Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why would Ezekiel predict that "a king of kings" (Nebuchadnezzar) would invade Tyre, go down its streets, tear down its towers, and fail to defeat Tyre? No rational person would predict that a king of kings would invade a kingdom and fail to conquer the kingdom. It is obvious that the false prophet Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre, and that when Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre, the "many nations" part of the prophecy was added, as well as God's failed promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre.

Originally Posted by arnoldo

How do you know this "a king of kings" is Nebuchadnezar?

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, perfect God would never be deceptive. No intelligent case can be made that the average person ought to be able to understand those Scriptures.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If you mean where the Jews belonged when they stole land from the Canaanites, my answer is that should have bought land, not stolen it from the Canaanites, or that they should have set up residence in an unoccupied area. Regarding the Partition of Palestine in 1948, the original partition was not fair because it granted control of Jerusalem to the Jews instead of establishing joint control of Jerusalem, or dividing Jerusalem in half between Jews and Palestinians, and because it granted a disproportionate amount of land to Jews. At that time, Palestinians were much more numerous than Jews were. I do not know what the case is today.

The conclusion is that God is a bully, a murder, a liar, and a hypocrite, and the Jews are bullies, and murderers. With parasites alone, God has murdered more people than all of the wars in history. Your moral are suspect.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Would you like to go to the GRD Forum and start a new thread about God's character? No?, I didn't think that you would. I am sure that that goes for sugarhitman as well. Actually, there is no need for you to start a new thread since there is already a thread at the GRD Forum that is titled 'Justifying BibleGod's Atrocities.' At this time, all Christians have conveniently vacated that thread. The link is http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=230295.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Now Johnny's true colors are beginning to show. He is a Anti-semite Bible hating critic.

Originally Posted by arnoldo

A loving God will also want to give the Jews a homeland instead of wandering among the nation and being persecuted like they have been for the past two thousand years since the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Still haven't studied much Jewish history, eh?

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

What difference does that make? The Israelis kill with bombs, aircraft and tanks. The Palestinians use other weapons. In the end, it's still violent death.

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

The Jews could not have "peacefully acquired" a modern state, without forcibly taking Arab land as a first step. That is an act of aggression.Tell you what: I promise to "peacefully acquire" a modern house, providing that you surrender yours without a fight. Do we have a deal?

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

You dodged Johnny's question. That's dishonest of you. He was talking about a specific promise, and you know it.

I'm sure he'll drag you back to it and make you answer the direct point he was asking about.

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

You can neither claim that Israel will again be uprooted from it's homeland either.


No miracles involved. Just a lot of help from the US and Europe.

Not hardly.

By the way: I listed the requirements for you to claim Israel as a fulfilled prophecy. Do you plan to ever do the work to support your claim?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: How did Abraham interpret God's land promise? .

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

One thing that discredits all Bible prophecies is that there are not any sensible motives regarding why God would always refuse to predict and fulfill indisputable prophecies. For instance, God could easily have predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month, day, and year. Refusing to make indisputable prophecies could not possibly benefit God or anyone else. This is good evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

That's what Ezekiel calls him. Is Ezekiel wrong?

EZE 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.