bfniii

incorrect. as i have stated in the past, the burden of proof lies with each individual to believe whatever they want. they only need to justify it to themselves. a case has been made for both sides. any individual has three choices: to believe one of the sides or dismiss both. any explanatory power of either side is nothing more than debatable for the sake of debate. explanatory power is subjective. the degree of burden increases as a person tries to convince others.

the above is the part of hume's logic that he got right.

it is a fallacy to say that the burden ONLY lies with anyone affirming because to negate is to also make a positive statement that some other situation exists. this is further support that the burden lies with anyone choosing to believe either side.

this is blatant appeal to probability. even if every other book from all time had been edited, that doesn't prove it in the specific case of the bible.

another problem with this statement is that you are asking for proof of a negative, which is a fallacy.

furthermore, this is another case of the fallacy from the prior point. claiming that bible proponents defending the bible's authenticity is an affirmation, is no different than the opposite position being affirmative. the denial implicitly claims the opposite or something different. if such a claim is made, support is required.

another request for proof of a negative.

another problem with this statement is that there is no way to prove divine inspiration, or lack thereof. a miraculous event such as this is beyond the pervue of science. therefore, the request is illogical.

this is another case of the burden of proof resting with the individual. any person can believe the point as is, not believe or dismiss altogether (maybe because they feel not enough information is available). the bible proponent is merely responsible for accurately representing what the bible claims.

explained above.

explained in the biblical errors thread.

bfniii

i affirmed this by stating "the article cites several sources".

this is ad hominem: they are incorrect. how do we know? because they are evangelical. they most certainly are objective. you just don't like what they have to say.

the methodology is implied by the nature of the account, which is a prophecy. it is in not circular. as i said, you are free to believe or not. your disbelief in no way falsifies the account.

:rolling: or what? the nation of sauron will declare war on me?

wrong. the date is already established as the passage implies. if you're going to debunk it with the hopes of convincing anyone, it's your case to make. otherwise, any potential reader is free to believe the passage as is.

bfniii

that's not what i'm suggesting. if you want to debunk what the bible records and convince anyone, the burden lies with you. otherwise, any individual is free to dismiss your claim that what the bible records is not true.

since there can no proof of such, the request is meaningless.

certainly. why shouldn't i?

in order to convince anyone of your claim, you would have to provide more information (which mouse, which ship, when, where, etc)

you wish.

no, actually you are the claimant by claiming some other situation is what happened. if you know of some other situation and you hope to convince anyone, make your case. otherwise, your claim can be dismissed as unsupported.

i am not trying to change anything. i am illuminating an omission of the application of the rule. i am trying to dispel the inaccurate notion that the burden of proof lies with any one particular person unless that person is trying to convince others.

i make no assertion, i merely represent what the bible records. do you have a reason to believe the account is untrue?

christianity purports that ezekiel was deemed a prophet by God coupled with the fact that it also purports the prophecies were fulfilled.

the means by which tyre would be attacked.

so you're going to make the claim that the prophecy was appended but you don't have to support the claim? how is that not special pleading? what gives you the idea it was appended?

i count at least three instances in the previous post alone where you make a claim, but don't bother to defend it. how is that not assumption?

no assumption is made. it's implied in the passage.

yes you did. you claimed that the date can't be fixed.

no assumption is made. it's implied in the passage.

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

there is no indication that there was. no assumption is made.

incorrect. "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."

since you aren't being honest here as i have just shown, your analysis is less than credible

the more pertinent issue is what reasons you have for not believing what the bible records.

the fact that your case has no grounds by it's own criteria. if no one can date the prophecy and the "prophecy" implies that it is a prophecy which presupposes prior composition, then you have no case. you have no reason to doubt that it was written prior to the event.

the key phrase is "reasonably proven". first, proof is not possible therefore the request is meaningless. second, reasonable is subjective and therefore not a reliable requirement.

therefore, sans a clear invalidation of the prophecy, what grounds do you have to dismiss it? well, none.

bfniii

fortunately, your advice is not required. it's hypocritical for you to criticize me when there are skeptics running around here making claims, and then saying they don't have to support their claim because they didn't make a claim. whatever.

it appears to me from the threads i have been involved in that people have heard of them and do care, otherwise there wouldn't be threads about them.

why, are they incorrect?

this is called the ad hominem fallacy: they are incorrect. how do we know? they are apologists. in other words, it doesn't matter who said what. what matters is the veracity of what was said.

already got three. i use them frequently. but thanks for the advice.

maybe for you. btw, there are others. i cited that one out of convenience.

i've already addressed that point with him. i refer you to that response.

yummyfur

I agree with most of your points, but would just point out the Joseph mentioned in the letter is not the Hebrew Patriarch Joseph, but the Tobiad Joseph, who was father to Hyrcanus, and lived shortly before the Maccabean period.

This makes a real letter by King Areus mentioning Hyrcanus unlikely, as the closest Spartan King named Areus was from the period 50 or so years before the Tobiads. The letter is supposedly written to Onias III.

To add to your points

That someone(especially petty tyrants) might name their city Tyre, to agrandize their feeble copy is pretty unremarkable, happens all the time, just look at how many places are named Jerusalem, Paris, London, Bethlehem ... .

I don't think even the letter writer (pseudo-Areus) considers Hyrcanus's Tyre, "The Tyre". he just mentions what it was called by Hyrcanus himself, and in giving it's location, clues us into the fact that it is not "The Tyre", why would someone need to tell Onias were such a famous city was located? only if they are not talking about that Tyre. Also, obviously everyone knows that Tyre was not founded in the second century B.C., which is what this letter would imply if one took it to be "The Tyre".

Johnny Skeptic

But what evidence supports your assumption that the prophecy predated the events?

Of course, but why do you assert that the prophecy predated the events?

And I was correct. If the prophecy was written 100 years after Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of the mainland settlement, what would distinguish it from the current version that we have in Ezekiel 26? The correct answer is, nothing at all. Any competent historian will tell you this.

I did not claim that the prophecy did not predate the events, but you claimed that the prophecy did predate the events. I am willing to agree that we do not know the correct answer beyond a reasonable doubt one way or the other. Are you?

Which reasonably proves what?

Ok, how about “What about the prophecy indicates divine inspiration�?

You made an assumption that no later additions were made, but I did not make an assumption that later additions were made. I am willing to agree that we do not know the correct answer one way or the other beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you? If there were later additions, how could we tell the difference between the additions and the current version that we have?

How many times do I have to tell you that it IS NOT my position that the prophecy was not divinely inspired, that it did not predate the events, and that later additions were made. I am simply asking you 1) what evidence reasonably proves that the prophecy was divinely inspired, 2) what evidence reasonably proves that the prophecy predated the events, and 3) what evidence reasonably proves that later additions were not made?

I said “reasonable proof,� not “proof.�

The point is, what evidence do you have the prophecy was written before the events?

[quote=Johnny Skeptic] The prophecy was made before Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of the mainland settlement. The prophecy was made 100 years after Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of the mainland settlement. What evidence would distinguish the first possibility from the second possibility? As any competent historian will tell you, nothing at all.

I prefer “Therefore, sans a clear validation of the prophecy, what grounds do you have to accept it?� Your argument would only be valid if there were a rule of logic that states that all assertions are valid unless proven invalid, and of course there is no such rule of logic. You might as well say “Therefore, sans a clear invalidation of a man’s claim that he saw a mouse pick up a battleship, what grounds do you have to dismiss it?

Why don't we let some historians at leading universities settle the issue of the dating of the Tyre prophecy? I will contact some historians at Yale, Brown, Cornell, and Stanford universities, and you can contact some historians at four universities of your own choosing, Christian universities if you wish. How about it?

bfniii

i'm not making an assumption. the date is implied by the passage itself. what reason do you have to doubt what is implied in the passage and/or the traditional position regarding the date?

i'm not making an assumption. can you give me a reason that casts doubt on the dating of the passage?

if your point is taken at face value and the date can't be fixed, what reason do you have to doubt the date implied in the passage?

the bible maintains that all the prophets in the bible were divinely appointed and inspired, and that their prophecies came true. can you supply information that casts doubt on what the bible records?

no i did not. all i have done is to query the present skeptics as to what support they have for the belief that bible passages were later appended.

yes you did and i quoted you.

we wouldn't be able to tell in any way that's pertinent to this case. has something given you a reason to believe that the version of the bible we have now has been altered after it's original composition?

yet i have quoted you as making these very statements. what gives?

i have answered this. since there can be no such evidence, the question is meaningless

since there can be no such evidence, the question is meaningless.

i have answered this. you're asking for proof of a negative which means the question is spurious.

and i have responded saying reasonable is subjective. what to you is reasonable?

i have tried to get this point across several times. what do you consider evidence?

you can prefer that if you like, but it doesn't deter some people from accepting it nor does it make you correct. the problem lies with "clear validation". to some people it is already clear. you, however, require something more. what is this something more?

no, i'm saying that you require something different than what already exists and i'm trying to find out what that is. you have made statements that support invalidation of the passage and i am trying to find out what your support is for making these statements.

i think you realize that this is a flawed analogy.

what historians think is not in question; their books are readily available to anyone. you are already aware of one particular christian source. what is pertinent is your position thus far. if the prophecy can't be accurately dated, why believe one person over another? if you want to know what support there is for the passage to be true, what kind of support do you require?

you may contact anyone you wish. bring back whatever you find out.

Sauron

You may have stated that in the past, but what does that matter? You are still wrong, regardless of when or how often you repeated your error. The burden of proof is always and forever on the clamant. It is not on the audience, or the skeptic.

No, there is only one side being presented here. You (and others) tried to make an affirmative case -- a case that was not supported by any evidence you offered.

Incorrect. He who claims, has the burden to prove said claim. Being unconvinced by someone else's weak argument does not create a burden of proof on the skeptic. It is not a negative claim; it is a statement that you have failed to prove your positive claim.

Wrong. It is an admission that since the possibility exists, it must be guarded against and no default assumption of "pure" can be awarded. If 3 out of 10 samples of water are known to be tainted with e. coli, then the 11th water sample has to be tested against it, because we have evidence that contamination has occurred in the past.

Proof of no editing is necessary. See the above.

1. Well, in point of fact it is a fallacy only in certain circumstances, not in all circumstances.

2. I am not asking for proof of a negative here; I am only asking for the customary tests to be run against this "sample" to see if any obvious signs of contamination exist. This is a reasonable and prudent request, considering that other "samples" have been tainted in the past.

3. And considering the extraordinary and unbelievable claims you plan to try and attach to this text, you need to take extra steps and efforts to validate that your foundation doesn't have any cracks in it. The house you plan to build is very large; make sure you can support it.

Wrong again. You really are having problems with the idea of proving affirmative claims, aren't you?

The bible does not get a default judgement of "true"; it must earn that rating, based upon the quality of the evidence that its proponents offer. The opposite position is merely that the bible proponents have failed in their quest to make a solid affirmative argument.

Some people will argue that a particular act (such as the invasion of Babylon) did not happen as the bible said. But such a statement of disbelief isn't made in a vacuum; people dont' go around saying "I don't believe something" at random. In all such cases, that statement is made in response to an earlier affirmative claim. Sometimes that earlier claim was in the form of a christian making a statement. Other times it may have come from reading the claims in the bible itself. Regardless, such "I dont' believe it" responses are merely re-stating that the affirmative bible claimants have a weak argument, for Reasons X, Y or Z. So even in such cases as this, the burden of proof remains upon the affirmative claimant.

Incorrect, for the reasons I just stated, above.

Also wrong; this is not a proof of a negative. If you want to hold this prophecy up as divinely inspired, then one of the qualifications of that is what I posted earlier, from a christian source:

1. Clarity: The prophecy must not be ambiguous.
2. Prior Announcement: The prediction must clearly be made before the fulfillment.
3. Independence: The prophet must not be able to cause the prophecy to occur.
4. Likelihood: The prophecy can’t be just a good guess.
5. No Manipulation: The one fulfilling the prophecy cannot be manipulating the circumstances.

You need to show that the information could not have been arrived at by Ezekiel through more ordinary means. If you can't -- and believe me, this has been tried hundreds of times and you absolutely cannot do so -- then the prophecy fails criteria 4, in bold. Which means that it cannot be considered as a good example of a divinely inspired prophecy.

1. The fact that there is no way to prove divine inspiration should have occurred to you, before you stuck your neck out and took the affirmative case for divine inspiration. It's a little late to be saying now that this is impossible, after you've already taken your position.

2. In point of fact, the way that science works is not to prove things right, so much as to prove things wrong. Science disproves, rather than proves. So you may not be able to prove that something is divinely inspired, but you could certainly prove that something was not inspired. One way of doing that would be to show that the information was acquired through non-divine means, or was highly likely to be publically known to everyone at the time. There is nothing "divinely inspired" about a prediction that oil prices will rise this winter in the USA. Same thing here with Ezekiel and the invasion of Tyre (or of Babylon).

No, it's a case of the affirmative claimant being unable to prove their claim, and then trying to move the goalposts so they avoid losing the argument.

Nonsense. The bible proponent is responsible for supporting whatever claims he/she makes about the bible. If they aren't prepared to do that, then maybe they should reconsider making such claims. After all, if we just wanted to know what the bible claimed, we could read it for ourselves.

Well, no. You tried to duck the burden of proof above, by creating non-existent burdens on the back of the skeptics. You also seemed to think -- incorrectly -- that being unconvinced of a poorly framed argument was the same thing as a negative claim; it is not. Finally, you followed that up with a misunderstanding of proving a negative.

You've done nothing to prove your case here; all you've done is toss a few misunderstood terms in the air and wave your hands. But you did indeed affirm the dating and divine inspiration -- when do you plan to provide proof for those claims?

Where the "explanations" were also shot down as well. Still your move.

Sauron

Which doesn't answer my statement. Wikipedia is *not* a source. The fact that it uses other sources does not mean that the body of text contained within the larger Wiki article is correct. Creationists write volumes of nonsense, but often cite a source at the end of their articles. That one source is not standing behind all the claims and statements of the *entire* article. You only face this problem because of the low-grade quality of Wikipedia; I suggest you move to a more reputable source.

1. In supporting an argument, the requirement is for reliable sources, without the taint of bias. Was that not obvious? Or was that not clear? Otherwise, I can just toss in any old atheist or anti-christian tract here, and you are forced to deal with it on an equal footing. A man's character is known by the quality of friends he keeps; an argument's quality is known by the caliber of the sources used to support it. So if you are unable or unwilling to provide high quality sources, I think that says volumes about the questionable nature of the argument you are making;

2. 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.

3. Lastly, the request was also for the methodology of the dating. Taking the prophecy at face value is not a methodology for verifying anything, since the self-same prophecy is the thing needing to be verified.

It's entirely circular. The question at hand is whether the prophecy was before or after the event it describes. Waving your hands and saying that we know the date is prior because the prophecy claims to be before the date is 100% pure circularity.

What I believe is not the question.
The question is whether you have proven your affirmative case. You have not -- and you never will, if you don't get a better understanding of what constitutes a circular argument.

The credibility of your position was degraded by the mistake you made earlier. Since you're trying to make an argument here, I naturally assumed that being successful in that endeavor mattered to you; hence the warning. My mistake.

How silly. Using the prophecy to prove the prophecy's claim is circular, as demonstrated above. Circular evidence is not admissible, so I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong here, and not I.

I really can't believe that you don't see the circularity here. The Quran says it was written before the time of Ezekiel, before Moses, even before Adam and the Garden of Eden. Therefore by your logic, it really was written that early - after all, it *says* it was. If it works for this prophecy in Ezekiel, then it works for the Quran, too.

And as many have tried patiently to explain to you, the skeptics have no burden of proof here. You are the only claimant here; everyone else is picking apart your argument. Pointing out specific flaws and mistakes in your affirmative case does not magically create a burden of proof on me, or any other skeptic.

Sauron

I stand corrected, then. I'm not an expert on Jewish history. I should have consulted you or someone like Apikorus, perhaps. :wave:

Indeed. But this petty tyrant's crime goes further. He borrows the description of Petra, as well as the name of Tyre. And the fact that a "rock" city was called "The Rock" (which is what Tyre / Sur would be translated to) is hardly surprising. It would be like having a city next to a lake, and calling it "Laketown" - a pretty obvious name, that wouldn't have required a lot of imagination.

All excellent points.