FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-20-2008, 11:52 PM   #41
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: georgia
Posts: 2,726
Default

[IMG]www.ancientworlds.net[/IMG]
sugarhitman is offline  
Old 01-20-2008, 11:59 PM   #42
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
I am not going to wade through all of that. If you want me to comment on something from that web site, you will have to quote it.

At any rate, since this thread is about the Tyre prophecy, you are off-topic. If you wish to debate Josephus and/or Daniel, please start a new thread. I started a new thread on Daniel a few hours ago.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 12:13 AM   #43
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Message to sugarhitman: Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

Quote:
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.
Did God tell a lie? At the very least, God was unnecessarily deceptive. A loving God would never be deceptive. No intelligent case can be made that the average person ought to be able to understand those Scriptures.

You broke your promise in another thread to discuss that article.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 12:26 AM   #44
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

If a God exists, there is no doubt that he does not care whether or not people believe that he can predict the future. If he did, he would have made some indisputable prophecies that came true thousands of years ago. Either sugarhitman or arnoldo made an invalid argument something like that if God made lots of predictions, false prophets could somehow deceive people. I replied that no false prophet could predict when and where natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month day and year. God's refusal to make indisputable predictions is good evidence that he does not care whether or not people believe that he can predict the future, or that he does not exist. Providing better evidence could not possibly harm God or anyone else. In addition, God's refusal to provide better evidence limits the size of the Christian church.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 12:52 AM   #45
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
sugarhitman,

As you tended to avoid much of what I wrote on this subject in the earlier thread, please answer each of these questions.
  1. Why were all the other Phoenician cities built on island, but you think Tyre, which was founded by Sidon, was not?
  2. Why would the central city of Tyre be on the land if there was an island off the coast that they could inhabit and thus be safer from siege?
  3. Why does Hiram king of Tyre say to Solomon, "do thou take care to procure us corn for this timber, which we stand in need of, because we inhabit in an island"? (Josephus, AJ 8.2.7. See also 8.6.3)
  4. Why does Josephus tell us that Hiram "raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them", Contra Apion 1.17, if Tyre was on the mainland?
  5. Where were "Old Tyre"'s harbors?
  6. Why did Shalmaneser V, Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal each besiege Tyre a few decades after the other, if they had each conquered the city and dominated it? Was it not because Tyre was an island and it came to an accord with each king from the safety of that island?
  7. What did Nebuchadnezzar do against the inhabitants of the island for the 13 years?
  8. Why does Ezekiel say, "King Nebuchadnezzar made his army labor hard against Tyre... yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor he expended against it", 29:18?
  9. Why does Ezekiel refer to the mainland possessions connected to Tyre as the "daughters on the land", if "Old Tyre" was on land?
  10. Why does Ezekiel refer to Tyre as being in the midst of the sea, 27:32, if it was not an island?
Thank you.


spin
I will answer your question if you ask mine (since you all want to play that game with Arnoldo) Josephus says that Jesus was the Christ, do you trust him as a source to believe this?
It doesn't work that way. I asked you first. So, if you want an answer, please respond to my questions. It's the same deal. The questions are already on the table, all you have to do is answer them and I'll happily oblige you. I tend to answer questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman View Post
Josephus says that the priests in Jerusalem read the book of Daniel to Alexander, thus showing that the book of Daniel was written before the events and not after, do you believe these accounts of Josephus also? I remember asking you this and if I recall correctly you said you did not believe it. So do you trust this book or not?:wave:
And remember, it's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of evaluating the data.

I'll look forward to your responses to my questions. Then I'll give you an answer here. Otherwise, it just looks like a ploy by you to avoid the responsibility of answering what you've already been asked.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 02:28 AM   #46
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: georgia
Posts: 2,726
Default

" Moreover King Hiram was himself a builder. He enlarged the island portion of Tyre by filling in the shallower regions of the sea around, and this NEW LAND he laid out in squares of PALACES AND TEMPLES" www.publicbookshelf.com

"Originally Tyre was populated on the mainland.....When Hiram came to power (969-936) he brought massive changes....he joined the two islands together....He not only built the royal palace, but great temples to Melkart and Astarte." www.ancientworlds.net

"The island itself is said to have been created by Hiram...Hiram linked the two Ambrosian isles to create his city..." www.timesonline.co.uk

Hiram built island Tyre around the 10 century. Herodotus says that this city was founded at the same time the temple went up at 2750 B.C.? Which is ofcourse not correct because Hiram constructed this temple in the 10th century. If this is true then where was the original palace and temple? On the mainland. Island Tyre was an etension of PaleoTyrus, when the new city went up the old city still remained. This is the city Neby attacked and conquered. :wave:
sugarhitman is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 02:41 AM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
I did not plan on writing on this again, but the critics are still bringing this up, so let us go back to this accurate prediction of Ezekiel.
The facts haven't changed: we are right, you are wrong. This isn't going to change anytime in the future either, no matter how many times you bring up the same stuff.

Why do so many fundies think that repetition will somehow make something true? Is it because this is how prayer works? Repeat something until you've brainwashed yourself...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
"Behold I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings..." Now here critics claims that the army under Nebby are the many nations predicted that would come against Tyrus. But look at the text Nebby's army is considered one army. A multi-national force is a coalition of soveriegn nations that are not under a single command (like the forces in Iraq) But this army is considered the army of Babylon under one command. Look at what Zek says:

"a king of kings, from the NORTH, with horses and with chariots, and with horsemen and COMPANIES and MUCH PEOPLE....

With HIS AXES (his not theirs)
HIS HORSES (not theirs)
WHEN HE ENTER YOUR GATES (NOT THEY)
HE SHALL BREAK DOWN YOUR WALLS (NOT THEY)
HE SHALL SET ENGINES OF WAR AGAINST YOUR WALLS (NOT THEY)
Why did you forget to include the line (Ezekiel 26:11) where HE (not THEY) will rampage down ALL the streets of Tyre? This shoots down any "fulflled on the mainland" argument, because even if you include the mainland as part of Tyre, the ISLAND is ALSO part of Tyre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
God says that he would make this place like the top of a rock and that it would not be built again. Critics says the city of Tyre is still there. Not in the place where it use to be.
Yes it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
Look! they say pointing to either a city on the island the causeway or a city on the mainland a pretty good distance away from the coast.
Nope, Tyre was on the island, and the modern city occupies the island AND the causeway AND a chunk of the mainland INCLUDING the coast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
But if you look right behind the buildings on the causeway, right behind the old coastline where Alex aquired rubble from the old city you will see a large bare spot which seems that construction has went out of its way to advoid. It encloses the Roman hippodrome which is more than large enough to house within it a large city. It is completely bare, and no building can ever take place there again because it is a UNESCO protected site. "thou shall be built no more" certainly has come true.
Again you shoot yourself in the foot! The ROMAN hippodrome was built by the ROMANS (...duh...) AFTER Tyre was supposed to be destroyed!

It was only a small PART of the ROMAN city!
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 03:09 AM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

BTW, any attempt to claim that (all of) Tyre was "on the mainland" is obviously nonsense, because Alexander later attacked TYRE by building a CAUSEWAY to reach it!
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 03:31 AM   #49
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: georgia
Posts: 2,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
I did not plan on writing on this again, but the critics are still bringing this up, so let us go back to this accurate prediction of Ezekiel.
The facts haven't changed: we are right, you are wrong. This isn't going to change anytime in the future either, no matter how many times you bring up the same stuff.

Why do so many fundies think that repetition will somehow make something true? Is it because this is how prayer works? Repeat something until you've brainwashed yourself...

Why did you forget to include the line (Ezekiel 26:11) where HE (not THEY) will rampage down ALL the streets of Tyre? This shoots down any "fulflled on the mainland" argument, because even if you include the mainland as part of Tyre, the ISLAND is ALSO part of Tyre.

Yes it is.

Nope, Tyre was on the island, and the modern city occupies the island AND the causeway AND a chunk of the mainland INCLUDING the coast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhitman
But if you look right behind the buildings on the causeway, right behind the old coastline where Alex aquired rubble from the old city you will see a large bare spot which seems that construction has went out of its way to advoid. It encloses the Roman hippodrome which is more than large enough to house within it a large city. It is completely bare, and no building can ever take place there again because it is a UNESCO protected site. "thou shall be built no more" certainly has come true.
Again you shoot yourself in the foot! The ROMAN hippodrome was built by the ROMANS (...duh...) AFTER Tyre was supposed to be destroyed!

It was only a small PART of the ROMAN city!

Yes but The hippodrome is enclosed in a large bare spot i am not speaking of just the hiipodrome but the area enclosing it which IS BARE right behind the ancient coastline. Oh but you dont see this area do you? Tyre proves that God exist. :wave:
sugarhitman is offline  
Old 01-21-2008, 03:35 AM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

But we KNOW that this "bare spot" could NEVER have been more than a small part of Tyre.

Because we know where Tyre actually WAS.

...Or do you really think Alexander goofed and attacked the wrong target?
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:50 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.