Gullwind

Exactly. You are reading more into the text that is actually there. And you have made your motivations quite clear.

You haven't presented anything that might convince me, other than express your opinion that it means more than it says.

Possibly, but that isn't what happened with Tyre. It was rebuilt, it traded again, and we still know where it was. To continue your example, the house was rebuilt, the at-home business started up again, but somehow you insist that the business was "never found."

Reasonable only to someone trying to preserve the infallibility of the bible.

Gullwind

Don't forget to mention that you are also saying that "never found" refers to the trading empire and not the city or the people, coincidentally at the same point at which the prophecy would fail if it still referred to the physical city or the people.

Johnny Skeptic

No aspects are any more critical to the Tyre prophecy than the aspects of dating and possible revisions. Until you have settled the necessary issue of dating, you don't even have any evidence at all that you are actually discussing a prophecy. You have the cart before the horse. Logically, you need to establish that Ezekiel 26 is prophetic before you discuss whether or not the prophecy was fulfilled. The details of the prophecy only have significance if Ezekiel 26 is prophetic, and you have not yet established that. Until you do, any skeptic at any time can rightly protest that your arguments are incomplete and do not provide adequate evidence that the prophecy was divinely inspired.

If a similar prophecy appeared in another religious book, there is no way that you would defend it. Your only evidence is faith and Biblical inerrancy, right? Don't inerrantists automatically rubber stamp everything in the Bible? If the Bible said that the earth is flat, you would find a way to defend that claim.

We all know that you do not have any interest in settling this issue because you are well aware of the difficulties involved. Bfniii tried, but to no avail. I know you quite well after years of debating you at the Theology Web and here at the Secular Web. You are always interested in taking any advantage of embarrassing skeptics, and you would never miss an opportunity to present arguments about dating and possible revisions if you had confidence in your arguments.

As I expected, you do not have any more interest in debating the Babylon prophecy. Your evasiveness is viewed as weakness by the undecided crowd. You are well aware that Muslims do not have adequate incentives for rebuilding Babylon, but you seldom like to admit that you are wrong even when you know that you are wrong. Didn't you originally get your absurd arguments about the Babylon prophecy from Josh McDowell? If so, that was your first mistake. McDowell is a fraud, and I can prove it. If you wish, we can debate some of his writings about the book of Daniel. How about it, Lee? I can prove to you that some of McDowell's OWN sources refuted his arguments, AND IN THE VERY BOOKS THAT MCDOWELL QUOTED.

dongiovanni1976x

So when the verse says, “YOU will not be inhabited” in chapter 26 verse 20, who does the pronoun refer to? How can a person be inhabited? When another translation says of the same verse, “You will stay there (in the Pit) and never again be a city filled with people,” (same problem here) what is the referential pointing to with regards the pronoun here? When God turns this PRONOUN into a wasted city, a city empty of people- how is it he is referring to people or anything but a city? IN the same breath God says he will push/bring/carry this same YOU down as the waters cover this same YOU…and that people will “come looking for your city, but it will never be found again” – “They will send out search parties for YOU, but you’ll never be found” BECAUSE God will bring this same PRONOUN to a dreadful end and it will be NO MORE and it will NEVER be found again.

Ref.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Since you are an inerrantist, consider this: Since God has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without having heard the Gospel message, why would he be concerned with accurate originals or accurate copies? Surely an accurate original or an accurate copy is no better than no Bible at all as far as those people were concerned.

Johnny Skeptic

No aspects are any more critical to the Tyre prophecy than the aspects of dating and possible revisions. Until you have settled the necessary issue of dating, you don't even have any evidence at all that you are actually discussing a prophecy. You have the cart before the horse. Logically, you need to establish that Ezekiel 26 is prophetic before you discuss whether or not the prophecy was fulfilled. The details of the prophecy only have significance if Ezekiel 26 is prophetic, and you have not yet established that. Until you do, any skeptic at any time can rightly protest that your arguments are incomplete and do not provide adequate evidence that the prophecy was divinely inspired.

If a similar prophecy appeared in another religious book, there is no way that you would defend it.

We all know that you do not have any interest in settling this issue because you are well aware of the difficulties involved. Bfniii tried, but to no avail. I know you quite well after years of debating you at the Theology Web and here at the Secular Web. You are always interested in taking any advantage of embarrassing skeptics, and you would never miss an opportunity to present arguments about dating and possible revisions if you had confidence in your arguments.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

But I haven’t heard that Tyre was again a trading empire, a “queen of the seas.”

Ezekiel 27:3-4 Say to Tyre, situated at the gateway to the sea, merchant of peoples on many coasts, 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: "'You say, O Tyre, "I am perfect in beauty." Your domain was on the high seas; your builders brought your beauty to perfection.

Maybe so, but if your at-home business was like Microsoft, and then afterwards it was like standard home office operations, I would think those who sought a restoration would consider themselves disappointed.

No, I hold that there are references to both to the city and the people, and by extension to the trading empire.

Ezekiel 27:32-34 As they wail and mourn over you, they will take up a lament concerning you: "Who was ever silenced like Tyre, surrounded by the sea?" When your merchandise went out on the seas, you satisfied many nations; with your great wealth and your wares you enriched the kings of the earth. Now you are shattered by the sea in the depths of the waters; your wares and all your company have gone down with you.

But then which leg on a three-legged stool is most important? There are several required aspects, some claims are like that, and undoing any critical aspect undoes the whole claim.

Actually, I use this prophecy a lot, and I do point people to the discussion, and would be glad to hear new points that have not been discussed.

Me, of course!

No, I would say the geography, the part that I conclude is now underwater.

The geography again, I agree.

Right, but the reference clearly changes to people in verse 20, dwellings don’t dwell, nor are they said to live anywhere.

But I am one who hopes that God will save these people, possibly there is repentance after death. But that’s another topic!

I must admit that when skeptics set out to embarrass the theists, it is rather motivating to me to seek to turn the tables! Maybe I have a sin to confess…

Blessings,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Fine, as long as you admit that 1) no one should accept the Tyre prophecy as being divinely inspired until the issues of dating and possible revisions have been discussed, and that 2) until the issues of dating and possible revisions have been discussed, the events that the prophecy mentions should be considered ordinary secular history with no significance whatsoever. Anyone can prophesy after the fact with 100% accuracy, or aren’t you aware of that? You seem to have no understanding what it means to win the battle but lose the war. IT IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE BY ANY MEANS TO RULE OUT A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT THE TYRE PROPHECY HAS BEEN REVISED. EVEN TODAY, ANY BIBLE PROPHECY CAN BE REVISED, TAKEN TO SOME (CERTAINLY NOT ALL) REMOTE JUNGLE REGIONS, AND PASSED OFF AS THE “REAL THING.” CENTURIES AGO THE REVISIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER TO PASS OF AS THE “REAL THING.” WHAT GOOD IS AN ORIGINALLY INERRANT BIBLE IF IT CAN BE REVISED? IN ADDITION, SINCE GOD HAS ALLOWED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE TO DIE WITHOUT HAVING HEARD THE GOSPEL MESSAGE, AN INNERRANT BIBLE, OR ACCURATE COPIES, ARE MOST CERTAINLY NOT ANY BETTER THAN NO BIBLE AT ALL AS FAR AS THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED. OBVIOUSLY, GOD IS NOT REALLY THAT CONCERNED ABOUT BIBLICAL INERRNACY AND THE GREAT COMMISSION AFTER ALL.

I will remind readers from time to time about these issues lest you influence any unwary and gullible new readers. I will also remind them that like bfniii, you place great importance on your personal experiences, but when you discussed this some time ago, you quickly, and quite conveniently I might add, gave up and withdrew from the debate.

Ok, the following argument contains some new points:

Isaiah 13:19-20 say "And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there."

Isaiah 13:19-20 makes three claims, and logically, discrediting ANY of them discredits ALL of them. When I brought this up in the old thread, you said that some people would be more convinced that the Bible had been discredited if Babylon were to be rebuilt than if Arabs were to pitch their tents there, of if shepherds were to graze their flocks there. What about you, Lee? Are you part of those “some people”? Now, here is my new point:

Logically, even if some people would be more convinced that the Bible had been discredited if Babylon were to be rebuilt, surely you must agree that some people would be convinced that the Bible had been discredited if Arabs were to pitch their tents in Babylon, or if shepherds were to graze their flocks there. Am I correct, Lee? Polls could quickly and easily settle this issue. Your own church would be a good place for you to conduct such a poll, but readers can rest assured that you won’t, and they can also rest assured that you don’t want me to conduct a poll. If you do want me to conduct a poll, I will be generous and contact only fundamentalist Christians. In addition, I will be happy to contact some professors at some fundamentalist Christian colleges OF YOUR CHOOSING. How much more generous can I get. I can easily prove that you have virtually no support EVEN AMONG YOUR OWN KIND.

I would never turn down a dare from you, but then my arguments are much better than yours and you know it. When the goin’ gets tough, the weak leave town.

Exactly WHERE do you use this prophecy a lot? Certainly not anywhere where I am around to easily refute your arguments, and certainly not anywhere that you will tell me about. I plan to go to a number of Christian debate forums and post your absurd arguments about the Babylon prophecy and the Tyre prophecy.

Cajela said that he thought that another long debate would start in my new thread on the Babylon prophecy because the last debate was a long one, but I told him to rest assured that you would refuse to participate in me new thread, and I was right. My new thread has gotten almost 90 views in only one day. Almost anyone reading it knows that I embarrassed you.

It is my duty to inform readers that your views about the Babylon prophecy are not shared EVEN BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF FUNDAMENTALIST CHIRSTIANS. I doubt that you could produce the names and e-mail addresses of even 10 FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS who agree with your arguments, although I could easily produce 100 names and e-mail addresses of FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS who agree with my arguments.

Regarding your claim that you “would be glad to hear new points that have not been discussed,” first of all, it is you who need something new because you never came anywhere near reasonably proving your assertion that Muslims have a lot to gain by rebuilding Babylon because they would discredit the Bible. As I said in the new thread on the Babylon prophecy, and in the older thread, the only things that would entice Muslims to rebuild Babylon would be if they had reasonable guarantees that a substantial number of Christians, or even a moderate number of Christians (in fact, there is not any evidence at all that even .001% of Christians would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt), would give up Christianity, and/or that the U.S. would adopt a friendly foreign policy towards Muslims. You are well aware that neither of those things would happen, and that it would be easy for you as the asserter to take polls among Christians and contact the U.S. State Department if you really believed that your arguments are valid. Second of all, new readers frequently come to the Secular Web, and at least for their benefit you should participate in my new thread on the Babylon prophecy, but I know that you won’t because you don’t want to embarrass yourself. If you don’t, most new readers will assume that I have won by default. Third of all, the Secular Web is the most prestigious and most visited skeptic web site in the world. What better venue could you possibly have for discussing your arguments, especially arguments about a prophecy that you said that you use frequently, obviously at some secret, undisclosed locations? Virtually no one is going to believe that you have refused to participate in the best possible venue for a Christian to present his arguments because you only want to discuss new arguments. Fourth of all, I came up with my current arguments about the Babylon prophecy late in the debate in the old thread. Had I come up with them much earlier, you would have withdrawn much earlier. Fifth of all, you would refuse to try to discredit Islam under similar conditions. Sixth of all, in the new thread on the Babylon prophecy, I said:

Now when I brought up this issue in the old thread you said that rebuilding Babylon would be more convincing to some people than Arabs pitching their tents there, or shepherds grazing their flocks there. Your argument was patently absurd. I should have made more of an issue out of your fallacious argument, but I can do so now.

dongiovanni1976x

But Lee verse 20 says, The same pronoun is used continuously…YOU will be thrust down, YOU will sit down there/be set/placed down there with the dead people and ruins of long ago and YOU will never be INHABITED. This is talking about the city of TYRE the same GEOGRAPHIC piece of land you believe is under water still…
How is this pronoun switching or "clearly changing"- I see no evidence for such a switch…plus it is talking about NOT BEING INHABITED all in the same breath...God will thrust TYRE down into the sea, into the place of old Sheol/the Pit and it will be set there with all the dead and be not inhabited...in the very next verse we read that it will be lost and never found again, laying forever in the Pit, a dreadful/terrible end/fate for such a proud city.

dongiovanni1976x

"(19) When I, the Lord God, make Tyre a city laid waste, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over Tyre, and the great waters cover Tyre, (20) THEN I will thrust Tyre down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of long ago, AND I, the Lord God, shall set Tyre (yashab, set/place) in the low parts of the earth, among the primeval ruins, with those who go down to the Pit, so that Tyre will not be inhabited, or have a place in the land of the living. (21) I, the Lord God, will bring Tyre to a dreadful end, and Tyre will never be found again, says the Lord God."

Lee, how much clearer can this be?