Johnny Skeptic

And I have directly answered your questions, but you have never provided any credible evidence at all that the prophecy was written before the events and that the version of the prophecy is the same as the original version. My current position is that both sides have equally valid arguments. What is your position?

Even if the prophecy was written before the events, Ezekiel could easily have learned about Nebuchadnezzar's invasion months in advance by ordinary means. The invasion was a major undertaking, and hundreds, if not thousands of people would have known about it. Due to Nebuchadnezzar's great power, his proven penchant for conquest, the riches of Tyre, and Babylon's close proximity to Babylon, it would have been surprising if he had not attacked Tyre.

There is no possible proof that I am aware of. Do you know of any? We can rest assured that there is no possible proof that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version, and that the prophecy was divinely inspired even if it was written before the events.

It seems as if you are conveniently ignoring my posts. If so, that is fine with me, and I will interpret that as an indication that you know that you are not able to effectively deal with my posts. It is rude for you not to reply to a person's posts without any notice whatsoever. You didn't even reply to my private message, and that is rude too. Other than you, I have never encountered a Christian who refused to reply to a private message. At any rate, I will continue to reply to your posts even though you won't reply to my posts.

bfniii

what failure?



how is this false? what are your responses to their beliefs?



not sure what you mean by this.



how are these false?



why is agreement among christians necessary regarding the flood or age of the earth?


how could such a person be a christian?

bfniii

could have or did?



and you have proof of this in some historical document?



you didn't answer this question the first time i asked it: what gives you the idea that nebuchadnezzar did not defeat the mainland?



and you think yours aren't?

got any specifics? i'll be glad to clear up any confusion anyone has on my positions.



in what way?



and what would be evidence to you? do you think there is any more evidence that there isn't a god or that an alleged god didn't create the universe? if so, let's hear your support.



no i have not. that is a strawman.



because they are irrelevant to the topic.



it may seem that way to you, but it doesn't seem that way to everyone. why is your statement convincing?



certainly not.



fyi, i edited the questions i have already responded to.



i'll get to it when i can. in the meantime, you can read my thread with spin.

Boro Nut

What success??

How is this true? What are your responses to their disbeliefs??

I don't understand what you're saying here. Especially the question mark.

How are they true??

Why is agreement among christians unnecessary regarding the flood or age of the earth??

How could such a person not be a christian?

Apart from me and bfniii, did anyone else get trivial pursuit for christmas?

Boro Nut

Johnny Skeptic

That is exactly what I am asking you. My position is that it is equally plausible that God told Ezekiel about the invasion, and that he learned about the invasion by ordinary means, and that it is impossible to find out the truth one way or the other. What is your position?

Nebuchadnezzar's proven penchant for conquest speaks for itself. Let me put it another way: Do you find it surprising that he attacked Tyre?

First of all, what gives you the idea that he did defeat the mainland? Second of all, the Encyclopedia Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says "........and in 585–573 it [Tyre] successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II." Consider the following from a web site at http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm: "Early in the sixth century B.C. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, laid siege to the walled city for thirteen years. Tyre stood firm, but it was probable that at this time the residents of the mainland city abandoned it for the safety of the island." And this if from Wikipedia, one of your most trusted historical references: "It was often attacked by Egypt, besieged by Shalmaneser III, who was assisted by the Phoenicians of the mainland, for five years, and by Nebuchadnezzar (586–573 BC) for thirteen years, apparently without success, although a compromise peace was made in which Tyre paid tribute to the Babylonians. It later fell under the power of the Persians." I can provide more historical references if you wish, but I doubt that you can provide any credible historical references at all.

[quot=Johnny Skeptic] I submit that most of your arguments in various threads are merely faith disguised as apologetics.[/quote]

Most certainly not nearly as much as yours are. I am an agnostic, and agnostics are much less assertive than Christians are.

Sure, why are you unwilling to adopt a neutral postion regarding various aspects of the Tyre prophecy like I have.

For instance, without any credible corroboration whatsoever, Christians believe by faith alone that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a Virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind. There is not any credible evidence at all that Jesus ever healed anyone. Today, millions of Christians disagree as the what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then. You assume that God heals people today based upon faith alone, without any documented medical evidence whatsoever. Even wild animals get healed. It is your position that wild animals and humans get healed by random, or that God chooses which animals and humans to heal. You accept by faith alone that God told Ezekiel about the planned invasion of Tyre, in spite of the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of people would have known about the invasion in advance. The invasion was a major undertaking, and it would have taken months to plan.

[quote=bfniii] And what would be evidence to you? Do you think there is any more evidence that there isn't a god or that an alleged god didn't create the universe? If so, let's hear your support. Since I am an agnostic, I do not promote naturalism, nor do I promote intelligent design. It would be impossible to prove that God created the universe even it he showed up and created a planet. First of all, there wouldn't be any way to know that it was him. Second of all, it is plausible that some advanced alien races can convert energy into matter too. Third of all, it is my position that a given being's power is not legitimate solely because he has the ability to convert energy into matter, and is able to enforce rules of his own choosing.

Well, now you have a chance to clear up this matter. Lee Merrill says that personal experience, including physical healings, is an important part of his belief system. How about you?

That is true, but you DID discuss your personal experiences, and the personal experience of other Christians, in the thread on Biblical errors, which you conveniently vacated. And of course, not even one of those tangible personal experiences was accompanied by any documented medical evidence whatsoever.

Well, because God is usually quite willing to cure the common cold, but he is always unwilling to restore a lost arm or leg. God was quite willing to create Hurricane Katrina and send it to New Orleans. That was one of God's bi-polar moments. Exodus 4:11 says "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" That is more evidence of God's bi-polar behavior. If a human caused someone to become blind or deaf, he would be sent to prison, and yet you tolerate the same behavior from God, but only because you believe that he will provide you with a comfortable eternal life, even though there is not any evidence at all that he ever publicly promised anyone a comfortable eternal life. Why in the world would God ever want to change his inconsistent bi-polar ways and give Christians a comfortable eternal life? It would definitley be out of character for him to do so.

If Jesus returned to earth, how would you be able to identify him?

Why not?

[quote=Johnny Skeptic] I noticed that you were discussing the book of Daniel with Jack the Bodiless. Did you read my thread that is titled 'It is time to put the book of Daniel and Josh McDowell in their proper places'? If not, you should read it.

Which thread? I forget which one. In the thread that I mentioned, I showed that Josh McDowell's own sources discredited him. Most critical scholarship believes that Daniel was written by multiple authors over a span of centuries, and of course, since Deuteronomy 13 admits that bad people can predict the future too, it is not a question of who can predict the future, but of who has good character. At best, God is inconsistent and bi-polar. At worst, he is a monster.

bfniii

i told you, i did.



the nation, city-state, political establishment, group of people, whatever term you want to use.



that's some of the particulars, to be sure, but not the totality of the chapter.

bfniii

answered in verses 3, 4, 19, 20

bfniii

i was answering a question that was directed at me.

we can start by you answering the question i have asked which is what would be proof of such? so far, your answers have been less than compelling.



what would be justification for you?

bfniii

check verse 1.



you say God uses people but then name an exception thus vitiating your qualification. another human conqueror does not need to be specifically named, "many nations" covers all the bases.



i don't recall doing that. can you point out any examples so that i can clear them up?



no it's not.

bfniii

could you provide some support for this rule?

what verses would you be referring to?



i'm positive that there are some people who feel the same way about you.