Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bfniii · 06-07-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

...AHA!

oh brother

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

bfniii, I think I've finally unravelled this bizarre "14, 343, 540, 556, 600" hallucination. The key to deciphering it is to remember that you always post the exact opposite of the truth whenever you think this can be made to sound vaguely intelligible. You are denying that the text indicates a subject switch. Therefore you believe that a switch IS justified. "not that it switches from the collective of the villages to the collective of tyre as a whole". Therefore you believe that it DOES switch in the OPPOSITE direction (my own position, maintained throughout, is that there is no switch: "you" is Tyre). So, presumably BECAUSE there is absolutely no reason to do so, you insert a switch, from "your" (Tyre's) "daughter villages" to "your" (daughter villages') "walls and towers" etc (and, because there is no evidence that these existed at all, these must be what was intended).

wow. this is some sort of new pseudo-strawman you are building. how do you figure that daughter villages to walls and towers of daughter villages is a switch? it's the same subject; daughter villages. ezekiel is clear, he starts verse 8 with daughter villages and continues on until verse 13 where he switches to God and His actions. i have asked you why you think otherwise and you have not stated any textual reason other than that it is your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Now, all along, I've assumed that your inclusion of mainland "walls" etc was a rhetorical device to have Nebby smash something, as the prophecy indicates. But, by adhering to the "opposite-speak" principle, I now see that I was subtly mistaken. Because Tyre is the ISLAND,

not entirely. ezekiel agrees that the daughter villages are tyre as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

it is NOT the island: "Tyre" means "everything EXCEPT the island of Tyre" in bfniii-speak. Hence, when Nebby's forces overran Ushu, they ran down ALL the streets of not-Tyre (i.e. "Tyre"). The streets of TYRE can be excluded because they're the only streets that are NOT Tyre (OK, this is a bit of a struggle, but it's sorta holding up so far...).

ezekiel tells tyre "your daughter villages". he doesn't call them ushu or anything else. he calls them tyre. if you think the streets of the island should be included in verses 8 - 12, then just show how the text implies that other than because you merely think it is so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

"Tyre" can't refer to the big rock of the island because the word means "rock",

the island is part of tyre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

"in the midst of the sea" is plainly a reference to the mainland,

not entirely

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

the whole "Ushu-prophecy" must be meant in a metaphorical sense because it refers to physical destruction,

there is some of both. i have explained them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Alexander features prominently because he's never mentioned or even hinted at by Ezekiel... and so on.

alexander is just one part of the prophecy. ezekiel doesn't have to mention him by name for him to have a part and to have fulfilled his part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

(In hindsight, I really should have figured this out from other threads: God punishing Adam and Eve because he wanted them to eat the forbidden fruit, God ordering Satan to arrange a census because he didn't want one, and so forth)

those are both strawmen

Johnny Skeptic · 06-07-2006, 01:49 PM

Message to bfniii: Please reply to my post #620. By the way, there is not any credible evidence at all that the mainland settlement of Tyre ever looked like a bare rock. You also do not have any idea what Ezekiel meant by a bare rock.

Jack the Bodiless · 06-07-2006, 05:13 PM

bfniii, your inability to keep up with this discussion is leading you further into disaster.

Quote:

wow. this is some sort of new pseudo-strawman you are building. how do you figure that daughter villages to walls and towers of daughter villages is a switch? it's the same subject; daughter villages. ezekiel is clear, he starts verse 8 with daughter villages and continues on until verse 13 where he switches to God and His actions. i have asked you why you think otherwise and you have not stated any textual reason other than that it is your opinion.

There is no switch. "You" is Tyre, throughout. Nothing applies to the "daughter villages", except the specific reference to them: a small part of 26:8.

I have already explained this many times, most recently in post #618. So you're again making false statements which are very easily checked by anyone reading this thread.

Quote:

Now, all along, I've assumed that your inclusion of mainland "walls" etc was a rhetorical device to have Nebby smash something, as the prophecy indicates. But, by adhering to the "opposite-speak" principle, I now see that I was subtly mistaken. Because Tyre is the ISLAND,

not entirely. ezekiel agrees that the daughter villages are tyre as well.

You chose to place the emphasis on "are" in that sentence, but you have blundered (again) with "...as well". Here you agree that the ISLAND is also part of Tyre.

Quote:

ezekiel tells tyre "your daughter villages". he doesn't call them ushu or anything else. he calls them tyre. if you think the streets of the island should be included in verses 8 - 12, then just show how the text implies that other than because you merely think it is so.

I already have, and you have just admitted it: they are part of Tyre "as well".

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

the island is part of tyre.

...Thank you!

As Nebby's forces didn't take the island, they failed to reach ALL the streets of Tyre. You have finally conceded the argument. The rest is superfluous.

bfniii · 06-08-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

Bfniii, Ezekiel informs us in chapter 26:1 that it is the He then makes his prediction that Nebuchadnezzar will do this and that and that the Tyrian’s will be slaughtered and their city destroyed etc.
In chapter 29:17 Ezekiel informs us that it is the And at this later date is when he tells us that, Although I predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would plunder Tyre’s riches (26:12), So I what I was suggesting to Johnny was that I think this is sufficient evidence to assume a proper date (by proper I mean that it was made BEFORE the events they describe) for the prophecy.

i think i understand. thanks for the clarification

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

The city, Tyre, was founded upon an island.

i agree

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

Ezekiel never said “your political boundary’s walls will be destroyed,” or that God will cause the sea to cover Tyre’s “political boundary” or that Tyre’s political boundary will be sought for but never found again.

i agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

The "daughter-villages" would be those cities and towns that were under Tyrian hegemony, such as Ushu for example.

i agree

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

The Tyre prophecy failed by Ezekiel’s own admission, but don’t let this one little mistake keep you from putting your faith in Jesus. Shit happens.

as i have said repeatedly, ezekiel never makes an admission of failure.

bfniii · 06-08-2006, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Unless you can accurately date the prophecy, which you obviously can't, Nebuchadnezzar and other nations are irrelvant. Are you dating the prophecy solely by faith without any secular historical references? If so, then we need to debate Biblical inerrancy, not the particulars of the Tyre prophecy.

we've been over this several times. as your skeptic compadres have pointed out, you leave open the possibility that the date listed in 26:1 is trustworthy. now i have asked you again and again, what reasons do you have for not trusting that date?

bfniii · 06-08-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

Alaric sacked Rome in 410 and it limped on another 66 years but it was pretty much finished by then. You are acting as if the 250 years between Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander was a drop in the bucket.

the seeds of rome's demise had been laid long before alaric came along. besides, even after alaric's attack, rome was run by romans and continued to hold significant international power for some time afterwards. furthermore, rome was besieged several times after the visigoths. i just don't see rome as analogous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

Bfniii, we both agree that Alexander the Great was never specified in the prophecy.

maybe not by name but there is more than one way to refer to someone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

And I assume we agree, that if something is not specified then it is unspecific. Therefore if you want to use Alexander in support of your argument then you must acknowledge that Ezekiel’s prophecy is not incredibly specific and detailed, but rather unspecific.

there are several aspects of the prophecy that are specific including the fact that alexander can be part of the many nations that attack tyre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

In addition, due to the length of time necessary for Alexander to “fulfill your theory”, you stifle the prophecy’s strength. This is because in history it is the exception, rather than the rule, that a city will never be attacked, lose prominence or suffer other difficulties; and what makes this prophecy significant is that it was supposedly made during the height of Tyre’s prominence. Therefore, for this reason you are rendering Ezekiel’s prophecy insignificant.

i disagree. it appears that ezekiel got many aspects of tyre's demise correct. even if such prophecy regarding nations was totally commonplace, there is no guarantee that events had to unfold in that way. however, i think we would have a hard time showing that such successful prophecies were commonplace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

Pile on top of these two points is the fact that Tyre still stands to this day, which renders the prophecy unfulfilled.

incorrect. the nation of tyre has been gone since alexander's time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

But you want to contend that the prophecy was not directed against Tyre, but against it’s kingdom, as an abstract entity with no locale. Thus the fact that Tyre exists and survived Alexander with a king of its own, means nothing to you because you think that the independent kingdom of Tyre ceased to exist.

the last part is correct. alexander wiping out the remnants of tyre and setting up a government of his own choosing just isn't the same thing as tyrians surviving the attacks, pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and continuing their own government. by the time alexander set up a political establishment there, tyre had been completely dissolved. the only reason people were even there physically is because alexander allowed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

But this is not what the prophecy said because it specifically says that the city of Tyre would be covered by the sea and lost forever; therefore if you want to take this “abstract kingdom” interpretation we must change the prophecy from Ezekiel to Bfniii’s prophecy.

politically, that is exactly what happened as i outlined above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

So what are we left with: CONTRARY TO WHAT BFNIII WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE, EZEKIEL’S PROPHECY REGARDING TYRE IS EITHER UNSPECIFIC, INSIGNIFICANT AND NEVER FULFILLED –OR- IT IS UNSPECIFIC, INSIGNIFICANT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN EZEKIEL ORIGINAL.

my responses above render these conclusions moot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

Nor was there such a time with Tyre. You think EVERYONE was killed by Alexander? He installed

there's the first problem. why did he have to install something? why couldn't tyre have done it on their own? because tyre was gone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

a king to rule over those that were still in the city

not that it matters, now just show that every single person was tyrian. at least show that the important people were tyrian along with how the standard of "important" can be measured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

...and the city was prosperous enough to be besieged by Alexadner's one eyed general, Antigonus, little more than a decade later!

at that point, irrelevant. those were alexander's people, not the former tyre. they lived in a geographic location still called tyre for convenience.

bfniii · 06-08-2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But not nearly all of the Tyrians were killed or dispersed during their lifetimes.

so what? their punishment had already started the minute nebuchadnezzar arrived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Many of them died with the satisfaction that God's supposed judgment against them was unsucessful,

they were exiled to the island where fresh water was a concern and most everything had to be imported. importing products was probably not easy due to the devastation on the mainland caused by nebuchadnezzar. i doubt that their lives had become a picnic. that was the beginning. the rest came later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

which in fact it was since many of them died natural deaths at the mainland settlement and at the island settlement.

them dying natural deaths was not the primary concern of the prophecy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It could never take an all-powerful God centuries to get even with puny humans,

you're assuming He was trying to do something different

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

and surely a loving God would not choose to get even with Tyrians who were born centuries after the prophecy was supposedly originally given.

i've been through this before in the biblical errors thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What is your justification of God having innocent babies at Tyre killed?

we have already discussed the impossibility of defining "innocent" in the biblical errors thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Please reply to my post #614 about dating.

i have responded to that point umpteen times. how many more would you like?

spin · 06-08-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

i have responded to that point umpteen times. how many more would you like?

Only once, if you come up with something meaningful and evidence based.

spin

Johnny Skeptic · 06-08-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But not nearly all of the Tyrians were killed or dispersed during their lifetimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

So what? Their punishment had already started the minute Nebuchadnezzar arrived.

Conquerors have a habit of conquering. What is at all unusual about that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Please reply to my post #614 about dating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

I have responded to that point umpteen times.

Not sufficiently. I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If you mention Nebuchadnezzar, I will ask you for evidence other than "the Bible says so" that the Tyre prophecy was written before the events.

You replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

In the past, I have responded to this point by citing 26:1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

In other words, your entire argument for that point is “the Bible says so,” right? Are you an inerrantist? In the past, you said that the Tyre prophecy can stand on its own merit without bringing up any other Scriptures. What did you mean by that claim?

You did not reply to those arguments. Please do so. If you won’t, I will assume that you do not wish to embarrass yourself.

I also said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Especially for the benefit of new readers, please restate which verses in Ezekiel 26, whether singly or collectively, indicate to you that the prophecy was inspired by God.

You replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

I will try to help the same way I did before. What kind of test should I apply to the scriptures to prove they were divinely inspired? What would you recommend?

I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The personal appearance of a being claiming to be the God of the Bible who could prove that he could predict the future would be fine. A simpler solution would be some common sense historical data that reasonably prove dating. Got any?

You did not reply to those arguments. Please do so.

I also said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

And that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original.

You replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

Do we have a reason to believe that it has been altered?

I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

No. I am neutral. Are you?

You did not reply to my argument. Please do so.

I also said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If you mention that Tyre was never rebuilt to its former glory, I will tell you that it is quite common for cities and kingdom to not be rebuilt to their former glory.

You replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

Got any statistics to back that up with?

I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Let me put it this way, do you have any evidence that it is quite unusual for cities and kingdoms to not be rebuilt to their former glory?

You did not reply to my argument. Please do so.

I also said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If you mention the spreading of fishing nets to dry, I will tell you that it would be quite unusual if such had not been the case. People who live on or near water usually catch fish with nets, and they usually spread them to dry.

You replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

I addressed this as well in this thread.

I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Not sufficiently. Please tell us if you believe that it is quite unusual for people who live on or near water to spread their nets to dry. What is at all prophetic about such a claim?

Even if God can predict the future, that is not sufficient reason for people to accept him. All that it takes to predict the future is power, not good character. I submit that the God of the Bible does not have good character and should not be accepted.

Why do God’s judgments have to be right? Do you believe that might makes right?

You did not reply to those arguments. Please do so. I have noticed over a number of months that you are willingly to engage in lengthy debates except when you get into trouble. This is dishonest and rude. Undecided readers will note your frequent evasiveness. For instance, you have mentioned ontology, but you have yet to state or quote any ontological arguments at all. In addition, you have said that personal experience is an important part of your belief system, but you have refused on numerous occasions to debate me about your personal experiences because you know that you will embarrass yourself. People of many religions have personal experiences. How are yours any different? The best evidence indicates that there is no God who is active in the world today in tangible ways, and that tangible events are completely random. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. Based upon what I know about you, I predict that you won't.

manwithdream · 06-08-2006, 05:29 PM

Hello,
I am new to this discussion forum and I have not read the whole discussion on this subject, but I have an idea about the Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 26. I read an article that said that at first Tyre resisted Babylon and then later they became servants of Babylon. If this is true, then maybe that is why the prophecy in Ezekiel 26 that Tyre would be destroyed did not happen. According to Jeremiah 27:3 and 11, Tyre was one of the places that just had to accept the yoke of Babylon and they would not be destroyed. I know that Ezekiel did not mention this, but maybe what Jeremiah said explains what happened. Do you think that this could be right?

06-07-2006, 01:49 PM	#622
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	A simple invalidation of the Tyre prophecy Message to bfniii: Please reply to my post #620. By the way, there is not any credible evidence at all that the mainland settlement of Tyre ever looked like a bare rock. You also do not have any idea what Ezekiel meant by a bare rock.

06-08-2006, 05:29 PM	#630
manwithdream Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: united states Posts: 156	an idea about the Tyre prophecy Hello, I am new to this discussion forum and I have not read the whole discussion on this subject, but I have an idea about the Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 26. I read an article that said that at first Tyre resisted Babylon and then later they became servants of Babylon. If this is true, then maybe that is why the prophecy in Ezekiel 26 that Tyre would be destroyed did not happen. According to Jeremiah 27:3 and 11, Tyre was one of the places that just had to accept the yoke of Babylon and they would not be destroyed. I know that Ezekiel did not mention this, but maybe what Jeremiah said explains what happened. Do you think that this could be right?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.