Jack the Bodiless

Not quite, but have you never heard of the Roman Empire? Or the Ottoman Empire? Both conquered Greece.
If you're still trying to draw an analogy with Israel here: what part of "this was not specifically prophesied" do you not understand? Have you forgotten that we're still waiting for someone to provide the actual "prophecy"?
How come you did all this, yet are not aware of the most famous of all the Delphic prophecies: the "wooden walls" that would protect Athens? This was interpreted as the wooden sides of the triremes that subsequently won the Battle of Salamis.

ETA: As you don't have a problem with fictional accounts of "fulfilment" (e.g. Jesus born in Bethlehem etc), then I guess Oedipus was a successful Greek prophecy also.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, because if the Bible had not said that Jews would return to their homeland, the partition of Palestine would never have happened. All that it takes to self-fulfill a prophecy is desire and enough military power, which the way that all empires have been conquered.

No it wasn't. Genesis 17:8 says that God promised to give Abraham ALL of the land of Canaan. Today, Jews do not occupy anywhere near ALL of the land of ancient Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if the Jews occupied one square mile of the ancient land of Canaan, that would be a fulfilled prophecy.

No problem, I will simply cut and paste some of my previous arguments that you conveniently refused to reply to even though I posted them on a number of occasions. I do not mind reposting the arguments a thousand times if I need. Thanks very much for helping build my confidence with your evasiveness and showing the undecided crowd that you are evasive, which means that that are not likely to buy the arguments of an evasive Christian.

No he didn't.

However, if the God of the Bible does not exist, that is exactly what we would expect to find. No loving, rational God would ever go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby needlessly creating doubt and confusion.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explain why humans have to do what God ought to be doing much of himself. Why would God frequently mimic the way that things would be if he did not exist, thereby needlessly causing doubt and confusion?

If the God of the Bible does not exist, there would be suspicious an unexplainable statistics regarding why people believe what they believe. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious.

The authors show that elderly skeptics are much less likely to change their worldview than younger skeptics are, and that elderly Christians are much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians are. If God exists, this means that he discriminates against elderly skeptics and younger Christians. If God does not exist, that explains why elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are. Again, if the God of the Bible exists, it is quite odd that he mimics that way that things would be if he did not exist.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the Gospel message was distributed entirely by humans. If God does exist, he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT they hear the Gospel message, and with mimicking the way that the Gospel message would be spread if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

We have a similar case regarding the distribution of food. James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person that his faith is dead, but God has refused to give food to millions of people who died of starvation. If God does not exist, that explains why all distribution of food is done by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist.

You have still failed to explain why God would frequently choose to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempt to reasonably prove that he exists. No loving, rational God would ever go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist. If a loving God exists, there is no way that it could be predicted that every year, the percentage of women in the U.S. who are Christians would be a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians, and that the percentage of elderly skeptics who become Christians would be much smaller than the percentage of younger skeptics who become Christians, and that the percentage of younger Christians who become skeptics would be much larger than the percentage of elderly Christians who become skeptics. If a loving God exists, the odds against those things being the way that they are are astronomical. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the primary factors that determine why people believe what they believe are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period.










But the main issue is whether or not the Partition of Palestine was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy, and Genesis 17:8 proves that it wasn't.

Jack the Bodiless

Why do you imagine that the Palestinians are not Caananites?

The "Caananites" became the "Phoenicians", which became the "Palestinians" (and Lebanese etc). Of course, migrations occur, and the modern "Palestinians" include Arabs and suchlike (similarly, some of the Phoenicians went to Carthage and then became Tunisians etc). But where did you get the notion that the Caananites "no longer exist at all"?

...Especially as the Hebrews were a Caananite tribe. So the Hebrews don't exist?

Genetics has shown that the Jews and the Palestinians are basically the same people (apart from the European genes that the Jewish exile population picked up).

The Caananites exist.

spin

You can't seriously make statements that combine Jews and Israelis as you have, because as the world situation is your claim is falsified. You need to falsify your prophecy for accuracy sake by saying some Jews, not all Jews, as your statement implies.

Don't be so sure. (Here.)


spin

arnoldo

No matter, Israel exists this very moment and will never again be uprooted from the land. History will prove this correct just as it has proved prophecy fulfilled in Tyre.

That's why it's called a prophecy,ie, something that will happen in the future. Just because you misunderstand or misinterpret bible prophecy doesn't mean it's not true.

arnoldo

Ok, I guess the United States better give the land back to the Indians too, Ridiculous.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes it will. Regardless, Genesis 17:8 proves that the Partition of Palestine was not a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. In addition, I have proven that the Partition of Palestine was a self-fulfilled prophecy just like when Abraham murdered the Canaanites and stoled their land. If the Bible had not said that Jews would return to their homeland, the Partition of Palestine would have happened. You obviously do not know what a self-fulfilled prophecy is. I suggest that you go to Wikipedia and find out. No Bible, no Partition of Palestine. The average sixth grader could unverstand this.

But you have not provided any evidence that the Tyre prophecy was made before the events.

Yes, because if the Bible had not said that Jews would return to their homeland, the partition of Palestine would never have happened. All that it takes to self-fulfill a prophecy is desire and enough military power, which the way that all empires have been conquered.

No it wasn't. Genesis 17:8 says that God promised to give Abraham ALL of the land of Canaan. Today, Jews do not occupy anywhere near ALL of the land of ancient Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if the Jews occupied one square mile of the ancient land of Canaan, that would be a fulfilled prophecy.

No problem, I will simply cut and paste some of my previous arguments that you conveniently refused to reply to even though I posted them on a number of occasions. I do not mind reposting the arguments a thousand times if I need. Thanks very much for helping build my confidence with your evasiveness and showing the undecided crowd that you are evasive, which means that that are not likely to buy the arguments of an evasive Christian.

No he didn't.

However, if the God of the Bible does not exist, that is exactly what we would expect to find. No loving, rational God would ever go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby needlessly creating doubt and confusion.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explain why humans have to do what God ought to be doing much of himself. Why would God frequently mimic the way that things would be if he did not exist, thereby needlessly causing doubt and confusion?

If the God of the Bible does not exist, there would be suspicious an unexplainable statistics regarding why people believe what they believe. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious.

The authors show that elderly skeptics are much less likely to change their worldview than younger skeptics are, and that elderly Christians are much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians are. If God exists, this means that he discriminates against elderly skeptics and younger Christians. If God does not exist, that explains why elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are. Again, if the God of the Bible exists, it is quite odd that he mimics that way that things would be if he did not exist.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the Gospel message was distributed entirely by humans. If God does exist, he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT they hear the Gospel message, and with mimicking the way that the Gospel message would be spread if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

We have a similar case regarding the distribution of food. James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person that his faith is dead, but God has refused to give food to millions of people who died of starvation. If God does not exist, that explains why all distribution of food is done by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist.

You have still failed to explain why God would frequently choose to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempt to reasonably prove that he exists. No loving, rational God would ever go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist. If a loving God exists, there is no way that it could be predicted that every year, the percentage of women in the U.S. who are Christians would be a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians, and that the percentage of elderly skeptics who become Christians would be much smaller than the percentage of younger skeptics who become Christians, and that the percentage of younger Christians who become skeptics would be much larger than the percentage of elderly Christians who become skeptics. If a loving God exists, the odds against those things being the way that they are are astronomical. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the primary factors that determine why people believe what they believe are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period.

But the main issue is whether or not the Partition of Palestine was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy, and Genesis 17:8 proves that it wasn't.

Jack the Bodiless

Another totally baseless assertion, linked to a failed prophecy.

...Followed by more stuff from a book written around the time of the BABYLONIAN EXILE. A "prophecy" which later FAILED when the Romans scattered the Jews again!

Arnoldo, why can't you just admit that you've lost?

spin

That of course should give arnoldo apoplexy. The bible puts the Canaanites as sons of Ham. This is convenient naturally. He will naturally reject your statement on the bible's word.

However, the Hebrews have a Canaanite language, which is closer to other Canaanite languages than Phoenician which left the group earlier. The bible falsely puts Canaan into the sons of Ham in order to justify the notion of disinheriting the Canaanites. Still he will reject the evidence on the bible's word, which probably ultimately means it is useless to talk to him, because he has no rational standards, trusting a book on no evidential grounds above tangible evidence.


spin

spin

The only ridiculous thing I see is your butterfly logic. You made some crap claim about Palestinians not being Canaanites, to which I indicated that it's not as transparent as you make out, and then blurt this non sequitur.

And the United States needs to face the consequences of living for a few hundred years at the expense of native Americans.


spin