that this can be translated differently, and has been mistranslated in every Bible edition until now: we still await a detailed alternative translation. Currently, the only evidence that the actual prophecy was made before the event is the list of failures presented here: the implausibility that a retrospective "prophecy" would fail so badly. There is no evidence that Ezekiel's contemporaries were aware of a successful "Tyre prophecy".

7. Ezekiel's credibility as a "prophet" is further undermined by additional failed prophecies. In compensation for his failure at Tyre, Nebby is supposed to conquer Egypt (Ezekiel 29:19-20). Egypt will be ruined and uninhabited for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-13). This did not happen.

Apikorus

Jack, that was a nice summary.

Johnny Skeptic

My position is not that the prophecy is false. Is it your position that the prophecy is true? If so, why do you believe that the prophecy is true? I do not know of any ways to reasonably prove or disprove that the prophecy was written before the events, and that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. Are you aware of any ways that we can reliably determine the truth about these matters?

You have never answered the following question: Are you surprised that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre? Please answer the question.

As I have told you before, historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception, so it is not at all surprising that eventually Tyre was defeated.

Sauron

Yes, I'm afraid it was.

That would be a first.

Reminder - still looking for:

1. Your affirmative evidence; and
2. Your evaluative criteria by which you propose to have met your burden of proof.

bfniii

how about responding to the fact that your request could be easily explained by someone therefore making it unconvincing. can you give a reason that is convincing?



vague, bla bla bla



wouldn't someone have to support their beliefs in order to counter objections to them? obviously, yes.



oh, this is the "plainly fulfilled prophecies" forum. i thought it was the biblical criticism forum.



plenty of reasonable people feel the prophecies have been fulfilled. therefore, your criteria has been met.



i'm already addressing that point in this thread.



irrelevant to the point.



wrong. as i said before, some objections arise from a particular religion's doctrine, not that a person is locked into a religion because of childhood indoctrination. furthermore, some people are fully aware of objections to their religion but remain unconvinced by them. therefore, your childhood indoctrination theory does not explain everyone's motivation.



you tried in this thread to claim that the walls ezekiel mentioned were the island walls but there is no support for this in the bible.

you tried to claim that the prophecy singles out nebuchadnezzar as the one to permanently and ultimately destroy tyre. later, you amended your claim to include alexander and the army of many nations. there is no support for such a supposition in the bible.

you tried to claim that the permanent destruction refers to the physical location of tyre as opposed to the city-state. there are some specifics mentioned about what would happen physically, but the overall prophecy is concerned with the city-state. i showed specfically how this is the case in post #160.

don't forget about your elementary misunderstanding of the sacrifical system or the genesis debacle. you also tried to insert the word "immediately" into the exodus passage about the egyptian priests.



as if that proves your point.



i don't recall even one of my points being refuted on that thread. perhaps you could point them out so i can respond.



the priests didn't need to carry around snakes. all they had to do was go grab one when called upon. the preparation could have been done prior to them entering the court.



in verse 11, pharaoh "called the wise men" meaning they weren't there previously. they pick up their snakes on the way. dang, this is so elementary.



the vocano is just one theory, jack. this is why i have been telling you to incorporate other theories into your discussion. the passage itself isn't specific about exactly what the priests did, merely stating they "did so". therefore, the possible explanations are limitless.



oh yes, an so forth.



i asked you what gave you the idea that hebrews were polytheistic.



you have absolutely no basis to make such a statement. it's a belief and there is no way you can tell someone what they do and don't believe.



incorrect on all counts. the idea that the bible is inerrant is derived from the belief that it is the infallible word of God and that that belief has been born out by reality. it is not only a belief that it should be, but that it, in actuality, is inerrant due to knowledge, rationality, personal experience, observation, etc.

it has everything to do with evidence, you just don't like the kind of evidence. you disagree with the conclusions drawn by christians and you are free to do so.



all of this diatribe is a debatable look at one verse. my response above addresses the bible as a whole.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Firstly: you are context-snipping again.

Secondly: you're lost again! My answer to this in post #400 is a repeat of the answer I gave in post #378, which you overlooked the first time around, but which has since been addressed by you in post #408 (and THAT response has already been addressed by ME in post #419!) SO why are we now going BACKWARDS to post #378 again???

Ironically, my post #400 (which you were supposedly responding to here) contains a warning about this sort of confusion. I'm obviously a better prophet than Ezekiel.
You have yet to successfully counter our objections. But a prominent objection you have not ATTEMPTED to counter is "...why believe?"
I disgree. No reasonable person believes that the prophecies have been fulfilled. Those who DO believe this are not reasonable people.

Reasonable Christians have been arguing against inerrantists at least as far back as Augustine.
...Where?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Tyre prophecy is your BEST prophecy? This is your PROOF that the Bible is divinely inspired?

If so: do you understand the enormous mountain you must climb? For starters, you must somehow prove that all of your unsupported assertions, personal fantasies and wild interpretations of the Bible are the actually-correct answers: something you have NEVER attempted before!
Are you forgetting that this was a direct response to YOUR equally-irrelevant point?
You have raised no objections to Islamic doctrine (which is rather similar to Christian doctrine, actually). But I'm perfectly aware of the fact that SOME people aren't slaves of childhood indoctrination (I was raised as a Christian): I was merely pointing out that YOU have provided no other reason why you are a Christian rather than a Muslim/Deist/Wiccan/Hindu... and from your responses so far, you can SEE no reason to justify your choice. Your argument for Christianity is an empty "...why not?".
On the contrary: MY interpretation is not "twisted" (are you now denying that the island citadel WAS fortified?), and I have pointed out the "trickster God" problem with YOUR twisted interpretation MANY times (most recently in post #421 above). You have consistently failed to address it.
Again, it is not a "twist" to suggest that Nebby's "army of many nations" (the only divinely-appointed conquerors mentioned by Ezekiel) were the intended implement of destruction. I have also specifically addressed both parts of the alternative "split responsibility" theory.
No, the prophecy specifically refers to the physical city. Post #160 on this thread is a post by Sauron, not you. Were you referring to the "Biblical Errors" thread? If so, you failed to mention that I refuted your attempt in the following post on that thread.
No, I have not forgotten your desperate evasions, confusion, and inevitable defeat on the sacrifices issue: or your Genesis debacle. Why should I?
It proves your confusion (again).
...Whereas inserting unsupported delays and convenient "time-outs" for the Egyptian priests is perfectly OK?
I see you're still not thinking through the implications of your fanciful stories. Just how stupid does a person have to be to imagine that a rigid snake is actually a wooden staff that gets magically transformed? If it is somehow NOT obvious: how would they know to "pick up their snakes on the way"? Who would tell them, before the "miracle" happened? And what about the timing of the OTHER miracles they preformed on cue?
So now you're dropping the "obedient volcano" theory, and replacing it with... ?

I already HAVE another theory. One which fits ALL of the evidence, and fits it PERFECTLY. The whole episode was only a story (though possibly inspired in parts by the fallout from the Thera volcanic explosion): a story written by people who believed that the Egyptian gods actually existed and empowered their priests.
My knowledge of the historical context. You need to RESEARCH this, bfniii. If you won't accept the word of the various experts on this forum, try the "recommended reading" sticky. If you don't believe THEM, follow up their references. Take it as far as you need to: become a qualified archaeologist and go visit the sites, if that's what it takes.
Yes, indeed. Not from evidence.
Incorrect.

As the saying goes: "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts". It is not a fact that the Bible is inerrant. The erroneous BELIEF that it is, comes from elsewhere.
Are you familiar with the story of "the Emperor's new clothes"? Whenever we challenge the BELIEF that the inerrantist is clothed in a magnificent array of evidence, we soon discover that he is naked. The hard part is getting HIM to see it (because of his faith-conditioning). If his elbow is visible, that "doesn't matter", maybe the sleeve got hitched up temporarily. If his navel is exposed, he just needs to pull his jerkin down a little.
Nope. You won't SEE the whole. We have established that you have no means of supporting your claim that the Bible actually IS "trustworthy, accurate and dependable" (because it's the "ultimate standard", and anything which appears to contradict it "cannot be correct" and is dismissed). And you keep inventing cover-up excuses that have no support whatsoever, and then forgetting that you haven't actually disproved the skeptic's claim regarding your elbow, or your navel, or...

Johnny Skeptic

My position is not that the prophecy is false. Is it your position that the prophecy is true? If so, why do you believe that the prophecy is true? I do not know of any ways to reasonably prove or disprove that the prophecy was written before the events, and to reasonably prove or disprove that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. Are you aware of any ways that we can reliably determine the truth about these matters?

Even if the prophecy did come come, what is at all surprising about Tyre eventually being defeated? Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception.

You have never answered the following question: Are you surprised that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre? Please answer the question.

You have said that the Tyre prophecy can stand on its own merit without being associated with any other prophecies. Which particular parts of the prophecy are you referring to, possibly "the spreading of fishing nets" or "like the top of a rock"?

You have asked me why some people concluded that the prophecy is true. I don't know. Do you? Why do you think that some people concluded that the prophecy was false?

You have said that the Tyre prophecy is detailed enough to stand on its own merit. Which details did you mean? Possibly the details about fishing nets and like to top of a rock?

You frequently ask skeptics to reasonably disprove what Christians ought to reasonbly prove, but it is no more incumbent upon skeptics to reasonably disprove the Bible than it is incumbent upon Christians to reasonably disprove the Koran. The burden of disproof is unreasonable and asks the impossible. If a man claimed that he saw a pig sprouts wings and fly, could you reasonably disprove the claim? Well of course you couldn't. The claim is most certainly no more outlandish than the claim of a talking donkey that is found in the Old Testament, and you probably believe that claim. The burden of proof is much more reasonable than the burden of disproof. While no one can disprove that there is such a thing as a flying pig, if someone owned a flying pig, he could easily produce it. Similarly, while no one can disprove that God can convert energy into matter, if God can convert energy into matter, he, or an alien claiming to be him, could easily show up and prove that he can convert energy into matter.

Unlike most other skeptics, I do not try to disprove the Bible. I have found it to be much more productive to adopt a neutral position and ask Christians why they refuse to adopt a neutral position. You have not adopted a neutral position regarding the Tyre prophecy, and we need to know why you haven't.

Chris Weimer

Does this put the Tyre prophecy to rest?

Amaleq13

"Both Tyre and Sidon are undergoing rapid, uncontrolled urban expansion."

I'm sure even this will not be sufficient for the devoutly faithful.

Johnny Skeptic

Didn't mata leao say that what has been rebuilt was not rebuilt in the original location? Of course, he never makes any sense.