Originally Posted by rhutchin

...and then identifies Himself as God. Even the Pharisees understood that which Jesus claimed as they accused Jesus of blasphemy and sought to kill Him for claiming to be God.

Originally Posted by makerowner

When did he claim to be God? He calls himself the Son of Man, and the Christ (according to the gospels) and the gospels call him the Son of God, but where does he claim to be God?

Originally Posted by rhutchin

God need only explain what He is doing to those few. God also wants those who are not to be saved to know what is going on, so that if they do not like that outcome, they can do something about it. Everyone should know their eternal destiny and be comfortable with that destiny.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

That is obviously false since millions of people have died without hearing the Gospel message.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

God gives parents the freedom to keep the gospel from their children. Some parents are not very nice.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I guess you don't debate contradictions, despite your meager efforts to do so in previous messages, because of the burden placed on you to substantiate any assertion that a contradiction exists.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Till, of course, has little interest in the spiritual welfare of people and would naturally read the passage for its physical elements. I don't really do much with the OT prophecies.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

That is ridiculous. The passage contains physical elements that did not happen. That no doubt harmed the spiritual welfare of some Bible believers. The same goes for Nebuchadnezzar's failure to defeat Tyre after Ezekiel called him a "kings of kings," reference Ezekiel chapter 26. I suspect that the "many nations" part of Ezekiel 26 was added after it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre. It is doubtful that Ezekiel would claim that a "king of kings" would get into the city of Tyre, tear down lots of its towers, and kill lots of people, and then fail to capture the city. Several generations of people who knew about the Tyre prophecy died without seeing if fulfilled. If anything, that would have caused doubt, certainly not confidence. You obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Mark 2
5 ...[Jesus] said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.”
6 And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts,
7 “Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
8 ...[Jesus] said to them, “Why do you reason about these things in your hearts?
9 “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’?
10 “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”--He said to the paralytic,
11 “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”

Originally Posted by makerowner

I don't see him claiming to be God, I see him claiming to be the Son of Man.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

...and then identifies Himself as God.

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

rhutchin 7 points. (1 point penalty for piling on)

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

He never denied that only God can forgive.