Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 01-21-2008, 03:11 PM

In any event if there was a mistake in the book of Ezekiel according to your line of thinking it would have been corrected/revised. You have no historical evidence of any revisions to the book of Ezekiel whatsoever. Just because you misunderstand or misinterpret a prophecy doesn't mean it's wrong

Quote:

Atheistic argument:
>Ezekiel 26:3-36 explains at length that
>Nebuchadnezzar will lay siege to Tyre and destroy it, that he will take its
>money and goods, that the city will "be built no more" and "be no more."
>Any history book about the period will explain that Nebuchadnezzar's
>thirteen year siege was unsuccessful. The city was later conquered by
>Alexander the Great, but it was rebuilt and is currently inhabited
Answer
Atheist frequently quote this passage as evidence so let’s dispel this myth. This argument uses half-truths to back up the atheists claim of unfulfilled prophecy. I have seen this on several atheist websites and newsgroup postings. The real tragedy with atheism is that they take as truth what is hear only from these sources and never validate these claims to find out if they are true. I have done a little research and here is the historical evidence about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy:

Indeed Ezekiel did prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar shall lay siege and destroy Tyre. Verse 3 of the passage you cited also says that more nations will also be involved in the destruction of Tyre. Now here is the half-truth that atheist love to quote. Actually it is a series of half-truths. They claim Tyre was not destroyed – it was. They also claim that because Nebuchadnezzar didn’t finish the job, Ezekiel was wrong. Most atheist argue that Ezekiel was wrong because Alexander the Great defeated Tyre when Ezekiel 26:7-9 gives Nebuchadnezzar as the defeating leader. The half-truth is that indeed Nebuchadnezzar did defeat Tyre and fulfill exactly what the Bible says he will do. Alexander fulfilled the Bible's claim that the timber, stones and soil would be thrown into the sea leaving Tyre as a bare rock. The Bible does not call the leader by name who would fulfill this part of the prophecy, but it clearly specifies other nations would be involved.

When Nebuchadnezzar defeated Tyre, the people fled to an island. Alexander came and these same people resisted his conquering empire. To get to the island, Alexander the Great used the remains of the city in which Nebuchadnezzar had laid siege to build a bridge to the island and thus completely destroyed the remaining city of Tyre and completely fulfilled the prophecy of Ezekiel to the letter. Ezekiel 26 verse 12 says, "they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water."

It is very important to notice Nebuchadnezzar was called by name and when he is addressed in verse 7-8 the prophecy is addressed as 'he'...ie, "He will slay...He will direct his battering rams...". In verse 12 the prophecy is addressed as 'they', ie, "they will plunder...they will break...they will lay your stones, timber and soul in the midst of the water". Clearly this prophecy was not addressed to Nebuchadnezzar but rather to those who would follow.

This 'inaccuracy' is not as the atheist claims, but rather this prophecy was fulfilled to the exact letter proving that no one but God could have known before hand these events separated by so many years. If Nebuchadnezzar had fulfilled it all, it would have been said that he saw this prophecy and self-fulfilled it or that Ezekiel knew of Nebuchadnezzar’s plans and he prophesied accordingly. But when you see that God foretold that Nebuchadnezzar would not be able to complete the job but nations would wipe Tyre clean and when you see Nebuchadnezzar's defeat of the city, Tyre's flight to the island and Alexander's bridge to the island, you can't explain it any other way except that this Bible was inspired by God.
http://www.exchangedlife.com/skeptic/ezekiel.htm

chrisengland · 01-21-2008, 03:18 PM

Hello
Thought I owuld write this before I go to bed.
I must emphasize I havn't gone through all my notes yet.
Anyway according to wikipedia the mainland part of Tyre was actually called Usha.
Apparently though(this was from a Christian) a scolar called Paticia Bikai said that due to overcrouding a majority of the warehouses and population or something like that moved to the mainland.
Even if that were true though if part of it existed on the island then it hasn't been compleatly destroyed.
I,m not sure if most scholars think Tyre was an island when the prophecie was made I get the impresion they do but I wonderd what evidence do they have for that?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-21-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You explain that either prophecy is wrong, self-fulfilled, or if it is correct it was revised after the fact, how convenient.

Are you saying that you would never use any of those arguments regarding prophecies in other religious books. Are you suggesting that people should take your word for it that the Tyre prophecy was made before the events, and was not later revised?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You also neglect the fact that according to Jewish law the penalty for being a false prophet was death.

But you do know how many Jewish prophets might have been killed, and how many times they might have revised their prophecies so that would not be killed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

In fact IIRC Yeshua was accused of being of false prophet and was executed for this very reason.

There you go again getting off-topic. Do you by any chance know what the purpose of thread titles is? If any chance you do, then if you wish to discuss messiancies prophecies, you ought to know that you should start a new thread on messinic prophecies. Even though this thread is about the Trye prophecy, you have tried to validate it with the book of Daniel, with the Partition of Palestine, and now with messianic prophecy. Since you obviously do not believe that the Tyre prophecy can stand upon its merits, and since you contradicted yourself when you claimed that Daniel mentioned Alexander, only to later claim that you could not back that up, and since I have already reasonably proven that the Partion of Palestine is self-fulfilled prophecy, what do you suggest that we discuss next? Yet again, this thread is about the Tyre prophecy. If you wish to validate the Tyre prophecy by mentioning some other prophecies, which prophecies do you have in mind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Do you think Ezekiel had any concerns about being labeled a false prophet?

Certainly not if he conveniently revised his prophecies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Or is Ezekiel just another forgery?

Since you are the claimant, it is not up to me to resonably prove whether or not that is the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You have so many excuses it's hard to keep them straight.

That comment is not evidence. Please stick to the evidence. If you have any evidence that the Tyre prophecy was made before the events, and that it was not later revised, please post it. For purposes of this thread, I am not interested in any other prophecies. All prophecies must stand upon their own merits. Since you believe that the Tyre prophecy cannot stand upon its own merits, it is up to you to discuss a prophecy that you believe can stand upon its own merits.

Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander?

Why didn't God make any indisputable prophecies, such as predicting when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month, day, and year?

You are quite naive if you believe that reasonably validating the Biblical historical records reasonably defends Christianity. Even if a God inspired the Bible, his character is an equally important issue. Unless you can reasonably defend God's character, it does not make any difference if the Biblical historical records are true. A good place to discuss God's character is in a thread at the MF&P Forum at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=234658l. The title is 'Argument That the Christian God is Evil.' Do you intend to participate in that thread? One of the main reasons that people give up Christianity, or refuse to become Christians, is because they know that even a God inspired the Bible, he is evil, amoral, mentally incompetent, or a benevolent but inept bungler who failed in his attempts to create a much better world than the world that he created.

Sheshonq · 01-21-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Many historians has Hiram building the Royal Palace and the temple Melkert during his joining the Islands together.

"Many"? Which ones? Be specific.

Quote:

All this shows still is that at Best Tyre became a Island city during the days of Hiram. In the book of Joshua this city is located on the coast.

Hey einstein - an island city that is only 300 feet offshore *IS* located on the coast.

Sheshonq · 01-21-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Before, and revised after.

If it was revised after, why weren't the correction made?

It was. Ezekiel plainly says later in the same book that Nebuchadnezzar was to receive Egypt as compensation for not getting any booty from Tyre.

Of course, Babylon failed to invade Egypt as well.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-21-2008, 03:36 PM

Message to arnoldo: You have a major problem. Some conservative Jews agree with you that God can predict the future, but they have rejected Christianity. What is your message for those people? I may contact some Jewish scholars and use some of their arguments against you. After all, Jews know the Bible much better than Christains do. They know that Jesus did not fulfill one single Old Testament prophecy. They believe that Micah 5:2 predicts that a messiah would come who would be a genetic descendant of David. When Matthew contradicted Micah 5:2 by claiming that Jesus would be conceived by the Holy Spirit, meaning that he could not possibly be a genetic descendant of David, Jews who lived during the time of Jesus knew that he was a fraud, assuming that he existed at all even as an ordinary man. Matthew dreamed up the story of the three wise men in an attempt to validate Micah 5:2, but he actually contradicted Micah 5:2, and inadvertently portrayed God as an accessory to murder in the process.

The story of the three wise men is proof enough that the Bible is fraudulent. A loving God would have led the wise men directly to Bethlehem with a star, thereby preventing the needless deaths of lots of innocent babies.

Sheshonq · 01-21-2008, 03:37 PM

Here's a question that sugarhitman won't answer:

Let's assume Babylon's only intent was to conquer the mainland settlement. That would take, what - at most, a year? Given the size and scope of Babylon's army? Oh, let's say two years.

But the siege lasted for 13 years.

So after the army of Babylon conquered the island settlement, what did it do for the next eleven years? Just sit there, doing crossword puzzles? Why stick around for an additional eleven years, if the mission is over?

If Nebuchadnezzar didn't siege the island city, then why did the siege take 13 years?

That's the question to you, sugarhitman. Use both sides of the paper if necessary.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-21-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Before, and revised after.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

If it was revised after, why weren't the corrections made?

What corrections? I never said that there are any errors. Neither have Orthodox Jews, but they have rejected Christianity. What is your message to them?

If all skeptics agreed with you that the predictions came true, but that it is reasonably possible that the prophecy was revised, what would you say then?

chrisengland · 01-21-2008, 03:50 PM

Hello
I keep trying to go to bed but I,m finding this quite interesting.
Anyone want to answer my question though' what is the evidence that Tyre was an island city by the time the prophecie was made?
Also does anybody want to say anything about usha?

Darklighter · 01-21-2008, 04:00 PM

arnoldo, your question about why wasn't the prophecy revised (if wrong), isn't one that critics can answer, any more than you could answer why we can't prove these were written before the fact. It's a red herring. But it is what it is... wrong. Who cares why it wasn't revised? It's still wrong. But it's possible this debate has been going on since Neb failed to take the city.

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

01-21-2008, 03:18 PM	#122
chrisengland Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bristol' England Posts: 2,678	Hello Thought I owuld write this before I go to bed. I must emphasize I havn't gone through all my notes yet. Anyway according to wikipedia the mainland part of Tyre was actually called Usha. Apparently though(this was from a Christian) a scolar called Paticia Bikai said that due to overcrouding a majority of the warehouses and population or something like that moved to the mainland. Even if that were true though if part of it existed on the island then it hasn't been compleatly destroyed. I,m not sure if most scholars think Tyre was an island when the prophecie was made I get the impresion they do but I wonderd what evidence do they have for that?

01-21-2008, 03:36 PM	#126
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: You have a major problem. Some conservative Jews agree with you that God can predict the future, but they have rejected Christianity. What is your message for those people? I may contact some Jewish scholars and use some of their arguments against you. After all, Jews know the Bible much better than Christains do. They know that Jesus did not fulfill one single Old Testament prophecy. They believe that Micah 5:2 predicts that a messiah would come who would be a genetic descendant of David. When Matthew contradicted Micah 5:2 by claiming that Jesus would be conceived by the Holy Spirit, meaning that he could not possibly be a genetic descendant of David, Jews who lived during the time of Jesus knew that he was a fraud, assuming that he existed at all even as an ordinary man. Matthew dreamed up the story of the three wise men in an attempt to validate Micah 5:2, but he actually contradicted Micah 5:2, and inadvertently portrayed God as an accessory to murder in the process. The story of the three wise men is proof enough that the Bible is fraudulent. A loving God would have led the wise men directly to Bethlehem with a star, thereby preventing the needless deaths of lots of innocent babies.

01-21-2008, 03:37 PM	#127
Sheshonq Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis Posts: 1,484	Here's a question that sugarhitman won't answer: Let's assume Babylon's only intent was to conquer the mainland settlement. That would take, what - at most, a year? Given the size and scope of Babylon's army? Oh, let's say two years. But the siege lasted for 13 years. So after the army of Babylon conquered the island settlement, what did it do for the next eleven years? Just sit there, doing crossword puzzles? Why stick around for an additional eleven years, if the mission is over? If Nebuchadnezzar didn't siege the island city, then why did the siege take 13 years? That's the question to you, sugarhitman. Use both sides of the paper if necessary.

01-21-2008, 03:50 PM	#129
chrisengland Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bristol' England Posts: 2,678	Hello I keep trying to go to bed but I,m finding this quite interesting. Anyone want to answer my question though' what is the evidence that Tyre was an island city by the time the prophecie was made? Also does anybody want to say anything about usha?

01-21-2008, 04:00 PM	#130
Darklighter Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Pale Blue Dot Posts: 463	arnoldo, your question about why wasn't the prophecy revised (if wrong), isn't one that critics can answer, any more than you could answer why we can't prove these were written before the fact. It's a red herring. But it is what it is... wrong. Who cares why it wasn't revised? It's still wrong. But it's possible this debate has been going on since Neb failed to take the city.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.