Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that it is enbumbent upon skeptics to disprove the Bible?

What evidence do you have that Deism is a false religion?

But the Bible does not contain any indisputable prophecies. Why is that? If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be an indisputable prophecy. No reasonable motives why God makes 100% disuptable prophecies = no God of the Bible.

Under certain other circumstances, you would not be a Christian today, and you would be just as certain of your worldview as you are today. What kind of God would set up a system like that?

If you would rather discuss those issues at the GRD Forum, just let me know.

Why do you keep avoiding my thread that is titled 'What if Micah 5:2 had been written differently?' You made at least one post, but then conveniently vacated the thread without directly answering the question.

arnoldo

Not really, I try to avoid responding to multiple posts but I'll get to your post eventually. Johnny, my understanding is that Tyre is a type of comercial superpower that will be judged at some point in the future, remember that the love of money is the root of all evil and this explains why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (social inequality). The book of James goes into great depth about this. For y'all to have a better understanding of types in the bible here is a source: Prophecy, Allegory, and Typology* Prophecy and Interpretation

Johnny Skeptic

That is not true. You have participated in lots of threads at four forums. You vacated a number of threads when you got into trouble. You would never vacate a thread unless you got into trouble.

I doubt it. There is no way that you will be able to convince any rational person to believe that God was not able to inspire Micah to write Micah 5:2 in ways that would have caused more Jews to accept Jesus. You know that, and that is why you refused to directly answer the question in that thread. Your answer was that enough Jews accepted Jesus, when in fact that did not have anything whatsoever to do with the question.

Johnny Skeptic

What evidence do you have that Deism is a false religion? Answer: none whatsoever.

Why does the Bible contain 100% disputable prophecies? Answer: well, er, uh.......

But the Bible does not contain any indisputable prophecies. Why is that? If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be an indisputable prophecy. No reasonable motives why God makes 100% disuptable prophecies = no God of the Bible.

Under certain other circumstances, you would not be a Christian today, and you would be just as certain of your worldview as you are today. What kind of God would set up a system like that?

If you would rather discuss those issues at the GRD Forum, just let me know.

Why do you keep avoiding my thread that is titled 'What if Micah 5:2 had been written differently?' You made at least one post, but then conveniently vacated the thread without directly answering the question.

arnoldo

Try to keep an open mind Johnny. Here is some more info on the relationship between Tyre and Wealth.

Robert Royalty pg. 63

The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John (Hardcover) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Johnny Skeptic

But that does not have anything whatsoever to do with my thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5155378.

Since the Bible contains 100% disputable prophecies, just like every other religious book that contains prophecies, you are not in any position to ask me to have an open mind. It is you who need to have an open mind. What kind of God would want people to believe that he can predict the future, but make 100% disputable prophecies? If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster occurred, that would be an indisputable prophecy. If that happened, surely some skeptics would become Christians as a result. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

To be quite frank, you and sugarhitman are manipulators, controllers, and bullies, and you are frequently evasive, more so than any fundies who I have ever come across at any debate web site. That is not fair. You frequently refuse to directly answer questions, and you frequently insist on deciding which issues get discussed, and whose questions get answered. I will not allow you to manipulate me. If you will not directly answer my questions, and will not discuss what I want to discuss, I will not directly answer your questions, and I will not discuss what you want to discuss.

Regarding assessing the character of any being, his motives are everything. No reasonable motives why the God of the Bible makes 100% disputable prophecies when he could easily make 100% indisputable prophecies = no God of the Bible. You said that God used fulfilled prophecy after the fact to strengthen the faith of Jews. That cannot possibly be true. If Ezekiel had predicted that Alexander would defeat Tyre, that would have strenghthened the faith of Jews much more than was the case. 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.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, that would have strengthened the faith of Jews much more than was the case. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster occurred, that would strengthen the faith of many Christians, and it would cause some Jews to become Christians.

Bible prophecy is one of the worst defenses of Christianity. It is no accident that the most scholarly Christians at this forum generally do not debate Bible prophecy.

Under certain other circumstances, you would have had another worldview, and you would have been just as certain of your worldview as you are of your worldview today. What kind of God would set up a system like that, a system that depended upon chance and circumstance? How were early American Indians who lived prior to 1600 A.D. supposed to know about the God of the Bible? If a God exists, wouldn't it be best if he telephathically gave the same messages to everyone in the world? Copies of copies of ancient texts would be a very poor way for a God to communicate with humans since that would invite disputes over authorship, interpolations, lying, and innocent but inaccurate revelations, sometimes even among believers. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why no one is able to hear the Gosple message unless another person tells them about it. Do Christians consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God? If God had invented a cure for a disease in 50 A.D., would he have told Christians to take thousands of years to give the cure to everyone in the world who had the disease?

I remind you that I will not allow you to manipulate me. If you wish to discuss these issues at the GRD Forum, just let me know. I assume that your lame excuse will be that you are too busy to discuss what I want to discuss, in which case I will tell you that I am too busy to discuss what you want to discuss.

Johnny Skeptic

That is cute. You have attempted to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. What evidence do you have that Deism is a false religion? Answer: none whatsoever.

Why does the Bible contain 100% disputable prophecies? Answer: well, er, uh.......

Sheshonq

Yes. So what?

Not at all. Nebuchadnezzar succeeded in destroying Jerusalem is less than 2 years. Given that fact, Ezekiel would have easily assumed that Babylon could take Tyre.

I'm just going off from what Ezekiel wrote. He explicitly and clearly said the agent of destruction would be Nebuchadnezzar and the armies of Babylon.

Sheshonq

1. It's not theology we're attacking; it's bad history disguised as religion.
2. It's not an attack, it's a total devastation.

1. Probably because there is NO mention of Tyre in Revelation.
2. We dismiss it because of the frequent stupid and embarrassing claims you make.

Sorry; that's the claim you want to prove - but you've utterly and totally failed to do so yet. Result?
PROPHECY FAILS! :rolling:

Sheshonq

Too bad that Tyre isn't even mentioned in the Apocalypse. D'OH!