Johnny Skeptic

Ok, let's make a fresh start. Here is my revised titled and opening post.

Title: My case against the Tyre prophecy

Opening post: If Christians expect to convince skeptics and the undecided crowd that the Tyre prophecy has merit, they need to reasonably prove that the prophecy predated the events, and they need to reasonably prove that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. In addition, even if the prophecy predated the events, Christians need to state why they believe that it was divinely inspired. Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the exception, not the rule.

Aside from the fact that I don't trust the Bible in the first place, I specifically find the Tyre prophecy to be suspicious. One example of what I think is a reasonable possibility regarding a revision of the original prophecy is the claim that Nebuchadnezzar would go down ALL of the streets of the mainland settlement. There is no evidence that I am aware of that that happened. Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar "a king of kings," and yet this king of kings failed to conquer the mainland settement and eventually went home. Consider the following Scriptures:

Ezekiel 26:

7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.

9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

All of the verses refer to Nebuchadnezzar, and the destruction that they mention is extensive, and yet it took "many nations," reference Ezekiel 26:3, centuries to accomplish what this king of kings could not do. Ezekiel might have learned about Nebuchadnezzar's planned invasion in advance by oridnary means and expected him to defeat the mainland settlement by himself. The words "a king of kings" and that his forces would go down "all" of the streets of the mainland settlement ad merit to this possibility. In addition, Nebuchadnezzar's prior conquests would have caused many people to believe that his invasion of the mainland settlement would succeed. Once it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar was not going to defeat the mainland settlement, Ezekiel (or someone else) might have tried to save face by adding "many nations" to the prophecy.

Due to Nebuchadnezzar's power, his proven penchant for conquest, the riches of Tyre, and Babylon's close proximity to Tyre, it would have been surprising if he had not attacked Tyre. I believe that it is much more probable that Tyre angered Israel, not God. If Tyre had angered God, he wouldn't have taken centuries to "take care of business." Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example. Ezekiel 26:2 says "Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste." Even the New Testament speaks harshly against Tyre. Israel was and still is in close proximity to Tyre, and I believe that a squabble must have developed between Israel and Tyre, just like squabbles developed between the Jews and a number of other groups of people. Quite a few Old Testament prophecies are directed against enemies of the Jews, and yet God allowed the Jews' enemies to demolish them on a number of occasions. It is interesting to note that the Old Testament deals mostly with the Middle East and areas adjacent to the Middle East, because that is where most Jews lived. Why was God not concerned with the rest of the world? Why didn't he protect anyone but Jews?

As I have told Lee Merrill and bfniii, since Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too, it is not just a question of who can predict the future, but also of who has good character. I believe that God's character is suspect for a number of reasons. Therefore, I would not follow him even if I believed that he could predict the future.

Ezekiel said that the Tyrians had angered God because of their pride. However, babies don't have pride, and a number of innocent babies were no doubt killed by Nebuchadnezzar et al. The same goes for Sodom and Gomorrah where God must have killed some innocent babies.

Apikorus

That's rather awkward, Johnny. But suit yourself -- try starting another thread with that OP and see if you get any takers.

Incidentally, you once again purport to advertise your post as a "case against the Tyre prophecy" when you really have made no case against it at all. That is to say, you do not prove it impossible or even unlikely that Ezekiel wrote the prophecy before the fall of Tyre. A more appropriate title would be "Challenge to Christians : substantiate claims of Bible prophecies" or the like.

Johnny Skeptic

That is your opinion, but other skeptics have told me that they like my arguments.

I don't need to. The Tyre prophecy has been and is still is one of the most frequently debated religious topics on the Internet, and Christians have never even the minimum criteria for determing that the events that are discussed in Ezekiel 26 were divinely inspired, and that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. Some time ago, Lee Merrill started a thread on the Tyre prophecy. It had over 8,000 views and hundreds of replies. I once started a thread on the Tyre prophecy at the Theology Web. It had over 6,000 views and hundreds of replies.

In case you haven't noticed, there already have been some Christian takers in this thread, namely bfniii, Lee Merrill, and mata leao. Lee Merrill might have briefly discussed dating in another thread on the Tyre prophecy, but he quickly gave up trying to do that.

Yes I have. I have given many good reasons why people should not trust the Tyre prophecy.

No one can ever prove that something is impossible. Regarding "unlikely," logically, that is not the way debates about religion should work. The Bible is full of original, primary assertions from cover to cover, many of which you believe are not true. The very first verse in the Bible is an original, primary assertion. It says "In the beginning, God (and by implication the God of the Bible and no other God) created the heavens and the earth." As an agnostic, I do not promote naturalism, nor do I promote intelligent design, but Christians promote intelligent design, and fundamentalist Christians promote the notion that the events in Ezekiel 26 are a prophecy, but they have yet to reasonably establish that the events are a prophecy. In a court trial, the trial begins with an initial, primary assertion(s) from the plaintiff, which is analogous to the initial, primary assertions that are in Ezekiel 26. It is up to the plaintiff to prove his original, primary assertions beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not up to the defendant to disprove the plaintiff's original, primary assertions beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems to me that you are attempting to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. Skeptics do not need to reasonably disprove the Bible. Rather, Christians need to reasonably prove the Bible.

You took issue with me when I brought up lying, but do you not believe that many of the claims in the Bible are lies, or are the results of innocent but inaccurate revelations? Do you try to encourage people not to accept fundamentalist Christian theology? If so, what methods do you use? If you have some posts or other writings about fundamentalist Christian theology, I would like to read them. Surely you must believe that New Testament writers fraudulently pirated the Old Testament and turned it into a new religion.

Christians who are interested in discussing the Tyre prophecy have already done so in this thread and in the thread that is titled "The destruction of Tyre." In case you haven't noticed, in this thread I have already revised my title and opening post and challenged Christians to date the Tyre prophecy. If I start yet another thread on the Tyre prophecy when we already have two threads on it, some readers will think that that is ridiculous, and I would agree with them.

Apikorus

As PL clearly explained, in pellucid detail, you have cast yourself in the role of the plaintiff.

Seems like we are saying the same thing, Johnny.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Apikorus: In response to my claim that no writing in antiquity can be accurately dated to with +/- several years, you mentioned an instance in Daniel that you claim proves accurate dating. Even if I made a mistake and you are right, your example is not at all relevant to the Tyre prophecy.

Johnny Skeptic

I most certainly have not. Ezekiel was the original plaintiff when he claimed that his predictions were made before the events. Therefore, even without me starting any threads, it is incumbent upon Christians to accurately date the prophecy, which they haven't done, and until they do, it is in fact game, set, and match to the skeptics.

I remind you yet again that I have already revised my title and opening post. The revision is in fact a challenge to Christians to accurately date the Tyre prophecy, and PL approved of the revisions. I wonder how much you read the posts in this thread. Your research is shoddy and not at all thorough.

Apikorus

Johnny, you didn't so much make a mistake as you arrogated authority on a subject in which you have no competence. At any rate, I never claimed any linkage between the dating of Dan 8-12 and the dating of Ezek 26. I merely objected to your blanket assertion that accurate dating of ancient documents is never possible.

You seem obsessed in proving that the Bible is full of "lies." This is a comically unnuanced approach to the Bible. Apparently you haven't the least education in ancient languages, history, text criticism, archaeology, anthropology, etc. which are prerequisites for any serious discussion of this subject.

Now it is fine for skeptics to demand from Christians that they substantiate their beliefs. For sticking up for this principle, I give you props. But when you insist that you are not acting as the plaintiff, you are clearly wrong. If you insist some unnamed Christian inerrantist is the plaintiff in this debate, then where is your interlocutor?

A mathematical analogy: Many people have claimed that the Riemann hypothesis is true, i.e. that the complex zeros of the zeta function all lie along the line Re(z)=1/2. In the field of complex analysis, this is known as the Riemann hypothesis. Now suppose I were to start a thread entitled, "Invalidation of the Riemann hypothesis" in which I insist that proponents of the RH must prove, with requisite mathematical rigor, that the RH is true. This is a perfectly sensible thing to insist -- that proponents of a position must provide supporting evidence for it. But unless I provide evidence that the hypothesis is false, say by exhibiting a complex zero with Re(z)=1, then I have not provided the advertised "invalidation." The RH may still be true (and likely is so), even if it has gone unproven for almost 150 years.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Apikorus: Your arguments are patently absurd. Logically, no one can claim that anything is prophetic, regarding religion or anything else, unless they can first reasonably establish that the prediction(s) predated the events. Ezekiel, and the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians, have stated or believe that the predictions in Ezekiel predated the events. The very word "prophecy" carries with it a burden of proof regarding dating. Otherwise, whether or not the prophecy came true is completely irrelevant. Regardless of dating, do you agree with me that it is impossible to reasonably know whether or not the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version?

You said that I did not provide good evidence that the prophecy was revised. First of all, it is not incumbent upon me to do that, but I did anyway. I said:

Another problem for Christians is that they need to explain why God killed innocent babies in Tyre. Ezekiel said that the Tyrians were guilty of pride, but babies don't have pride.

Finally, even if the predictions predated the events, what about them indicates divine inspiration? Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the norm, not the exception. In other words, the Tyre prophecy is suspect aside from the issues of datings and revisions. Due to Nebuchadnezzar's power, his proven penchant for conquest, the riches of Tyre, and Babylon's close proximity to Tyre, it would have been surprising if he had not attacked Tyre. So, what is at all unusual about Ezekiel predicting something that would surely have been obvious to a lot of other people without any divine inspiration at all? Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Tyre would have taken months to plan, are surely hundreds if not thousands of people would have known about it. Such being the case, Ezekiel could easily have learned about the planned invasion by ordinary means, just like lots of other people learned about it.

Would you care to try again?

Apikorus

Johnny, I agree completely that in order to validate a text as "prophetic" one must reasonably establish that it was written before the events that were foretold actually transpired. Else it is a vaticinium ex eventu -- a retrojective prophecy.

By the same token, in order to falsify an allegedly prophetic text, one must reasonably establish e.g. that either the text was written after the event itself, or that the event did not unfold as described.

You have properly pointed out the obligations of those who insist on the unity and accuracy of the text to provide evidence in support of their claims, but you have utterly failed to falsify the claims. All you've done is point out why they could be false. Apparently you don't understand the difference between conjecture and proof.

Apikorus

Johnny has asked what I think about the oracles against Tyre in Ezek 26-28.

In the first place, I would agree that the text cannot accurately be dated. We really can't be sure that it was written before the events which were foretold, nor can we be sure that the text did not undergo an extended process of editing and accretion.

Modern scholars disagree as to the unity of the oracles. For example, Walther Zimmerli (Hermeneia) proffers detailed arguments for numerous editorial additions. Moshe Greenberg (Anchor Bible) argues strongly for the integrity of the text.

I find Zimmerli's hyper-philology unconvincing. (For example, based on the Hebrew I see no reason why 26:7ff should be regarded as a secondary expansion to 26:1-6.) Greenberg, on the other hand, provides a more coherent (and historically nuanced) picture. To quote Greenberg, The earliest oracle in 26:1-21 says unequivocally that Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar -- its walls breached, its houses demolished, never to be rebuilt, etc. But Tyre was not destroyed -- it was only partially subjugated, after a long siege. Indeed, it survived to be conquered by Alexander in 332 BCE, and the city was quite active during Greco-Roman times.

I'd add without much elaboration two additional points: (1) Tyre was conquered several times during Late Bronze and Iron Ages, by Egyptian and Assyrian rulers from Amenhotep III to Esarhaddon. (2) Tyre had apparently conspired with Judah and the other minor kingdoms to rebel against Babylon (Jer 27:3). Thus, given the historical context -- and in the wake of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem -- a prediction of Tyre's fall at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar would hardly have been remarkable.