Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 12-12-2007, 01:21 PM

Message to sugarhitman: If God really wanted to convince people that he can predict the future, couldn't he easily have proved that to everyone's satisfaction? Well sure he could have. He could easily have predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur that have occured. By "when," I mean month, day, and year. What would God or anyone else have to gain from needlessly inspring prophecies that invite dissent?

Since the Bible provably contains false claims, why do you quote it? Even one false claim discredits Christianity because the Bible claims that God is perfect.

Sheshonq · 12-12-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

This question is causing a little problem for the skeptics. Recently after I posted this question a critic referred me to some previous threads concerning Tyre. I came upon Lee's thread and one of the critcs he was debating with said that Nebuchadnezzar used a narrow causeway that the Tyrians had builded to link Old Tyre (The mother city of the two Tyres) to New Tyre. I looked this up but nowhere does any historian or history has Nebuchadnezzar using a causeway to reach island Tyre. Sounds familier? Yes he is one of the authors of that bizaar and crazy psuedo historical book The Di Vinci Code.

Uh, no. He is not. The author of the DVC is Dan Brown, not Michael Haag.

The Michael Haag who wrote the Cadogan Guide is a travel author, with numerous travel books to his credit. His connection to the DVC is only that he co-authored a book explaining the history (the *true* history) behind the events that were fictionalized in the movie. It takes some of the magic out of the fantasy story, but it's a good way to introduce people to actual sciences like archaeology and history.

This is commonplace. When "Raiders of the Lost Ark" came out, someone wrote a guide to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" that actually explained the history of Egypt and the emergence of the Hebrew nation, when viewed from actual evidence and historical records, as opposed to the Hollywood special effects version.

You've stumbled. Care to try again?

Quote:

There is no way Nebu could have traveled across 20 foot deep water with chariots and horses and siege engines without ships or a bridge two things he did not have.

He didn't? Says who?

Why wouldn't he have these things anyhow?

You seem to be confused about what an imperial army could be expected to have, or how resourceful they could be. Do you think that Nebuchadnezzar was unaware that Tyre was on an island, before he left Babylon? Do you believe he was that stupid? Tyre was a well-known seapower all throughout the ancient world; do you think that Babylon didn't realize that boats might be needed to conquer it?

Do you think Nebuchadnezzar would have set out from mighty Babylon, intent on conquering Tyre, march tens of thousands of soldiers, chariots, war engines, footmen, supplies, and allied mercenaries for six months across the desert, and then arrive at Tyre and not be able to launch an attack on it? I can just see it now; Nebuchadnezzar slaps himself on the forehead and says, "D'OH! I forgot to bring a boat! Guess we'll all just pack up and go home."

Your entire argument is busted.

1. There is no evidence of any walls on the old mainland settlement; and even if there were walls, the text says that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy ALL the walls - not just those on the mainland.
2. The siege lasted 18 years; who do you think they were sieging? It certainly wasn't the mainland; that fell quickly.
3. The siege was against the island city, which is attested to by multiple ancient records. Are all the ancient sources lying?
4. If the island city wasn't conquered, then Tyre wasn't conquered. The mainland is not the capital city; it's the suburb.

You seriously need a reality check.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-12-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Oh by the way Johnny Skeptic? I will talk about the prophecy of Egypt as soon as I am finish with this one. You don't have to keep bringing it up, we need to resolve this one first.

But as Ezekiel chapter 29 shows, Egypt is part of the Tyre prophecy. Consider the following that I have posted before:

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.

Obviously, your claim that the Tyre prophecy came true was false. Even if you wish to claim that Egypt was not part of the Tyre prophecy, the claim that God would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt was a lie. At the very least, the relevant passage in Ezekiel 29 is misleading, and a loving God would never be misleading.

Jack the Bodiless · 12-12-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Also, Ezekiel confirms that Nebby was a king of "many nations" in Ezekiel 26:7, describing him as "king of kings" (i.e. an overking, a ruler over many kingdoms).

The many nations does not denote a multinational army, but as it is described: a consecutive attack of armies like the consecutive waves of the sea.

That's how composite armies were generally used. The soldiers from the various subject kingdoms would have had their own command structures, formations etc: they would be sent into battle independently of each other. This still happens in modern wars: in WW2 on D-Day, American and British forces created separate beachheads in Normandy, they didn't attack the same objectives as a single mixed force.

renassault · 12-12-2007, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

That's how composite armies were generally used. The soldiers from the various subject kingdoms would have had their own command structures, formations etc: they would be sent into battle independently of each other. This still happens in modern wars: in WW2 on D-Day, American and British forces created separate beachheads in Normandy, they didn't attack the same objectives as a single mixed force.

That doesn't match the context, which would suggest that the nations each come as each wave of the sea. That each empire/country that had control over other states had multinational armies is probably a universal factor.

renassault · 12-12-2007, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

I don't see the connection, and the phrase you cite doesn't occur in Ezekiel, or anywhere else that I could find:

What can I do?? It's right there. According to your view, Ezekiel is advocating the end of the world, or at the very least no survivors in Israel after the prophesized destructions, yet earlier on he does have survivors, and later on it is clearly not the end of the world. It's a literary device that has been used for centuries in ancient Israel as the Bible itself testifies.

Jack the Bodiless · 12-13-2007, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

That's how composite armies were generally used. The soldiers from the various subject kingdoms would have had their own command structures, formations etc: they would be sent into battle independently of each other. This still happens in modern wars: in WW2 on D-Day, American and British forces created separate beachheads in Normandy, they didn't attack the same objectives as a single mixed force.

That doesn't match the context, which would suggest that the nations each come as each wave of the sea. That each empire/country that had control over other states had multinational armies is probably a universal factor.

This only appears to be "in context" if you connsider Ezekiel 26:3-6 in isolation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

Ezekiel 26:3 therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold, I am against thee, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth its waves to come up.

Ezekiel 26:4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her a bare rock.

Ezekiel 26:5 She shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; for I have spoken it, saith the Lord Jehovah; and she shall become a spoil to the nations.

Ezekiel 26:6 And her daughters that are in the field shall be slain with the sword: and they shall know that I am Jehovah.

But the following verses make it pretty clear that it will be Nebuchadrezzar and his army who will perform these acts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

Ezekiel 26:7 For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and a company, and much people.

Ezekiel 26:8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field; and he shall make forts against thee, and cast up a mound against thee, and raise up the buckler against thee.

Ezekiel 26:9 And he shall set his battering engines against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

Ezekiel 26:10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wagons, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

Ezekiel 26:11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets; he shall slay thy people with the sword; and the pillars of thy strength shall go down to the ground.

Ezekiel 26:12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise; and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses; and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the waters.

Ezekiel 26:13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

Ezekiel 26:14 And I will make thee a bare rock; thou shalt be a place for the spreading of nets; thou shalt be built no more: for I Jehovah have spoken it, saith the Lord Jehovah.

And, as has already been pointed out: Nebby did not succeed at the tasks specifically prophesied for HIM and his army. Therefore the prophecy failed, and there really is no point in looking for anyone else who might come along and "fulfil" parts of it (especially as Tyre still exists, and is the 4th largest city in Lebanon: if anyone IS going to "fulfil the prophecy" of Tyre's permanent destruction, it hasn't happened yet).

The Book of Ezekiel was apparently written during these events, and not completed until after the "prophecy" had already failed. This is evident from Ezekiel's later admission that Nebby had failed:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

Ezekiel 26:1 And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first [day] of the month, that the word of Jehovah came unto me...

[prophecy of Tyre's destruction]

...Ezekiel 26:12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise; and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses; and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the waters...

Ezekiel 29:17 And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first [month], in the first [day] of the month, the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyre: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was worn; yet had he no wages, nor his army, from Tyre, for the service that he had served against it.

Ezekiel 29:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.

Ezekiel 29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt as his recompense for which he served, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord Jehovah.

In the later "prophecy", Egypt is offered to Nebby as compensation for his failure to obtain the promised reward from Tyre. Of course, this prophecy failed too.

spin · 12-13-2007, 07:19 AM

sugarhitman, I answer a question in response #108 you asked of me then asked you a question, which has gone unanswered:

if you insist for some reason that Tyre was not the island, why do you think the city doesn't conform to the site location of all other major Phoenician cities of the era which were islands? Look at Berytus, Byblos, Sidon, and Arwad. Look at the locations of Phoenician colonies throughout the Mediterranean, Nora and Sulcis (both in Sardinia), Kition (North Larnaca), Cadiz and Malaga in Spain, etc. All of these were built on islands for defensive purposes. What would ever make you think that Tyre wasn't originally built on the ripe little island, especially given the archaeological remains already found around what was the island? Why would you conceive of Tyre being built in some defenseless position based on the archaeological evidence?

Please be kind enough to answer. Thanks.

spin

makerowner · 12-13-2007, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

I don't see the connection, and the phrase you cite doesn't occur in Ezekiel, or anywhere else that I could find:

What can I do?? It's right there. According to your view, Ezekiel is advocating the end of the world, or at the very least no survivors in Israel after the prophesized destructions, yet earlier on he does have survivors, and later on it is clearly not the end of the world. It's a literary device that has been used for centuries in ancient Israel as the Bible itself testifies.

Neither of the verses you cited has anything to do with the end of the world.
They also never say anything about there being no survivors:

Quote:

[Ez. 5:16] When I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine, which shall be for their destruction, and which I will send to destroy you: and I will increase the famine upon you, and will break your staff of bread:

Quote:

[Ez. 7:13]For the seller shall not return to that which is sold, although they were yet alive: for the vision is touching the whole multitude thereof, which shall not return; neither shall any strengthen himself in the iniquity of his life.

Is your new position that the prophecy of Tyre's destruction was just a literary device or exaggeration, and that Nebuchadnezzar actually did fulfill it?

For this next section, I'm going to assume that you're a creationist. If I'm wrong, just ignore this. You claim to follow the 'plain' reading of the Bible. The plain reading of the prophecy is that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy both the mainland and the island cities. But since that didn't happen, you've twisted the words almost beyond belief so Alexander's conquest of the city somehow fulfills the prophecy in your mind, despite the fact that it is still there to this day, and Nebuchadnezzar was not involved. If you can accept such a loose interpretation of this passage, why do you believe that Genesis's account of creation has to be literally true? Why can't it be a "literary device"?

sugarhitman · 12-13-2007, 10:44 AM

I apoligize for the confusion of Haag's book with Brown's. But the question still stands. Critics are saying that Nebby attacked Tyre with ships and that Tyre had a causeway during this time. But there is no history (other then Haags) which supports this interpretation. What is his source? Does anyone know? History has it that Alex was the only known case to use battering rams fitted on his ships which he used because the Tyrians were attacking the mole and due to the fact that island Tyre had no land outside the walls. If Nebby used ships because there was no mole (there wasnt) did he too also use ship mounted rams? And if there was a "narrow causeway" (there wasnt) how did Nebby and his army besiege Island Tyre round about on an narrow causeway with walls in front and the sea on its sides? unless ofcourse he too built towers on the end of the causeway. Im digging myself a grave? No. I am proving that Nebby did not seige island Tyre but Old Tyre which was a city. If it had a temple then it no doubt had walls towers and large garrisons to protect it. This is why most historians has Nebby seiging Original Tyre and the wishful thanking critics the island. (which they give absolutely no details of how this was done....well they do reason how he COULD have done it....not good enough.)

12-13-2007, 07:19 AM	#128
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	sugarhitman, I answer a question in response #108 you asked of me then asked you a question, which has gone unanswered: if you insist for some reason that Tyre was not the island, why do you think the city doesn't conform to the site location of all other major Phoenician cities of the era which were islands? Look at Berytus, Byblos, Sidon, and Arwad. Look at the locations of Phoenician colonies throughout the Mediterranean, Nora and Sulcis (both in Sardinia), Kition (North Larnaca), Cadiz and Malaga in Spain, etc. All of these were built on islands for defensive purposes. What would ever make you think that Tyre wasn't originally built on the ripe little island, especially given the archaeological remains already found around what was the island? Why would you conceive of Tyre being built in some defenseless position based on the archaeological evidence? Please be kind enough to answer. Thanks. spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2007, 01:21 PM	#121
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to sugarhitman: If God really wanted to convince people that he can predict the future, couldn't he easily have proved that to everyone's satisfaction? Well sure he could have. He could easily have predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur that have occured. By "when," I mean month, day, and year. What would God or anyone else have to gain from needlessly inspring prophecies that invite dissent? Since the Bible provably contains false claims, why do you quote it? Even one false claim discredits Christianity because the Bible claims that God is perfect.

12-13-2007, 10:44 AM	#130
sugarhitman Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: georgia Posts: 2,726	I apoligize for the confusion of Haag's book with Brown's. But the question still stands. Critics are saying that Nebby attacked Tyre with ships and that Tyre had a causeway during this time. But there is no history (other then Haags) which supports this interpretation. What is his source? Does anyone know? History has it that Alex was the only known case to use battering rams fitted on his ships which he used because the Tyrians were attacking the mole and due to the fact that island Tyre had no land outside the walls. If Nebby used ships because there was no mole (there wasnt) did he too also use ship mounted rams? And if there was a "narrow causeway" (there wasnt) how did Nebby and his army besiege Island Tyre round about on an narrow causeway with walls in front and the sea on its sides? unless ofcourse he too built towers on the end of the causeway. Im digging myself a grave? No. I am proving that Nebby did not seige island Tyre but Old Tyre which was a city. If it had a temple then it no doubt had walls towers and large garrisons to protect it. This is why most historians has Nebby seiging Original Tyre and the wishful thanking critics the island. (which they give absolutely no details of how this was done....well they do reason how he COULD have done it....not good enough.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.