bfniii

i am not fixed on that notion. i am getting that notion from the sources i provided you. i am sorry you are having trouble understanding that. if you would check the sources i cited, it might help you clear up your confusion.



well do they make predictions or not? you are saying both.

i don't really care if you consider it the primary purpose or not. they did make prophecies, that's why they were called prophets. that's why there is a section in the hebrew bible called "the prophets".



yes, i have. i repeat it later in this post.



yes, i have. they wouldn't be considered such if they were unfulfilled.



i agree.



incorrect for above stated reasons.



i have provided reasoning as to why that is the case. i will again for clarity: since there is a date listed by ezekiel in the first verse that is prior to the event, ezekiel is telling us he is making a prophecy. since the date has been preserved, everyone who preserved the date is in agreement that it is a prophecy. furthermore, if the prophecy had been considered unfulfilled in any way, ezekiel would have been discredited, wouldn't have been considered an authentic prophet and wouldn't have been included in the canon. the prophecy against tyre in chapter 26 is surrounded on both sides by prohpecies against other nations. i don't understand what other conclusion can be reached other than the writings regarding tyre are made by someone considered to be a prophet, in a book considered to be prophetic, in a section of the book regarding prophesies to other nations written prior to the event in question.



not all jews disagree with isaiah 53 being messianic. the very idea that it was messianic came from the jews.



wow. another example of blatant bias. another reason why discussions with you are rarely fruitful. you could, at the very least, acknowledge that there is disagreement about this passage. you try to pass this passage off as if every scholar agrees in interpretation which is just plain dishonest.

1. the suffering servant is not the nation of israel (keep in mind, this is just one source).

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2552

2. there is not a concensus among biblical scholars that the nation of israel is the suffering servant. if there were, you could provide support for that claim. so, please be so kind as to provide us with a list of biblical scholars who think the suffering servant is israel and not christ. make sure the list is a vast majority of scholars so as to constitute a concensus.

i realize that you think i might be intimidated by such tactics, but it is quite ignorant of you to try to use any "competent" scholar. of course your idea of competent is someone who thinks the way you do. instead of addressing the issue yourself, you try this garbage.



some jews. not all. and i did notice that you didn't even try to show how it is out of context.



no such confusion happened. you didn't respond to your conflicting statements.



yes he did. if you had done some study, you would have found out that there are some prophecies in the OT that are what we call past tense.



you don't know that that is all that happened. i guess you expect all of us to just take you at your word.



i understand that that is your opinion.



1. that is not the only indication

2. that says nothing about when the prophecy was made



another great example of a vague response from you. you don't even have to guts to attempt to show how it is false. you just expect us to take you at your word.



are you even reading my posts or are you just typing random sentences? instead of this waste of time, why do you try responding to points i have made on this subject.



a conjecture that you don't even bother trying to support at all.



the reason why this statement is flawed is because you are assuming ezekiel was referring to the same walls you are referring to. however, you have yet to show that you and ezekiel share this connection.



i understand this is your opinion, but can you show this from the text? i have pointed out several verses that refer to the destruction of the city-state, not the island. furthermore, there are verses that refer to destruction of physical things in general.

i'm starting to think you are playing a prank on me. now, you aren't even responding to points i have made in previous posts. you just keep typing the same things over and over again, possibly to just occupy my time. you don't have verses to support your conclusions and you make statements that you don't provide support for. i have trouble believing you are doing that on purpose or that you are unaware that you are doing it because i have mentioned it several times now.



dang. this is getting worse. now you are denying a literary technique that has been used for centuries by authors the world over. this discussion has now hit a new low.



i am thoroughly confused by your response. are you trying to say that tyre was independent even after the conflict with nebuchadnezzar? if so, i have never seen a historical account that would agree with that assessment. every account i have ever seen says that tyre was a vassal of babylon. i have even seen that tyre's monarchy was deported. i fail to understand how you can think that is in any way independent.



i realize that is your opinion, but it is incorrect. i have explained, in detail, his role.



you have a profound misunderstanding of this issue despite the fact that i have explained it over and over. the "rest" is whatever remained of tyre as a nation was gone after alexander. even after alexander, tyre may have remained important strategically, but only under the auspices of whatever nation was controlling it.



to you. i will elaborate...



another example of you not even attempting to study and discuss the issue, an issue that is indeed known to people who have studied biblical hebrew. i was hoping you would discover on your own the reason why some OT prophecies were written in the sense of "action completed", but i guess that was a pipe dream. i don't usually do this but, the reason why is because the prophectic message was considered so certain, it was as good as already completed.

feel free to continue denying this, but if you were really interested in an honest discussion, you would have already discovered this.



i have already provided examples and you have already acknowledged at least one.



how is that any different than anything anachronistic that the hebrews wrote? they were merely recording their spiritual and historical experiences, they weren't intending to write a scientific journal for all time. apply that axiom to any verse or subject you like.



you are assuming that what they recorded is incorrect.

what about genesis 1:6 is incorrect?

genesis 7:11 and 8:2 are just imagery. no different than if someone today says "it's raining cats and dogs".

what's incorrect about genesis 11:4? it records what people were doing at that time.

job 38:22 and isaiah 40:22 are more literary imagery which doesn't mean they are incorrect.

i can't believe you are trying to claim that the verses you cited from revelation are actual statements of something scientifically empirical. it's symbolic imagery and metaphor. they are visions, not observation.

you assume that ezekiel or daniel having a vision from God means that God is trying to instruct them on something scientifically empirical. this is a good example of you missing the point of the narrative.

the passages in matthew and mark are eschatological, therefore not examples of the bible stating something incorrect about the universe.



no, there isn't. you might think there is, but your interpretation is not the only one. instead of addressing the various interpretations, as i have been asking all along, you just make another general, blanketing statement.



what source do you base this claim on?



"under the whole of heaven" is not qualified like you think it is. "~ymX" could be translated "visible sky". i am not supporting a localized flood. i am saying there are multiple interpretations, despite what you think.



this response makes no sense. the entire bible is allegedly a product of divine inspiration. you could pick any prophecy and the principle remains the same. how would someone know whether something is divinely inspired?



what would an example be?



this is where you have the issue backwards. you accuse me of elephant-hurling when the article gave no specifics about the conclusions. i have already said that, of course. you must have overlooked that.



because the ideas of people change over time. the idea itself is the true source regardless of whether people agree about it. people disagreeing about it does not make it any less true, even if the people are christians. the principle based on the passage is true, regardless of it's popularity. so, instead of getting sidetracked by irrelevant disagreements, we should stick to the principle itself, meaning the verse.



fine. i'll try to get around your reluctance. so pick any part of the bible and apply the standard you use to determine that it is, or isn't, authoritative.

and while you are at it, show how christians use a different standard for christian documents than they do for non-christian documents.



no, it does not. you still don't understand what i am saying. what i am saying applies to the situation before the emperor even gets to the boy's position in the procession. you have assumed, from the beginning, that the emperor being naked is the same as the bible being without support. you are not able to make such an assumption because it requires smuggled-in authority.



no, in actuality it is very much the same and i have been trying to show how.



this is where you are mistaken. there are people who wholeheartedly believe you are wrong. they believe there is sufficient evidence to support their belief. since you are on the other side of the issue, i have been asking you what standard can we use to make such a determination? you don't answer the question, you just keep stating your assertion. it gets us nowhere.



this false accusation does not distract me from the fact that you have yet to provide biblical support for the fact that you think ezekiel was referring ONLY to the island, ONLY to the island walls, ONLY to nebuchadnezzar's army, ONLY to the physical establishment of tyre, etc.

i did not interject "eventually" into my interpretation. i leave the time frame open because the author does not state one. i do not interpret specific walls because the author does not state ones. you are not doing the same. you are trying to force-fit your ideas into the text. you are not acknowledging differing interpretations where they can exist.



so you have no examples. that's what i thought. the one you attempt has been responded to and i can cite it.



would you please provide historical support for this assertion? could you please provide some historical documents, preferably from tyre itself, that agree with this conclusion?



1. i have stated prior that ezekiel/God was metaphorically referring to the nation of tyre. the physical destruction breaks at the end of verse 12. notice the change from "they will" to "I will". notice the change in subject from physical structures to intangible cultural indications.

2. do you know of a historical account that states something other than nebuchadnezzar destroying the mainland and alexander destroying the island?



because i am not saying that just one wall being brought down satisfies that part of the prophecy. ezekiel uses the plural.



because you are trying to claim ezekiel was referrnig to only one set of walls. if he were, he would have made such a distinction. since he did not, your interpretation is unnecessarily restricted.



you haven't, at any time, shown that the specific walls you are referring to are the same ones ezekiel is referring to. you are just assuming they are the same. in order to show such a connection, you would need to use indicators from the text, not from your conjecture. that should be obvious.

have you ever noticed how ezekiel/God says "tear down your beautiful homes" right after "demolish your walls"? it's pretty obvious.

i have elaborated my thoughts on the tyre position with you for many posts now. my position is clear. i have posted several ideas that you have yet to respond to. you know what they are. it is a waste of time to respond to your repetitions and unfounded assertions when you don't respond to several critical points i have advanced. until you respond to them, or introduce some new, significant analysis, i respectfully decline to respond to further posts by you on the subject of tyre.

bfniii

except for the fact that the bible explicitly states that God created the universe.

bfniii

anyone who can comprehend the ontological argument



that would be no one. everyone has a worldview, including people who are apathetic. now you just need to show why your dogma is superior.



if you misunderstand the bible, then i can understand why you believe this.

bfniii

but my point is he had the influence prior that could very well have led to the ability to carry away spoils to compensate for the effort at tyre.



the word "txX" can be translated injured, marred, spoiled. the text says that nebuchadnezzar would be "given" egypt in the sense of carrying away goods for compensation. neither necessarily implies that nebuchadnezzar would conquer or devastate.



they aren't pointless. they are needed to prove your case.



you are claiming that you get your information from the bible but you don't show how you arrive at your conclusions. Jesus was recognized as the messiah by certain jews precisely because of prophecies such as these by isaiah. heck, the very idea of a messiah came from prophecies such as these.



challenging is one thing. convincing someone else is another.



ugh. far be it from you to actually show how or why.



i should now be convinced that actually making progress with you is impossible. you are so mired in your dogma, that there is absolutely no hope of you ever having the ability to represent the various facets of these issues in an even-handed fashion.

aguy2

Are you kidding or what! The 'lord god of hosts' hauled in box by Mary, Ron, and Mo, hated very minute of her assignment as agent acting in lieu. She was 'no respecter of men', to look on her face meant death, Jacob wrestled her all night long and long about dawn somebody grabbed somebodies crouch, and he yelped, "Its a girl!" just as the sun's early morning grace showed her face as apollo's twin sister!

To look on that face meant death! His quick like a bunny, jewboy mind kicked in. He spun around and said, "Jacob is dead! I is real!"

It was a long long long couple of seconds till he heard her giggle.

aguy2

Doug Shaver

I comprehend it well enough to see the fallacy in it.
I can tell the difference between a worldview and a dogma.
I understand plain English well enough. If it's supposed to mean something other than what it says, any misunderstanding is the authors' fault, not mine.

The men who wrote the Bible attribute certain behaviors to him. Those behaviors reflect the morals of terrorist.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
You're still missing the point. They were NOT called "prophets". The word "prophet" is not a HEBREW word. Ezekiel was a NAVI. A navi MIGHT make predictions, or he might not. Such predictions of future events were not part of the DEFINITION of a "navi". Therefore your entire argument is without substance.
Even if Ezekiel DID rant against Tyre before the event, there is no reason to assume that the inaccuracy of his prediction WOULD have had the consequences you state. I have already discussed this in post #516.
I note that YOU conveniently "forgot" to mention this "disgreement". You simply declared it to be a messianic prophecy. You thought we wouldn't notice?
Why on Earth do you imagine that www.bible.org is a scholarly source?

This is an apologetics site! Doesn't "Knowing and Combating Satan - the Enemy" (from the homepage) give you a clue?

As for the article itself: it doesn't even mention the preceding chapters, in which the identity of the "Suffering Servant" is established.
The BIBLE says that the "suffering servant" is Israel (Isaiah 41:8, 49:3). Therefore anyone who says otherwise is WRONG. Therefore anyone who claims to be a "scholar", but is unaware of the identity of the "suffering servant", is INCOMPETENT.

Yes, it has been suggested that Isaiah had a specific person in mind: but that person was probably King Uzziah, king in Isaiah's time, who died of leprosy (note that the "suffering servant" is diseased: or did you not notice that?). And it is well-known that certain specific references to the "suffering servant" can't be applied to Jesus (for instance, he's being punished because he spurned God: Jesus did that?).

I have noticed that you're very selective in your participation on these fora. This topic often comes up, and the thread Isaiah 53 - The Suffering Servant (Again) was started on January 23rd. Why did you not see it? You could learn so much here, if you wanted to.

There is no sign whatsoever that this was intended as a messianic prophecy, it's just another example of Christians pulling stuff out of the Old Testament.
Yes, the Jews. And anyone can see it's out of context, all you have to do is READ THE BIBLE. This is a prophecy for King Ahaz, regarding the events of HIS time. As I said, it's one of SEVERAL similar actions by "Matthew", and any COMPETENT Biblical scholar can list them.

...Can YOU?
You have yet to provide a single GENUINE example.
STILL no actual examples. Without those, I'm not interested in what you claim to have "discovered": it has become very clear on many occasions that you are unable to distinguish between "apologetics" and "scholarship". Without evidence to the contrary, I will assume that "scholars have discovered" actually means "apologists have invented".
...Really? Which one have I "already acknowledged"?
...According to your apologists.

Jesus was rejected by (most) Jews because he FAILED to fulfil the ACTUAL messianic prophecies (IIRC, you ran away from a debate on this subject before). Isaiah 53 wasn't one of them: it isn't a messianic prophecy, and never has been.
Again, you haven't shown much willingness to participate in general discussions on multiple threads. I and many other people here HAVE discussed such matters, many times, with many different people. You would also have discovered this yourself if you'd done some research.
It is well-known that "Matthew" is the most inept or dishonest of the gospel authors. Why should anyone regard him as a respectable authority? He's guilty of several counts of blatant plagiarism and context-ripping, and was the author of one of two fictional and mutually-contradictory late additions to the Jesus tale (the nativity stories), which contradict not only each other, but the Old Testament and extra-Biblical histories too.

Another recent thread you seem to have overlooked: Two different genealogies of Jesus (and, yes, we're VERY familiar with the "genealogy of Mary" and "skipped generations" arguments, and why they fail...)

So, if you attempt arguments such as "Isaiah 7:14 must be a messianic prophecy because Matthew says so", you will be laughed at.

On evasion:
I have MANY examples, and each was mentioned at the time. Including the Great Firmament Dodge, which you have NOT adequately addressed before now despite MANY prompts.
A reminder: I pointed out that the Bible contains verses which endorsed the Hebrew flat-Earth, domed-sky cosmology. You demonstrated your ignorance of the Bible (again) by asking me to provide them. I did so.

...So now we have the usual excuses: essentially, "they didn't know any better". OF COURSE they didn't know any better! Good grief, it's not as if their God actually exists...
It doesn't exist. There is no "firmament" which "divides the waters".
You seem to have forgotten your "I choose to believe..." qualifier there (again). In Hebrew cosmology, the "windows of Heaven" were actual, physical openings in the actual, physical, solid sky-dome. "Just imagery" is apologetic twaddle.
If you think they were ACTUALLY building a tower that would reach Heaven, you have serious problems. If you meant to say that's what they THOUGHT they were doing, you'd have to explain why God had to stop them, to prevent them becoming too powerful: the same reason A&E were thrown out of Genesis. I presume this would lead to a repeat of your Genesis debacle.
...sez who?

They are references to the false Hebrew cosmology, and are incorrect.

...and so on.

On the creation of Adam:
You falsely claimed that there was no timeframe mentioned. There IS a timeframe mentioned: Adam was created on the sixth day. Alternative explanations ("day-age" apologetics, which has been refuted) don't change the fact that a timeframe was MENTIONED. You might not like it, but you can't deny that it was MENTIONED.
Adam wasn't sculpted from clay, Eve wasn't made from Adam's rib. Surely you're not really asking me how I know this? You've heard the word "science" at some point in your life, I hope?
Not according to the KJV, NLT, NKJV, NASB, RSV, Webster's, Young's, Darby's, ASV, HNV, Vulgate... and, according to the Hebrew cosmology, the entire sky is "visible" (everyone on the flat Earth can see the whole interior of the dome), so there's no distinction anyhow.

There was certainly no GLOBAL flood. Either there was a LOCAL flood, or there was NO flood. The Bible certainly APPEARS to be describing a GLOBAL flood, and the story makes no sense otherwise (Noah could just walk to safety).

So you're wrong, as usual.
Yes, this IS a great example: of YOUR arrogance.

You've snipped the context (as usual). It was YOU who came up with an utterly baseless and ludicrous assertion: that Romans 10:4 is THE definition of who is a Christian and who is not.

There are about 30,000 Chrsitian denominations, bfniii. Maybe this standard applies in YOUR denomination, but you do NOT speak for the other 29,999 or therabouts. YOU don't even have to guts to attempt to show how it is TRUE.

I know that your statement is false. For instance, I know that there are Christians who reject Paulianty in its entirety, and will therefore obviously NOT refer to Romans 10:4 as a definition of who is or isn't a Christian.

And I've already pointed out that many Christians don't even believe that Jesus rose from the dead (at least, not physically), and posted proof of this. Your dithering and waffling on THAT topic has been quite entertaining!

Why do you imagine that it takes "guts" to reject your empty assertions?
Ah, yes, the "guts" required to disgree with YOUR "authority".

You're forgetting that I was a CHRISTIAN once. Like the little boy in the story, I initially had no reason NOT to believe.

But the King IS naked. And the Bible IS utterly devoid of any sign of "divine inspiration".
What I'm asking for is very, very simple. And I think you know it.

Greek myth mentions Mount Olympus, and Mount Olympus is a real place. Now, suppose I made the claim that the existence of Mount Olympus DEMONSTRATES that the Greek gods actually exist.

Would you employ similar waffle in this case? Would you argue that "some people wholeheartedly believe" that this is "sufficient evidence to support their belief", therefore you agree that it is? would you say that those who argue otherwise are "mistaken"? Would you defend the Greek-myth advocates by talking about the "smuggled-in authority" of those who argue that there is nothing miraculous about the mention of Olympus?

Only an idiot would argue that the existence of Olympus is ANY sort of "evidence" that the Greek gods exist. And similar idiots make similar claims about the Bible. But if Greek myths, OR the Bible, made accurate claims that could not be explained without resorting to the supernatural: that would be another matter entirely!

I think that you KNOW, by now, that the Bible contains nothing like this. Hence the stalling.

So. back to Ezekiel:
Nebby's post-Tyre attack on Egypt is almost invisible to history. There is very little sign that any such conflict ever took place. It appears to have been nothing more than a border skirmish.

The Bible explains what SHOULD have happened: and the Bible was (as usual) wrong.
And the opinion of any reader who doesn't blatantly ignore the context.

And, so, finally, back to Tyre itself:
Wrong again. History shows that my "conjecture" was correct.
I have shown this many times over.
YOU have never supported YOUR opinions from the text. But the prophesied permanent physical destruction of Tyre, if it had actaully happened, would have resulted in the destruction of Tyre in every other sense too.
This appears to be entirely autobiographical, bfniii. Your intransigence is why this thread is going nowhere.
Note my inclusion of "in issues like this". I am well aware of what a metaphor is. I am also well aware of the bogus cries of "that's a metaphor!" by apologists whenever it suits them (i.e. whenever the Bible goes awry).
Tyre remained LARGELY independent. The historical accounts agree that the final settlement was a COMPROMISE that was very favorable to Tyre: the "surrender" was a token gesture. That's why Nebby ended up much poorer after the 13-year siege.
And I have explained, in detail, why you are completely and utterly wrong on this.

"Whatever remained of Tyre as a nation" SURVIVED Alexander's conquest. A couple of decades later, it was as if Alexander had never been. He made NO PERMANENT DIFFERENCE to Tyre's status: physical, political, whatever.

Repeating a falsehood "over and over" doesn't make it true, bfniii.

...with verse 13. And resumes again, with verse 14. Ezekiel's extended rant is pretty jumbled.
Ezekiel's haphazard use of pronouns has been discussed before. Didn't you even bother to READ Hogan's Errors Concerning Pronouns?
...Huh? Alexander never destroyed the island. He damaged the island citadel, but it recovered.

On the "flattened outhouse" interpretation:
Outhouses have several walls apiece. And one runaway chariot could flatten TWO outhouses.
As has been pointed out MANY times, you have this entirely backwards.

ONE set of walls => No need to specify WHICH set.

MULTIPLE sets of walls => There WOULD be such a need.

He did not specify. Therefore, ONE set.
Indeed it is! He needs to overcome the walls FIRST, in order to REACH the houses. You are, of course, misrepresenting what Ezekiel actually says. Here's the actual sequence:

26:7 Nebby attacks.
26:8 Nebby hits the mainland "daughters".
26:9 Attacks the walls and breaks down the towers.
26:10 The walls shake, the gates are breached.
26:11 Nebby's forces enter and run amok, moving and slaughtering freely.
26:12 General looting and destruction, including the toppling of walls and the destruction of houses.
Translation: you have no argument. There is no Biblical basis for any of your assertions regarding Tyre.

Heck, even your fellow "inerrantists" don't agree with you! I've already given you an example (in post #516) of an inerrantist who accepts that God predicted Nebby would conquer Tyre and that this did not happen. And Turkel/Holding accepts that the "prophecy" refers to physical destruction but argues that Ezekiel exaggerated the scale and permanency of the destruction. And then there's Archer's fantasy regarding the island "sinking". There IS no agreed "inerrantist position" regarding the "Tyre prophecy".

There is only ONE interpretation that is entirely problem-free and addresses ALL of the evidence. The one accepted by skeptics AND CHRISTIANS. The prophecy failed.

bfniii

it is neither obstinate nor dogmatic. i provided clear reasons as to why it is that way. you, however, did not provide a reason for your interpretation nor did you rebut my statements. that would make you obstinately dogmatic.

aguy2

But what are you going to do about it? Fight the 'Lord-God of Hosts'?
This is 'Terra', I'll leave it up to you to determine who we are in this context.

aguy2

Johnny Skeptic

The Bible won't do. As I said, "An evil God would easily be able to duplicate anything that the Bible attributes to God." That would of course include being able to predict the future or appearing to rise from the dead.

Regarding the ontological argument, have you quoted any sources? If so, what were they? If not, then please quote your sources. I don't see how ontology can prove that there is a necessary correlation between morality and the ability to convert energy into matter.

In your opinion, how would an amoral God act.