Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Farrell Till · 03-17-2006, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Jayrok:
Richbee,

I have a question for you. In the ladder chapters of Ezekiel, the prophet describes the temple where God will finally reveal himself by dwelling with the Israelites in his temple in Jerusalem forever (Ezekiel 43:7). From chapter 40 on, the temple and methods of worshipping God are described in great detail.

Sacrifices (even daily) of animals will be required of men for atonement of sins before God. Foreignors will be able to offer to God provided they keep his sabbaths and so forth.

When is this prophesy [sic] going to come to pass?

The failure of this prophecy reminds me of a similar one that was made by the prophet Jeremiah. Notice the part emphasized in bold print.

Quote:

Jeremiah 33:14 The days are surely coming, says Yahweh, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. And this is the name by which it will be called: "Yahweh is our righteousness." 17 For thus says Yahweh: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 and the levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices for all time.

This is a well known messianic prophecy. Verse 17 is often quoted in reference to the presumed kingship of Jesus, who prophecy-fulfillment buffs now claim is sitting on the throne of the house of Israel and will sit there forever, but they say nothing about the very next verse, which says that there would always be levitical priests standing in the presence of Yahweh to offer burnt offerings, grain offerings, and sacrifices for all times, but the levitical system of sacrifices ended with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. "For all times," then, seemed to have ended about 2,000 years ago.

Perhaps Richbee would like to defend this failed prophecy too.

Farrell Till · 03-17-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Some believe that any settlement or building near to the old Tyre invalidates the prophesy (ies) of Ezekiel.

I disagree, and I have posted many times about this, as what is called Tyre today, in no way - shape or form can be compared to the great port city of the Biblical Tyre.

I have replied to this at least twice, but Richbee in typical fashion has ignored my replies. For his benefit, I am going to repost here, from #3243644 / #25 ," my reply to his in-no-way-shape-or-form quibble, which he has completely ignored.

Quote:

Richbee
nor was any city rebuilt in the same place. What some might call "Tyre" today is not in any any [sic] shape or form to be compared with the great city of the Old Testament.

Till:
This is a ridiculous quibble. According to Richbee's logic, San Francisco doesn't exist. It was destroyed by an earthquake on April 18, 1906, and what is there now is "not in any shape or form" the San Francisco that was there when the earthquake struck. Richbee would also have to say that New Orleans has been destroyed forever, because anything that might be rebuilt there will not "in any shape or form" be what was there before the hurricane destroyed the city. I marvel at how the intellectual integrity of diehard biblical inerrantists apparently experience no embarrassment when they resort to such quibbles as this one.

The Bible itself speaks of the rebuilding of cities.

Joshua 6:26 Joshua then pronounced this oath, saying, "Cursed before Yahweh be anyone who tries to build this city--this Jericho! At the cost of his firstborn he shall lay its foundation, and at the cost of his youngest he shall set up its gates!"

Till:
It's too bad that Richbee wasn't on the scene back then. He could have told Joshua that there was nothing to worry about, because Jericho had been destroyed, so whatever might be built on that site again would not be Jericho.

1 Kings 16:34 In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho; he laid its foundation at the cost of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of Yahweh, which he spoke by Joshua son of Nun.

Till:
If Richbee had written this text, he could have informed his readers that Hiel didn't really "build Jericho," because what he built on the site was not "in any shape or form" what had been there when Joshua's forces destroyed it.

The Babylonians destroyed the city of Jerusalem in 597 BC, but the Bible makes several references to the rebuilding of this city.

Jeremiah 30:18 "Thus says Yahweh, 'Behold I will bring back the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have mercy on his dwelling places. The city shall be built upon its own mound, and the palace shall remain according to its own plan.'"

Jeremiah 31:38 The days are surely coming, says Yahweh, when the city shall be rebuilt for Yahweh from the tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate.

Till:
Poor Jeremiah, he may have been inspired of God, but he seemed not to know that once the Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem, it was impossible ever to rebuild it, because whatever would be put on the site of the old Jerusalem would not be "in any shape or form" the city that Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed.

Other biblical writers seemed to be just as ignorant as Jeremiah.

Malachi 1:4 If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," Yahweh of hosts says: They may build, but I will tear down, until they are called the wicked country, the people with whom Yahweh is angry forever.

Amos 9:11 On that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old.... 14 I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.

Till:
What's that? They would "rebuilt the ruined cities"? It seems that biblical writers just didn't know that once a city had been ruined or destroyed it could never be rebuilt, because what was constructed on the old sites would "in no shape or form" be what was there before.

I could quote other examples, but I have already shown that Richbee's rebuilding quibble is completely without merit.

The fact that Richbee won't reply to rebuttals like this one is a clear indication that he knows his quibbles are indefensible.

Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com

John Kesler · 03-17-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

This is a well known messianic prophecy. Verse 17 [of Jeremiah 33] is often quoted in reference to the presumed kingship of Jesus, who prophecy-fulfillment buffs now claim is sitting on the throne of the house of Israel and will sit there forever, but they say nothing about the very next verse, which says that there would always be levitical priests standing in the presence of Yahweh to offer burnt offerings, grain offerings, and sacrifices for all times, but the levitical system of sacrifices ended with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. "For all times," then, seemed to have ended about 2,000 years ago.

What, then, does this say about Jeremiah's status as a prophet of Yahweh?

Quote:

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 (NRSV)
21 You may say to yourself, "How can we recognize a word that Yahweh has not spoken?" 22 If a prophet speaks in the name of Yahweh but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.

Farrell Till · 03-17-2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till
This is a well known messianic prophecy. Verse 17 [of Jeremiah 33] is often quoted in reference to the presumed kingship of Jesus, who prophecy-fulfillment buffs now claim is sitting on the throne of the house of Israel and will sit there forever, but they say nothing about the very next verse, which says that there would always be levitical priests standing in the presence of Yahweh to offer burnt offerings, grain offerings, and sacrifices for all times, but the levitical system of sacrifices ended with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. "For all times," then, seemed to have ended about 2,000 years ago.

John Kesler:
What, then, does this say about Jeremiah's status as a prophet of Yahweh?

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 (NRSV)
21 You may say to yourself, "How can we recognize a word that Yahweh has not spoken?" 22 If a prophet speaks in the name of Yahweh but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.

You have pretty well answered your question. I am responding to your post just to say that I am glad to see a familiar name. I never did understand why so many members of forums like this one try to hide their identities.

Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com

John Kesler · 03-17-2006, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

You have pretty well answered your question.

Yes, I asked the question rhetorically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

I am responding to your post just to say that I am glad to see a familiar name. I never did understand why so many members of forums like this one try to hide their identities.

"John Kesler" isn't my real name. My real name is George Bush, but I am ashamed to use it for obvious reasons.

Steven Avery · 03-17-2006, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

He predicted that the city would be destroyed and never built again, but a city is there now on the same spot that Ezekiel said would be a bare rock forever.

Hi Farrell .. greetings.

Hmmm.. Question about the above.
Haven't you improperly telescoped your scripture clauses ?

Ezekiel 26:3-5
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD;
Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus,
and will cause many nations to come up against thee,
as the sea causeth his waves to come up.
And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus,
and break down her towers:
I will also scrape her dust from her,
and make her like the top of a rock.
It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea:
for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD:
and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

Ezekiel 26:14
And I will make thee like the top of a rock:
thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon;
thou shalt be built no more:
for I the LORD have spoken it,
saith the Lord GOD.

From what I have read, the making of Tyre as the top of a rock did occur, remarkably, in a way that would be hard to apply to few other cities anywhere (eg. perhaps the rock section of Jerusalem razed, per Josephus, became like a bald rock, but no fishing nets there).

Now, above, referring to the bald-rockishness that Tyre became, you place in Ezekiel's mouth the word forever, but it is not in the text. Apparently you are taking that from "built no more", which is a bit of word play and clause-hopping.

Farrell, tis fine to make an argument that the exegesis of "built no more" needs to deal with the question of the population today (as eg. discussed by John Gill even when the city was largely desolate.) Tis not right to place something in the scriptures that is not there to create a straw-man claim.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Farrell Till · 03-17-2006, 10:16 AM

A reader has privately e-mailed me to point out other verses that support the view that Nebuchadnezzar's army was comprised of "many nations."

Quote:

Jeremiah 34:1 The word that came to Jeremiah from Yahweh when King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon and all his army and all the kingdoms of the earth and all the peoples under his dominion were fighting against Jerusalem and all its cities....

Jeremiah 27:6 Now I have given all these lands into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, my servant, and I have given him even the wild animals of the field to serve him. 7 All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings shall make him their slave.

When Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre, it was an army of many nations trying to defeat it. The attempt failed, so Ezekiel's prophecy failed, as he himself bluntly admitted a few chapters later.

Quote:

Ezekiel 29:17 17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of Yahweh came to me: 18 Mortal, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had expended against it. 19 Therefore thus says Yahweh God: I will give the land of Egypt to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. 20 I have given him the land of Egypt as his payment for which he labored, because they worked for me, says Yahweh God.

Why won't Richbee reply to these rebuttal points?

Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com

dongiovanni1976x · 03-17-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Farrell, tis fine to make an argument that the exegesis of "built no more" needs to deal with the question of the population today (as eg. discussed by John Gill even when the city was largely desolate.) Tis not right to place something in the scriptures that is not there to create a straw-man claim.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Are you suggesting that it is twisting scriptures to say that Ezekiel prophesized that Tyre would be nothing but a bare rock forever? It seems rather clear that Ezekiel said in chapter 26 that God, "will make [Tyre] a bare rock" (v. 14) and that he likewise said in the same verse that "[Tyre] will never be rebuilt" (v. 14) and that its peoples will be cast into, "the Pit" (v. 20) and that Tyre will be brought to a dreadful end, never to be found again (v. 21). How is it "not right" to suggest that a city, that is said to be made into a bare rock and will never be rebuilt nor inhabited ("you will not be inhabited or have a place in the land of the living" v. 20), be a bare rock forever as well? If it is not to be inhabited nor ever rebuilt and it was made into a "bare rock" then what is Mr. Till's offense with regards to "scripture"?

-Mark Simmons

Boro Nut · 03-17-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Now, above, referring to the bald-rockishness that Tyre became, you place in Ezekiel's mouth the word forever, but it is not in the text. Apparently you are taking that from "built no more", which is a bit of word play and clause-hopping.

Apart from the fact that you can’t actually place words in people’s mouths if they’re dead and/or it is written down not spoken, you're right. He seems to have confused never again and nevermore with connotations of not again ever. And to think he promised he'd do that no more. Other than that you've got a good point. He can't possibly claim it was not rebuilt no more if it wasn't no nay never a bare rock ever to be rebuilt from, more or neverwise, now can he? That would just be silly. Or apologetics if you prefer the proper technical term.

There is the alternative theory that certain ancient fortified-citadel-living peoples, finding themselves suddenly defeated and scraped scrupulously bare, often chose to reclaim their former glories by building a series of low stone walls. I subscribe to this theory myself as I’ve just made it up.

Boro Nut

dongiovanni1976x · 03-17-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boro Nut

He seems to have confused never again and nevermore with connotations of not again ever. Boro Nut

Verse 14, "You shall never again be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, says the Lord God."
Verse 21, "I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no more; though sought for, you will never be found again, says the Lord God."

How is this unclear?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.