bfniii

i understand the assumption. i don't necessarily disagree. i have read the explanation. i am pointing out the case of special pleading, which apparently you still haven't caught on to.

furthermore, i don't follow how the convenient, non-christian post mortem of the TF relates to taking the bible at face value. i was referring to the TF, not the bible.

BTW, you failed to point out me refusing to study failed prophecies. i can provide a list of websites that claim the opposite so clearly i have studied the issue. if you would like to know christian responses to this issue, i will be glad to provide some for you.

only obvious to someone trying to obviate fulfillment.

curiously, i am unable to find any reference to tyre being desolate immediately after that battle.

showing the tyre prophecy fulfilled is no more "fudge" than trying to twist it so that nebuchadnezzar was supposed to be the final blow, that tyre still exists and that ezekiel knew the prophecy failed.

Jack the Bodiless

I quoted your own admission that you had failed to study the linked site. But we are familiar with "Christian responses" in general: they don't stand up.
Obvious to anyone reading the Bible. When a city has actual walls which an actual attacker is trying to breach, and he fails: why should we imagine a "figurative sense" in which he succeeded? When Tyre is on a rock, which is supposed to become a "bare rock", and this doesn't happen: why should we imagine a "figurative sense" in which it did? When Tyre is supposed to be destroyed "never to be found again", but still exists: why should we imagine a "figurative sense" in which it does not?

In general: why should we imagine that any failed prophecy actually succeeded in a "figurative sense"? You seem to be saying that it's impossible for a prophecy to fail, because there's always a "figurative sense" in which it did not. If so: why should we consider prophecy fulfillment to be noteworthy?

If the Bible's prophecies are "fulfilled": so are ALL prophecies, made by those of EVERY religion (and no religion). Yet this itself contradicts the Biblical worldview. Also, presumably, any apparently successful prophecy has a "figurative sense" in which it FAILED.

bfniii

i think your assessment is a bit premature. if the prophecy refers to the reuniting of judah and joseph, then the prophecy is not yet fulfilled. if the prophecy refers to the messianic kingdom, then it's not yet fulfilled.

(answers referring to 1 chronicles 27:24 have been removed because it's not clear that it refers to the same census)

1. When did God get angry?
A. Before the census
B. Because of the census
*c. all of the above

2. Who incited David to take the Census?
A. God
B. Satan
*c. God allowed satan to act. therefore, satan and ultimately God.

3. What human mandated the census?
A. David
B. David
*c. david; joab carried it out.

4. Who protested against the census?
A. Joab and his captains.
B. Joab.
*c. a and b.

5. What was wrong with taking a census?
A. Nothing, God mandated it in Numbers 26:2
B. Nothing, God required it for taxes in Exodus 30:12
*c. exodus 30:12

6. How long did it take to do the census?
*A. Nine months, 20 days.
B. Not recorded
(1 chronicles not recording the length doesn't contradict 2 sam)

7. Who all was counted?
A. All tribes
*B. All tribes except Levi and Benjamin
(2 samuel doesn't mention that levi and benjamin were or weren't counted. therefore, no contradiction)

8. What was the number of the census?
A. 1.3 Million
*B. 1.57 Million
(the chronicler, most likely ezra, is probably including the standing army mentioned in 1 chronicles 27:1-15 whereas samuel is not. the fact that she records such a group indicates she either had information samuel did not or samuel didn't care to include that group)

9. What stopped the census?
A. Done counting
B. Done counting
*C. a and b

10. Who took the blame for doing the census?
A. David
B. David
*C. a and b

11. What is the name of the Jebusite where the angel stopped?
A. Araunah
B. Ornan
*C. a and b. both variations on the same name.

12. What did the Jebusite do when he saw the Angel of Death?
A. Doesn’t say the Jebusite saw the Angel.
B. Just kept working, just kept working…
*C. a and b. the two aren't mutually exclusive

13. What did David buy from the Jebusite?
A. The Threshing floor and the oxen.
B. “the place�
*C. a and b. the two aren't mutually exclusive

14. How much did David pay the Jebusite?
A. 50 shekels of silver
B. 600 shekels of gold
*C. a and b. samuel mentions one part of the purchase whereas the chronicler mentions all or more of the purchase. the two aren't mutually exclusive

first, there is no mention of God "desiring" to kill people. second, there is nothing mentioned about the people killed. the point is we know it happened but we no little to nothing about the details of that portion of the story. therefore, trying to draw conclusions from such little information is like saying the sun is an inch big because that's how it looks to the naked eye.

God ultimatly controls the universe. satan is a part of it. therefore, satan is subject to God's rule.

this representation is a mischaracterization of the passage. david's hubris is at fault, not any collusion by God and satan.

bfniii

but not the issue as a whole, which is how i took your original comments.

i understand you feel that way. other people are convinced that the explanations are satisfactory. what makes your opinion superior?

because in the prophecy, ezekiel doesn't say tyre will be ultimately destroyed by nebuchadnezzar

i notice here that you ask the same question that i answered in the previous post.

either the prophecy is fulfilled or it isn't, regardless of whether it is literal or figurative.

you are mistaken

that's certainly not the case.

if the prophecy is misinterpreted, as is the case here, then i agree. it's not impressive.

would you be willing to back that statment up with some facts?

if the prophecy is successful, why worry about any possible contrivance that it failed?

John A. Broussard

This puzzles me. If god is all-powerful, and if satan is nothing but god's agent, then--obviously--satan's evil actions are really god's evil actions.

What's the point to having this intermediary? If god wants a census to be performed, why get satan to do the ordering?

This is all very baffling.

Please clarify.

bfniii

allowing evil to exist does not make God evil. in fact, i submit that evil is necessary in order for us to comprehend good. if i can figure that out, certainly God is aware of it. it seems the difference is that allowing evil is indirect as opposed to being the direct source of evil like satan or our own actions. i understand that ultimately God is responsible for having created all things, but that doesn't change the previous point.

satan, lucifer, had freewill just like we do. therefore, there is no "point" to having an intermediary. lucifer chose the role that he now occupies. again, God may have allowed and even foreseen this circumstance. but that doesn't obviate the freewill involved.

i appreciate your questions. most of the time i get lambasted for suggesting that there is reasonable information contrary to what is supported by non-christians.

John A. Broussard

You say that, "evil is necessary in order for us to comprehend good."

Doesn't that then mean that god was unable to allow "comprehension" of the good without also allowing evil?

It seems to me you are putting limits on your all-powerful god by saying god can only allow comprehension of the good by allowing evil.

Am I reading you correctly?

bfniii

this passage is referring to humans judging humans not God judging humans.

this passage is in future tense (it shall come to pass). therefore, that set of circumstances had not contemporaneously occurred.

notice the use of the word "guilt" which is different than consequence. there is a monumental difference. the bible is trying to point out that guilt is not transferrable which is an important doctrinal tenet.

given the preceeding clarification, there is no need to address the rest (the bible says no list). they are valid in their own right, i.e. consequence of sin.

genocide is definitely not an accurate term in the case of the amalekites. israel was at war with them (as God said would happen), but they didn't actively and deliberately try to eliminate every single one of them.

first, God wouldn't be just if He didn't follow through on His promises. second, there isn't enough information provided by the bible about the people of the amalekites to discern if they weren't deserving of their fate.

the bible doesn't suggest anything contrary to your statement.

no offense, but the "jack" system of jurisprudence is certainly not as appealing as the divine one.

bfniii

an intuitive question, but ultimately the old "can God make a rock so big, He can't lift it".

the paradigm we exist in presupposes good/evil. wouldn't you agree? could God create a system differently? sure. but would it make sense to us as we exist now? no. the question is self-defeating. could God create a paradigm that He didn't create? i hope that makes sense.

John A. Broussard

Let's try again.

Could god create a system differently?

You've agreed that god could.

Could god create a system without evil which would make sense to us as we exist now?

You say your god cannot do so.

I can only point to the Christian heaven where god has been able to create a system without evil, in which the inhabitants are supremely happy, where all is peachy, wonderful.

If god can do that, would it be a self-contradiction for her/his/it to have created a world without innocent people suffering, without children dying of starvation, without malaria affecting millions?

Please don't bring in free will unless you want to apply it to toddlers and the unborn.

My contention is that the god, as formulated by Christians (and undoubtedly by other religious enthusiasts) is basically evil. That is a god that not only gratuitously allows human suffering but must in fact gloat over it since this is an all-powerful god who could as easily prevent that suffering as she/it/he goes about creating galaxies.