Johnny Skeptic

But you haven't accurately dated the prophecy. This issue was stated in the opening post, and you have never addressed this issue. No writing qualifies as being a prophecy unless it can be accurately dated. The details of the prophecy are completely irrelevant unless the issue of dating is settled first.

mata leao

hmmm I thought you atheist folks were arguing that tyre is a "failed" propehcy, which would put the burden on you? are you now conceding that the prophecy is accurate, but merely fraudulently post-dated? ooh. brother Sauron may take issue with you on that point brother Johnny!!!

Sauron

No, the burden of proof is on the bible crowd, since they have the affirmative claim.

It is a failed prophecy because the bible crowd has been unable to formulate a strong affirmative case.

I don't think that is what Johnny is saying.

Johnny Skeptic

That does not include me, and I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

Not at all, but there is no need to debate the accuracy of the prophecy until you have resonably proven that it was not post-dated, and not later revised.

I never said that the prophecy was fraudulently post-dated. I am willing to agree that we do not know one way or the other. Are you?

On what point? At any rate, you need to accurately date the prophecy, and you haven't done it.

Sauron

1. Except that the best forgers always include some small imperfections in their forgeries, to retain the sense of realism.

2. In the general case of a prophetic forgery, it is important for the forgery to have the "look and feel" of the real thing. Couching a forgery in vague terms helps to give it the aura of mystery;

3. But in point of fact on this *specific* question of the Tyre prophecy, there isn't much about the text that is vague in the first place; it's pretty clear that Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to destroy Tyre but failed to do so. The only vagueness we have seen is when christians try to introduce complex explanations and clever semantic tricks to avoid the unpleasant truth. So if you have a complaint about vagueness, blame it on the bible crowd;

4. Since you claim that this prophecy was divinely inspired - by a God who can see the future just as clearly as a news report -- then you need to explain why all the "strategic and tactical ambiguity" is present anyhow. This prophecy *ought* to include "the order of battle of all the players down to the names of their regiemtnal canine mascots" -- if it is a real prophecy, I mean.

1. Except when they're punching great huge holes in your arguments, at which point they're really annoying, aren't they?

2. A luddite is someone who fears technology; rather the opposite of skeptics, I'm afraid. Maybe you can pick up a second-hand dictionary somewhere.

Sauron

1. If you want to make the argument that the prophecy was fulfilled, be my guest. So far no one has made that argument work.

2. There isn't any ambiguity in the text; it was introduced later by christians seeking to explain the failure of the straightforward reading of that text.

Says who? You? Please. :rolling:

Evidence - got any? That's the only thing anyone here is going to be impressed with.

Oh, back to that, are we? You have several requests from another poster, John A. Broussard, to explain the Hebrew prophet mindset in relation to a prophecy:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...15#post2863815

Do you plan to ever back up your claims?

Sounds like someone is at home watching the History Channel on Veterans Day, and managed to pick up a few buzzwords. Wish we had a "yawn" smiley.

mata leao

Sauron your arrogance is truly amazing! also your efforts to derail the discussion. Why dont we agrree to consolidate this debate over on the "destruction of tyre" thread and also may we kindly keep on topic here? johnny skeptic and broussard may want to derail the thread but i prefer to deal with one topic at a time.

Sauron

Derail? Not hardly. Both this thread, as well as the other one, are about Tyre.

If you're concerned about keeping a discussion on track, then one good way to do that is to start providing sources for some of these amazing claims of yours.

If we could get you to even *deal* with the topic, that would be a victory. Instead, you flutter from claim to claim, never staying long enough to defend your position.

mata leao

sauron, I am going to kick your butt soon enough dont worry young man.......and sauron..dont bring a knife to a gunfight son! the debate is on at the "destruction of tyre thread"

Sauron

Apparently not, since you can't even prove your first claim.