Sheshonq

Still haven't studied much Jewish history, eh?

No, in fact they are not.

What difference does that make? The Israelis kill with bombs, aircraft and tanks. The Palestinians use other weapons. In the end, it's still violent death.

The Jews could not have "peacefully acquired" a modern state, without forcibly taking Arab land as a first step. That is an act of aggression.

Tell you what: I promise to "peacefully acquire" a modern house, providing that you surrender yours without a fight. Do we have a deal?

Sheshonq

You dodged Johnny's question. That's dishonest of you. He was talking about a specific promise, and you know it.

I'm sure he'll drag you back to it and make you answer the direct point he was asking about.

Sheshonq

You have no way to make such a claim, since you cannot see the future.

No miracles involved. Just a lot of help from the US and Europe.

Not hardly.

By the way: I listed the requirements for you to claim Israel as a fulfilled prophecy. Do you plan to ever do the work to support your claim?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: How did Abraham interpret God's land promise?

One thing that discredits all Bible prophecies is that there are not any sensible motives regarding why God would always refuse to predict and fulfill indisputable prophecies. For instance, God could easily have predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month, day, and year. Refusing to make indisputable prophecies could not possibly benefit God or anyone else. This is good evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Sheshonq

That's what Ezekiel calls him. Is Ezekiel wrong?

EZE 26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

Johnny Skeptic

That is false since you yourself claimed that Jews have never occupied all of Canaan. You can't have a restoration of a nation that did not exist in the first place as required by Genesis 17:8, which requires that the Jews occupy ALL of the land of Canaan. No matter how many posts that you make, I will always refer back to Genesis 17:8. That is the foundational Scripture for all subsequent debates about the history of the Jewish people. Genesis 17:8 refutes all of your arguments.

On the contrary, there is nothing miraculous about the greatest military and economic power in human history (the U.S.) self-fufilling a Bible prophecy. It was essentially the U.S. who partitioned Palestine, not the Jews. The Jews could never have paritioned Palestine on their own. No Bible, no partition of Palestine, no self-fulfilled prophecy. It is as simple as that. There is not doubt whatsoever that if the U.S. had opposed the partition of Palestine, the partition would never have happened. It appears that you do not understand what a self-fulfilling prophecy is. I suggest that you conduct some research regarding this issue.

Johnny Skeptic

No, the Jews cannot go back to land that by your own admission they never occupied under the conditions of Genesis 17:8, which says that God would give the Jews ALL of the land of Canaan.

There are not any good reasons for anyone to believe that the Jews will not be kicked out of Palestine again.

Johnny Skeptic

No, you are wrong. If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would expect to find exactly what you said. Why would God frequently mimic the way that things would be if he did not exist, thereby needlessly causing doubt and confusion?

If the God of the Bible does not exist, there would be suspicious an unexplainable statistics regarding why people believe what they believe. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious.

The authors show that elderly skeptics are much less likely to change their worldview than younger skeptics are, and that elderly Christians are much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians are. If God exists, this means that he discriminates against elderly skeptics and younger Christians. If God does not exists, then that explains why elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are. Again, if the God of the Bible exists, it is quite odd that he mimics that way that things would be if he did not exist.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the Gospel message was distributed entirely by humans. If God does exist, he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT they hear the Gospel message, and with mimicking the way that the Gospel message would be spread if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

We have a similar case regarding the distribution of food. James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person that his faith is dead, but God has refused to give food to millions of people who died of starvation. If God does not exist, that explains why all distribution of food is done by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist.

Sheshonq

Yeah but the funny thing is whenever God worked through people, He mentioned the people He would use by name:

-------------------

CH2 36:22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

CH2 36:23 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.

And:

EZE 26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

And:
ISA 13:17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

-------------------

The creation of modern-day Israel was accomplished by political means and by armies. Yet you claim it was divinely foretold, and merely God working through people.

If so, then in order to follow this pattern above, you need to show where the scripture names the future actor that God would be working through. Can you do that? No, you cannot.

Either that, or admit that maybe the current nation of Israel isn't quite what God had in mind -- which, by the way, is the viewpoint of many Orthodox Jews who think that the current government is illegitimate. In their view, only God can re-create Israel, and when that happens it will not be done through land theft and bloodshed. They view the current attempt at an Israeli state as a kind of "frankenstein monster" - men were too impatient and decided to try and create something that only God can create. In their haste, Jewish politicians tried to force this prophecy to come true, instead of allowing God to do it on his own good time.

You see, arnoldo, there really *is* more than one way to look at it. The world is far more complicated than your narrow fundamentalist viewpoint.

Johnny Skeptic

But what about Abraham's wrongful persecution of the Canaanites?

Since God kills babies and innocent animals, what need is there to discuss who treated who fairly in Palestine?

After Adam and Eve at the forbidden fruit, why did God force animals to kill each other? How did that benefit him or humans, especially since some animals sometimes eat humans? I am sure that hungry tiger sharks are quite appreciative when God provides them with a tasty Christian for dinner. No loving God would force animals to eat people, or each other.

I challenge you to provide reasonable proof that it is impossible for God to god to achieve fair, worthy, and just goals without injuring and killing people and innocent animals. No loving God would save a man and turn right around and seriously injure or kill him.