arnoldo

Wrong again, if God wrote down in a book exactly (step by step, like a history book) what was going to happen we would have a lot of false prophets fooling the people. The way God wrote prophecy without a doubt proves it is divinely inspired since no man could have predicted the future. I guess your now going to claim that bible prophecy that came true was written after the fact, huh?

Johnny Skeptic

That is false. No false prophet can predict when and where natural disasters will occur years in advance. Obviously, based upon the historical record, neither can God.

arnoldo

Ok so from your POV every prophecy that has historicaly come true was either a self-fulfilled prophecy or forged after the fact, right?

Johnny Skeptic

Obviously not since Ezekiel did not say anything about Alexander.

A moral God would use his ability to predict the future to predict when and where natural disasters would occur.

[quote=arnoldo There are over 300 prophecies concerning Christ.......[/quote]

But none of them is convincing. Please start a new thread on messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled.

There is not any credible historical evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Not a chance. Matthew dreamed up the story of the magi in order to try to validate Micah 5:2. Micah 5:2 says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Aside from the fact that that verse does not refer to Jesus, which I will be happy to debate with you in a new thread if you wish, there is no way that a loving God would have sent the wise men to Herod when he could have used the star to lead the wise men directly to Bethlehem, thereby preventing the needless deaths of young children. If the wise men did go to Herod, since no claims about Jesus came about until decades later, many Jews must have worried that Herod might have been able to kill the messiah, or that the messiah had not been born after all.

On the contrary, I have reasonably proven that the partition of Palestine is a self-fulfilled prophecy. I recently started a new thread on that topic.

But you have not reasonably proven that the Tyre prophecy was made before the events, or, that if it was made before the events, that it was not revised.

arnoldo

You obviously believe all prophecy is either self fulfilled prophecy or it is forged, how convenient, since you obviously have absolutely no proof that one single "prophecy" was written after the fact.

Johnny Skeptic

I don't need any proof since the Bible is the claimant. As I said before, all that I have to do is provide reasonable plausibilities. You have not adequately disproven my plausibilities. It is not likely that Ezekiel would say that "a king of kings" (Nebuchadnezzar) would down the streets of Tyre, and tear down its towers, and fail to defeat Tyre, but it is likely that after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre that the "many nations" part of the Tyre prophecy was added. It is reasonably possible that Ezekiel knew about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to defeat Tyre in advance.

Arnoldo: You do not have any proof that one single Bible prophecy was written after the fact.

Deist: You do not have any proof that deism is false.

Arnoldo: Well, er, uh.......

Sheshonq

1. This was already addressed in the previous thread. You failed to respond to it.

2. Please present evidence that all of Bablyon's weapons were land-based.


No it isn't. Historians quite plainly tell us that Babylon sieged Tyre - yet failed.

Personally witnessing it is unnecessary.

No, because he was sieging the city and continued the siege for 13 years. They were at a stalemate, and both sides wanted a face-saving way to call it a draw.

Why did *who* resist Greece? When?

It won't do much good; you don't know enough about the history to even being discussing this intelligently.


No, they come one right after another. In fact, military planners refer to waves of bombers or waves of cavalry, all happening during the same battle.

No, it isn't.

Except that is not what the Babylonian army was. Each of the tribute nations was required to send a certain number of soldiers, horsemen and chariots as part of their tribute payment. It may have been one army, but it was still an army of "many nations".

Wrong. When are you going to learn not to argue scripture with people who know it better than you do?

The text says both - in typical Hebrew poetic fashion, it repeats the theme twice:

EZE 26:3 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.
EZE 26:4 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.
[...]
EZE 26:9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

Verses 1-6 lay out the destruction in general terms. Then at v7, Ezekiel repeats the destruction mentioned earlier, but now he names the agent of destruction: Nebuchadnezzar and the armies of Babylon.

So unless you are stupid enough to think that Nebuchadnezzar himself was wielding an axe in this battle, it's obviously a figurative usage that encompasses the entire army.

Not that it helps much, since the target of the prophecy was the island city, not the suburbs on the mainland. And "he" (Nebuchadnezzar) failed to conquer that.

How laughable. What proof have you given that they did not possess battering rams? What evidence have you given that they did not have ships (or that some of the tribute allies had ships)?

I asked you this before - you lacked the courage to answer it - here's another chance to see if you have any spine:

You have yet to prove that Nebuchadnezzar didn't understand the need for boats when conquering an island. You really think that he marched tens of thousands of soldiers six months from Babylon, and didn't realize that boats would be needed to conquer an island city?

You also seem to forget that a causeway existed. REmember? You misidentified the author of my source as being a co-author of the Da Vinci code? :rolling:

So not only have you brought zero evidence to support your claim of no ships and no battering rams, but you have never dealt with the fact that a causeway existed.

The rest of your drivel is like the above: repetition of already-refuted points.

Sheshonq

No, they did not.
Of course, if you think otherwise, then feel free to show us your evidence.

And nobody around here is buying wishy-washy claims that have no factual foundation. Until you learn the difference between "claim" and "prove", you're going to be running in circles chasing your own tail.

spin

Please explain how.


spin

arnoldo

The entire book of Daniel fortells the rise and fall of the Greek Empire under Alexander the Great, oops, I forgot it was written after the fact, er, it was a self-fulfilled prophesy... either way by your own admission the the prophect Daniel & Ezekiel is 100% accurate for one reason or the other, right?