Sauron

1. Your position is neither misrepresented nor misunderstood - and this has been explained several times, so this (repeated) attempt to claim a misunderstanding borders on evasion;

2. The critics are not presenting a case; they are shooting holes in YOUR case - as such, your asking them to present a "case" makes no sense;

3. There is no burden of proof on the critic, seeing as no claims are being made

A case has not been made, just because you want it to be that way; your need to create an imaginary burden are great, but they don't change anything. The affirmative case is the only case presented here; everything from the skeptic side has been shooting holes in that case. But of course, feel free to prove me wrong: if you think the skeptics presented a case anywhere, then by all means -- point it out.

You did? Where? I saw no such response. What I did see was you pretending that both sides had taken a position. However, that is simply false; being unconvinced of your affirmative position does not equate to making a case.

It's convenient for you, perhaps, because it's a total strawman that allows you to wring your hands, whine, and pretend to be unfairly picked-on like some kind of internet martyr. In reality, the standard is the same as it has always been: he who claims, has the burden of proof.

You made a claim, yet you don't want to shake off your intellectual laziness and do the hard work necessary to prove your position. Instead, you pretend that both sides have a claim here, and try to shift your workload onto someone else's back.

If you want to retract your claim, feel free to do so. We can settle this here and now by summarizing that bfniii does not take the affirmative position that the Tyre prophecy was fulfilled.

You did nothing of the kind. You tried to claim that I did -- but you have "shown" absolutely no such claims on my part.

1. We have reason to test for this possibility, because other such texts have likewise been altered.

2. You have not shown that the appeal to probability is a fallacy. Nor am I going to simply let you assume it into evidence. Would you care to try again?

The analogy is not flawed, however your understanding of biblical criticism could use some serious improvement, as well as your sense of logic. To wit:

1. Evidence of tampering comes from the internal clues - types of words, turns of phrase, mismatched styles of writing, verses being strangely out of place;

2. We don't have the original manuscripts for ANY books of the bible. Yet we know that edits occurred in other books, in spite of that fact. Ergo, you should have concluded that there must be some way to spot edits in the text, even if you don't have the originals laying around.

Your two comments are incorrect for the following reasons:

Comment #1 - there is plenty of reason to expect that we can, since we've detected such editions in other books. If you think that we can't detect it in Ezekiel, then you're going to have to explain why we could detect it in other books of the bible. You need to make an argument why Ezekiel is different from these other books, where we successfully detected tampering;

Comment #2 - this is just a restatement of your original whine, and is shot down with my same response as before: we have reason to test for the possibility of editing and tampering, because other such texts have likewise been altered.

1. My post was indeed a response. It was certainly non-helpful for you, but it was clearly a response;

2. You have not shown any "appeal to probability" of being fallacious. Since the question at hand of the proper date for the Tyre prophecy is critical, then you need to prove Ezekiel is free of such tampering if you want to use the texts as part of your body of evidence.

However, in this thread we are discussing your affirmative claims for the dating of the Tyre prophecy, and the accuracy of that prophecy in general. Your case is being criticized, as well as the claims of the bible. One of the underpinnings of your argument is the fidelity of the texts. But in the context of the OT, we know that several of the books have been tampered with. Because of that, you need to prove your particular book is free of such tampering. I don't need a specific reason to be suspicious of Ezekiel (although such specific reasons do exist). The fact that the OT texts have been tampered with on multiple occasions is all the evidence I need to insist you prove Ezekiel is untainted.

It's like dealing with counterfeit money. If 30% of the currency in a particular country is counterfeit, then I'm not going to sell you my car until you prove to me that your money is authentic. I don't need a specific reason to be suspicious of your money. Given the situation in the country, there's simply too much counterfeit money floating around for me to take a chance. The same principle holds here.

1. You have not asked *me* for proof -- because if you had, I would have pointed out that if knew more about biblical criticism, then you would already know what those tests were;

2. What conclusion I reach from the test will depend upon the results. When you have those results, let me know and I'll give you my conclusion.

Another entirely circular argument. Asking the skeptic to accept up front the very same conclusion you need to prove -- well, it isn't going to work.

1. And I'll state again: you are wrong. 100%, absolutely, no-question-about-it, wrong.

2. This isn't a friendly difference of opinion, nor is it a question of whose point of view are we going to use. These are the rules of debate. If you make a claim, you need to prove it. And he who claims first, has first burden of proof.

3. You don't get to walk away from the need to support your claim, just because it's a lot of work and you don't feel up to the job. This attempt to re-write the rules of debate just to coddle your intellectual laziness is neither new, nor is it particularly convincing.

What "many people think" is irrelevant.
What they can prove is all that matters.

Not really -- although I am aware that christians try to use that argument to create wiggle room, and reassure themselves that their poor arguments are actually pretty good. In point of fact, the evidence is much less subjective than you want it to be;

On what topic? For the moment, we are discussing your affirmative claims for the Tyre prophecy -- accuracy and dating. Now if you want to discuss other mistakes of biblical proponents, state that topic in a new thread and I'll follow you there. But I don't want to derail this thread by bringing in other non-related topics.

Oh, please. Making stuff up again? You have not shown that *any* of this evidence is impossible, so obviously that shoots down your claim that my request is unreasonable.

What you have shown, however, is that when you run out of arguments, you are unwilling to step up to the next level: actual research to support your argument.

As I said above: what "many people think" is irrelevant; I don't know why you think that should carry any weight. "Many people" also think there is a Loch Ness Monster; should I be impressed?

All that matters is what can be proven. In this case, the skeptics are not impressed with the case put forward by bible proponents on the Tyre question.

Incidentally, you are wrong about the reason critics think the bible proponents failed. "Think actually happened"? Nonsense. Skeptics say the bible proponents failed because the events did *not* take place as the bible proponents claim. Nor did they take place as the text claimed they would.

*sigh* Which does not refute what I just said. I wasn't talking about acting contrary to facts. Read my post again.

People don't make statements like "I dont' believe X" out of the clear blue sky. There must have been something that happened previously, to make them think about X - they read something, they heard something, someone mentioned X to them in a passing conversation. When someone says "I don't believe X", it is because X was already being discussed or had come into their mind in some previous context, or by some previous method.

In like fashion, when a skeptic says "I don't believe in bible claim X", it's because someone earlier -- in person, on TV, radio, the internet, whatever -- had made a claim in favor of bible claim X being true. So the initial claim is still being made by the bible proponent. By saying "I don't believe in bible claim X", the skeptics are not making a claim -- they are reacting to someone else's previous claim. Claim is followed by skeptic response. But skeptic response is not a claim in and of itself.

No, you tried to rewrite the rules of debate to excuse yourself from doing any support for your claims. Naturally you were unhappy when you found out that wasn't going to work with me.

1. Poking huge holes in your case is not the same as making a claim.

2. My behavior is amazingly consistent: I insist that those who put forth claims must also support them. The higher quality bible proponents actually put forth an effort. The rest of them, like yourself, look for ways to get out of the work.

1. The criteria are clear, and similar to other criteria I have seen from christian and non-christian sources. If you think there are problems with the criteria, then give details. Waving your hands and wishing with all your might simply isn't enough;

2. You are -- or at least, you *were* at one point -- making the affirmative case for divine inspiration. It is up to you to prove your case; it is not up to me to disprove it;

Historical study of the milieu and time period. Yes, I know that sounds like work -- did you expect otherwise?

Make up your mind. Am I "incorrect" or "correct"?

Wrong again.

The fact that the evidence cannot be secured does not make the request (criterion 4) faulty. the inability to satisfy it shows that the prophecy isn't up to the necessary standards. But the request is fine; the failure is on the prophecy.

As usual, you don't seem to understand the subtle points of hte argument: I didn't say that this criterion #4 can NEVER be satisfied for ANY prophecy. I said it couldn't be done for this particular Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel. And because of that inability, the Tyre prophecy cannot be considered as a good example of a divinely inspired prophecy.One would think that you would catch such an obvious mistake of logic on your part. My request is the same as saying:

"All candidates for supreme court must be able to show a history of clean financial dealings. We are only looking for good candidates that are examples of financially upright judges."
"But what about Judge Jones? He made $100,000 on a stock deal in 2001."

"Can we show that it was entirely legal?"
"No, the paper trail is incomplete. But we believe it was entirely legal."

"That wasn't what I asked you -- are you able to SHOW that it was legal?"
"No, I'm afraid we can't do that. We just don't have the paperwork we need to prove it."

"Then Judge Jones doesn't satisfy the stated requirement, does he?"
"No, I guess not."

Judge Jones and the Tyre prophecy fail for the same reason: they cannot meet the criteria established. But the fault is not with the criteria; it is with the candidates that were put forth.

1. The request is not faulty - as evidenced above, and

2. Your "second" above is the same as your first objection - but since that first objection failed, your second is dead as well

1. I do not mistake your position; I understand it perfectly well.

2. What I request is not unreasonable at all, and you have not presented any evidence to back up that assertion -- and on the contrary, I've shown why the request is very reasonable;

3. You cannot prove that the Tyre prophecy is divinely inspired, if you cannot satisfy criterion #4: Likelihood: The prophecy can’t be just a good guess.

1. "many people" again? I hope we are over that mental and logical fallacy by now;

2. "all the others in the bible" - if those other prophecies cannot satisfy these five criteria, then likewise they cannot be considered divinely inspired, or good examples of fulfilled prophecy;

3. Attempts to shift the burden of proof are still not working. The bible and its proponents - such as yourself - are taking the affirmative position that the prophecies are fulfilled. The bible does not get a default judgement of "True - Fulfilled." You need to prove that. Given all that, you need to present an affirmative case without holes in it. So far, you haven't even come close to that.

Since this is a factual statement about how science operates, your 'agreement' does not matter. I was informing you of a fact, not seeking your agreement.

No, I am informing precisely *how* your affirmative case for the divine inspiration of the Tyre prophecy failed. It was shot down, for failure to satisfy criterion #4:Likelihood: The prophecy can’t be just a good guess. A fact of current events or the nightly news hardly needs divine inspiration.

That Nebuchadnezzar was going to invade Tyre.

Not at all. You made the affirmative claim for divine inspiration, and couldn't prove it. You are now trying to water down the standards, until you can finally meet them -- or so you hope.

1. I have seen no evidence from you that the prophecy was written before the alleged event, and since claims do not get a default "true" rating, you must indeed prove that;

2. I have seen no evidence of divine inspiration - and likewise, ancient texts do not get a default "inspired" rating just because you say they do. You will also need to prove this.

3. Until you do so, you have failed to make your affirmative case. I am merely pointing out your failure.

1. The location of burden of proof -- on the person making the claim -- is not an assertion; it is how debate is conducted. Your attempt to wiggle out of this and/or rewrite the rules has not worked;

2. You have presented no evidence - historical, archaeological, etc. - to support your claims;

1. And I have had to sift through your not-very-well-camouflaged attempts to evade responsibility for your claims, and give a default rating of True to the musings of bible proponents.

2. You have not shown that any "appeal to probability" is wrong, and in fact, I have given several analogies as to why verifying the integrity of the texts is necessary;

3. So something to think about -- perhaps if you had actually formed a coherent argument with evidence, we might have had more to discuss. As it is, however, I am forced to return time and time again to the rules of the debate;

Incorrect, for two reasons:

1. The critique is targeted at whatever fragile claims that the bible proponent brings forth and tries to defend. So if that textual scenario is misrepresented, then the fault is with the bible proponent, not the skeptic that is tearing the claim apart;

2. For those other critiques that are actually aimed at the texts themselves, you have yet to show that the skeptic misunderstands the claim as it is written in the text -- or that the skeptic has the wrong historical events;

Your comment above cleverly assumes that the bible and history will always match up, if they are only viewed with the proper doses of "interpretation". However, you need to show that what the bible records does, in fact, accurately line up with history.

Which amounted to an attempt to rewrite the rules of debate, so as to avoid having to support your claims. Which is precisely what I said in bold, above: you tried to duck the burden of proof.

No, it does not; but you certainly did try to create it, out of thin air. Skeptics have no burden of proof. Being unconvinced by shoddy christian arguments does not create a burden on the back of skeptics.

Non-existent things are, by default, overlooked.

Yes, I did.

No, what is irresponsible is your attempt to reclassify my statement "I don't buy your story" as a claim. It is not. Your argument has holes in it; many of them. I pointed several out. QED.

No, I say this because I've seen dozens of christian cowards come around here, bust the door down, and proclaim "The bible says such-and-such. It's true, unless you prove it false." Shifting the burden of proof off their own lazy backs, and onto the backs of anyone who disagrees with them.

Similar to what you are trying to do.

Having seen that for years, I'm merely pointing out that it doesn't work that way. If you have a claim, you had better be prepared to back it up because nobody gets a default evaluation of "true" stamped on their forehead around here.

No, I want you to prove your claims, instead of assuming its the job of others to disprove them.

And as for supporting my claims: you're obviously new around here, or you dont' read very much. Anyone who has read the monster thread on Tyre or the corresponding one on Babylon knows that if I make a claim, I am prepared to support it with barrels of sources and evidence.

Unlike you.

And in fact, I can only think of one source you've ever given for your many claims; the Wikipedia link to Ezekiel. Seems to me that in any head-to-head comparison of who provides (a) more sources, and (b) better quality sources, you don't even rate a comparison.

1. You haven't proven that the Tyre prophecy is correct or divinely inspired.
2. Since you took the affirmative position, the burden of proof is on you to prove your case -- it is not on me to disprove it.
3. You have likewise not shown any flaws in the so-called 'appeal to probability.'

Well, there actually are negative and positive -- if you didn't think so, then your earlier objection about "proving a negative" is strange. Why did you make it, if you didn't believe such things existed?

Secondly, shooting holes in your claim is not making a claim.

Invalid assumption - and another example of bad logic on your part. If I criticize, it does not imply any such thing as "supporting a different set of circumstances". Criticism merely says your argument is weak, and your claim has not been proven.

If you try to prove that an alien stole your peanut butter sandwich, I'm not going to believe you. That doesn't mean that I have an alternate theory about where the sandwich went. In truth, I might not know the answer. But if your alien argument is bullshit, then I can point out the flaws in your argument without necessarily having a better idea where the sandwich went.

In the same thread where your doomed "explanations" were first posted.

bfniii

all this posturing and ad hominem amounts to nothing. there is a source listed. it's inclination is irrelevant. it is correct or not?

what i see is that you are so mired in ad hominem arguments that you can't even deal with the stance, as is. a source is reliable or not reliable regardless of the inclination of the author.

i find that what you are asking for is ridiculous. you want impartial sources. who made them the authority on these matters? well, no one. it's a fallacy to claim their conclusions aren't tainted because they don't have a bias. it's impossible not to have a bias. it's impossible for a person's conclusions to not be filtered by their worldview. their conclusions could be just as wrong as anyone else's despite their alleged impartiality. you criticize christian sources as if they don't, or are incapable of, reading the very same textbooks or peer-reviewed magazines anyone else reads. it's a sign of insecurity for you to care what source is cited because if you have the winning hand, which i'm sure you believe you do, why would you care what the source is? your hand can trump any other. but you don't take that approach.

i think it's safe to say that the traditional position regarding the tyre prophecy is that it was written prior to the event. what reason do you have to dispute that position?

there is no methodology for dating the prophecy. so now what?

i think you misunderstand my point. the prophecy itself doesn't date itself. there is a date mentioned prior to ezekiel laying out the prophecy. why is that date incorrect? perhaps this is what you mean by the book being edited at a later date. who did the editing? where is your evidence?

my point is you believe there is not enough evidence to validate the account. so far your belief hasn't invalidated the account.

mistake? curious, i don't recall making one. perhaps you could point it out.

i'm not trying to make an argument. i'm asking you how you arrive at your conclusions.

i can see how you think this when you have yet to show the prophecy is false.

again, the prophecy itself does not "say" when it was written. ezekiel mentions when the prophecy came to him. in what way is the date mentioned false?

i will patiently endeavor to get you to understand that by criticizing, you implicitly assume a different set of events happened. for example, the date of the prophecy. you doubt that it was written prior to the event as ezekiel claims it was. your doubt stems from the fact that you have a preconceived notion that it happened a different way (you have said the book was later edited). your edition theory is based on an appeal to probability, thus vitiating the critique. is there some other reason why you think the prophecy was actually written after the event? this method conforms to your earlier appeal to the scientific method. we continue to disprove until, by process of elimination, we are left with something that has yet to be disproven. if you would like to claim that the account is not believable because there is no corroborating evidence, you are perfectly free to do so. however, you haven't disproven the account. you have merely dismissed it. the account will be debunked when you advance an idea that itself withstands all critique. until then, the passage retains it's potential for being true.

bfniii

the bible proponent will respond by saying that they haven't been given a reason to doubt their honesty. can you give them a good reason to doubt their honesty?

i'm asking you why you originally stated the prophecy can't be dated. if that's the case, how does that invalidate the prophecy? well, it doesn't. merely claiming that is a dismissal at most, not an invalidation. until someone advances an irrefutible idea, the passage retains it's potential for veracity.

the title of the thread you started is "A simple invalidation of the Tyre prophecy". that clearly implies you doubt the prophecy.

what i have said is that i have yet to be given an irrefutable invalidation of the fulfillment.

until an irrefutable idea is advanced, the passage retains it's potential for inerrancy. at that point, i maintain that any person is still free to dismiss the passage if they like. but it hasn't been invalidated. if this prophecy, along with all the others in the bible, continue to hold up to scrutiny, the bible's record becomes more and more impressive.

i don't make that assumption. i'm asking you to give me a reason to believe there were later editions. sauron's best attempt so far was an appeal to probability. i think most critical people are going to need something more substantial than that.

actually, you did and i can quote you on it. however, when i pressed you for your support, you merely claim it can't be accurately dated which undermines your own case.

BTW, this is not the first time you have contradicted yourself. you might want to start proofing your posts more carefully.

you are here implicitly claiming the passage was written or edited after the event. what gives you this idea? any response you provide needs to jibe with your original assertion that the passage can't be dated. in some posts you claim it can't be accurately dated, but in other posts you cite reasons why it was after the event. these two positions are clearly in conflict with one another which makes your position baffling.

"What about the prophecy indicates divine inspiration? The correct answer is, nothing at all."

another contradiction.

in post #23, i quoted you "A later addition is most certainly a reasonable possibility since Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings" and said that his army would go down "all" of the streets of the mainland settlement. There is no evidence that that happened." this quote comes from post #12. additionally, in post #7 you state "What indicates that the Tyre prophecy was not recorded until at least 100 after Ezekiel’s death? The correct answer is, nothing at all. What indicates that the prophecy was not altered well after it was first recorded? The correct answer is, nothing at all."

these are clear assertions by you that you believe there is evidence that the passage was altered after the event in question. are you doing this on purpose to waste my time or do you really not see that you are contradicting yourself? i think i'm being sent on a wild goose chase. if so, i tip my hat to you. it worked.

no. should i have a reason to believe that?

post #27

that's a different question altogether. we have to answer the question in the context of the times. what people (who lived prior to the event) could have forseen the events (it's a prophecy of multiple events)?

this response doesn't defend your position. you called for reasonable proof and i responded by asking what would be reasonable to you.

and how would you prove they didn't copy from each other? how would you prove they were telling the truth? how would you prove that they could know such a thing? how would you prove it wasn't a later christian redaction as in the case of the TF by josephus? the answer is, your example would prove nothing because it could be easily debunked. therefore, your example is flawed. now we're back to square one with the question of why we should doubt what ezekiel says.

the dating issue is not a problem.

which, of course, does nothing to invalidate any of the biblical passages. they still retain their potential for inerrancy.

as i have shown, such actions are not needed. as i have said before, feel free to contact whomever you consider to be the most reliable source and we can examine their response. what is really more pertinent is your waffling regarding the date, divine inspiration and later editions. you claim you don't doubt the biblical passage, but then supply reasons why the passage is invalid.

bfniii

each of these issues has already been dealt with in this thread.

bfniii

it most certainly does not

Sauron

No, I'm afraid they weren't.

Of course, if you think otherwise, feel free to point out the precise post where you think you dealt with these objections.

Sauron

Yes, I am afraid it does.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...57#post2364957
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...27#post2366327

But of course, there are so *many* mistakes in this prophetic text, that it's practically a pig's breakfast of errors.

Sauron

It amounts to quite a lot - a collection of inconvenient facts that you can't seem to shake off:

1. Wikipedia is not a source - it is an online blog with no formal peer review of the information - so quoting it is the equivalent of quoting someone's homemade webpage;

2. The article cites obviously biased evangelical books;

3. The claim you need to support is about the dating of Ezekiel. But you haven't yet proven that the tainted sources were even *used* to establish the date in the Wiki article. As I said earlier: In point of fact, you don't even know what these books from evangelical publishing houses have to say about the dating of Ezekiel. The way the Wikipedia page is set up, it does not give annotations for the specific datings. That means that the Wikipedia author(s) may not have used these evangelical books for that part of the article. The Wiki may have used the books for details about the life of Ezekiel, but gotten the dating info from some other source. Or they may have simply made it up.

4. It does not list any methodology for setting the date, other than to simply read the text of Ezekiel, which is circular;

No, there isn't. There is:

* a link to a wiki page (i.e., group blog);
* with no formal review for accuracy;
* not even an attribution in the Wiki article of the proposed date to any of the cited biased sources; and
* no methodology for the date, other than to accept the text at face-value.

If this qualifies as a "source", then roadkill qualifies as pepperoni pizza.

On the contrary. The arguments above are not ad hominem. But you are looking at them realizing that it's going to be several hours of work to find a real source, and you're quite frankly too lazy.

Asking for impartial sources is not ridiculous. It's standard procedure in discussing or debating anything. Otherwise, people could bring in forgeries, crackpot theories, etc. into the debate. Why should anyone be asked to waste time or energy evaluating obviously biased material?

And more to the point, why should anyone who desires to make a convincing argument to the audience, and support their position -- why would that peson even *want* to use such biased sources? Knowing that their bias renders them suspicious, it seems to me that you would run away from such sources as fast as you can, and only use sources of the highest quality.

Oh, but that would require actual work on your part - and we all know that ain't gonna happen, right?

Strawman on your part. I didn't make up the rules of debate, or about using high quality sources; they've been around for decades; as long as peer review and formal debating have existed, over a century. Apparently you were unaware of them, and are now trying to blame me for simply bringing them to your attention.

Another logical fallacy on your part. The fact that it is impossible to always be 100% free of bias does not excuse trying to use obviously slanted sources. You strive for the best sources you can find, with the smallest amount of bias possible - which you have failed to do.

You might not be able to have 100% honest govt; but that doesn't excuse political corruption, just because you can't be perfect. You might not ever be able to have a 100% efficient corporation; but that doesn't mean that you start wasting money left and right just because perfection is not attainable. The same principle exists here.

In the first place, you haven't proven that this is the traditional position.

In the second place, trying to claim "the traditional position "is just another way of saying "many people think". As I told you before: "many people think" there is a Loch Ness monster; I am not impressed. All I care about is what you can prove. If you are still claiming this was written before the event, then it should be child's play to prove it.

If that's your position, then I guess you can't use Tyre as an example of divinely inspired and fulfilled prophecy. So let's close the book on Tyre, and move on. Do you have any other candidates you wish to put forth in this category? If so, can you open a new thread so as not to derail this one? I'll join you there.

Note - from your admission above, it appears you now understand what a "circular argument" means. A little late, but progress nonetheless.

1. What date are you referring to that is mentioned? I think you mean an event, not a date.

2. Because mentioning a date does not equate to proving the text was written before that date. In the year 2005 -- right now -- I can write a book about the Revolutionary War. I will probably mention 1776 in that book. But the fact that I mentioned 1776 does not prove that my book was written before 1776.

Answered this already:
However, in this thread we are discussing your affirmative claims for the dating of the Tyre prophecy, and the accuracy of that prophecy in general. Your case is being criticized, as well as the claims of the bible. One of the underpinnings of your argument is the fidelity of the texts. But in the context of the OT, we know that several of the books have been tampered with. Because of that, you need to prove your particular book is free of such tampering. I don't need a specific reason to be suspicious of Ezekiel (although such specific reasons do exist). The fact that the OT texts have been tampered with on multiple occasions is all the evidence I need to insist you prove Ezekiel is untainted.

I already understood your point. But you fail to grasp mine.

I do not have to invalidate this account, you must VALIDATE it. You haven't proven the account valid in the first place; it does not get a default rating of "true" just because you want it to be that way.

1. The fact that you don't recall making your mistakes is hardly surprising.

2. In this post,
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...15#post2830715
you tried to cite the Wiki article as proof of the dating. But the article fails to list the methodology for the dating, other than to simply read the text and accept it at face-value. And if you recall, Johnny Skeptic's request included information about the methodology behind any such dating of the prophecy. That was your mistake. You made the same mistake earlier, in the main thread with Johnny Skeptic.

3. So in this post, I told you again about the errors of a circular argument:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...50#post2830850

1. If you are taking the position that the Tyre prophecy was (a) divinely inspired and (b) accurately fulfilled, then you most certainly *are* making an argument - whether you like it or not, and whether you know it or not. Now: are you still taking that position, or have you decided to back off from it?

2. The only conclusion I have reached in this thread is that you have failed to prove your affirmative case. I reach that conclusion based upon the fact that you have presented no evidence to support your position. (Actually, I have a sub-conclusion: that you dislike research and are unwilling to do it. But that's another matter).

Trying to shift the burden of proof again? Haven't you learned yet that trick doesn't work?

I don't have to show that the prophecy is false.You must show that it is TRUE.


Whether you refer to this by an actual numbered year (1500 AD) or you try to attach it to a certain event (the reign of King X), the problem is still the same. It is an entirely circular argument to try and date the prophecy using the internal date claims of the prophecy. And the internal date claims can be either a year or an event.

Edited to add: I was hasty. Apparently you still do not understand a circular argument. You think it applies to explicit year-dates, but for some reason you think it doesn't apply if *events* are mentioned instead of actual years.

And as I mentioned yesterday, that is 100% false. Let me repeat it, perhaps you'll get it this time:

Invalid assumption - and another example of bad logic on your part. If I criticize, it does not imply any such thing as "supporting a different set of circumstances". Criticism merely says your argument is weak, and your claim has not been proven.

If you try to prove that an alien stole your peanut butter sandwich, I'm not going to believe you. That doesn't mean that I have an alternate theory about where the sandwich went. In truth, I might not know the answer. But if your alien argument is bullshit, then I can point out the flaws in your argument without necessarily having a better idea where the sandwich went.

mata leao

if its so simple, why isnt it so simple? (thats why I'm tired)

Sauron

I don't think anyone ever claimed this was simple. Understanding the archaeology, the history, the textual issues, etc. takes lots of study.

Then afterwards, a person must apply this information in a logically coherent way to sift the information.

It is a LOT of WORK.