badger3k

The real kingdom of Persia is no more - all we have are remnants of the people. My point is that if we want to read more into a "prophecy" than is there, then there is really so many readings that it is virtually probable that it will come true. To be a fulfilled prophecy, the normal standard is that it is unambiguous. What if Israel was attacked by a group of terrorists from Iran, Libya, and Ethiopia? Wouldn't that be seen as fulfillment? What if UN forces entered into Jerusalem to take over the governing of the city, and soldiers from those three were involved? Looks like another fulfillment to me. Or what if the leader was of Iranian descent? More fulfillment.

My point is that there are so many interpretations of such prophecies that they are really useless as evidence. To illustrate that a prophecy came true, it would have to be shown that there is ONLY ONE interpretation for that prophecy, and that one interpretation occured. If there are more than one interpretation, or if it can fit more than one instance, than you cannot prove that it was fulfilled.

Can you understand that - did I explain it so that you can understand what I mean? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm not sure I made the point I want to make)

Sorry, just showing my age in an attempt at humor. Jim Nabors played a redneck-styled country boy named "Gomer Pyle", who eventually went from Andy Griffith to his own show, Gomer Pyle, USMC.
For the same reason I gave above. Prophecies are famous for being so ambiguous that someone will read into it what they want. This gives the appearance of coming true, when you can look at it another way and see that it didn't. For proof, you need to show that there is only one possible sequence of events that are referred to that, and no other explanation will work. If we read "horses" as tanks, or cars, or bikes, or even nuclear-powered jump suits called "Triggers" (an old Western reference to a horse), then there are many instances that could fulfill that part. So, how do you tell that from chance? We need unanmbiguous proof.

We also need to know why the literal reading is not correct? Why do we not read that the writer of Isaiah was referring to the nations of the time, and he was predicting that these countries would invade, probably within his lifetime? If you want to say he was not referring to this event, we need evidence to show why. Prophecies were generally meant to mean something to the people they were given to or written for - and most of the ones in Isaiah are that way, despite the Christians attempt to use them. According to Heroditus, the oracles of Apollo made many prophecies about events, and many of them came true. Unfortunately, he doesn't really give any, although IIRC he gives one where the recipient read into it what he wanted to and thus got himself in trouble (or dead, I forget).

Look at Nostradamus. His "prophecies" were written in code and were very vague. So people have read into them what they wanted to, by taking parts of history and seeing if they fit. They basically retroactively figure out the prophecy and say that it came true. Not at all, they just looked for a situation that they could interpret into the prophecy, making it true after the fact. That's not how prophecies are supposed to work, since it is easy to make most prophecies come true if they are vague enough, or if they can be loosely interpreted.

Do you see what I am saying? If not, I can try to explain it differently.

Edit - please, a friendly note - Wikipedia is really on "open source" encyclopedia, with very little fact checking (I'm told they are better than they were when they started out). That is the only place I found that has Meshech linked with Russia, and I am skeptical of that. I am not sure what level of access to any real scholarship you have, but I'd like to see some real scholarship. One of the articles I read while interning identified some ways that technology and the internet are harmful to scholarship, and while Wikipedia is somewhat useful, it is definitely not good for research.

For instance, looking through the EBSCO Database, I find one entry, in the Columbia Encyclopedia:

Meshech, in the Bible. 1 Son of Japheth. It is also spelled Mesech. 2 Son of Shem.

Obviously, that doesn't make much sense unless the son of Japheth founded a tribe. I'd have to see something that has some historical or achaeological basis before I went with some wikipedia entry. A lot of people here are professionals in various fields, and our standards are a little higher than most apologetics. That's why you'll see a lot of requests for evidence and sources here - we like to see for ourselves.

Jenn6162

I believe it would have to be a complete coalition as described in Ezekiel, and I believe Russia and Iran would have to be involved.



Yes, I understood you. I appreciate you going out of your way not to be rude.


Okay, I got that. I have heard of it but never seen it. Of course I am from GA and never watched Dukes of Hazard either. I don't watch much T.V.


I understand where you are coming from here, but how many pages do you think it would take to cover each and every base. I think that one could explain any number of things away using your method. Faith is required for Christianity, there is no promise of evidence.



I have tried to give sources that I thought you would accept, I apologize that they were not good enough. I did not know that about wikipedia. I think some of the egos on this board are huge. I am a professional, and I am in graduate school. I don't live to show off my intelligence, and I don't claim to be a genius because I have a high level of education. I agree with you on the Meshech I had to wade through 3 pages of Bible sites to find that one. If I had the time I would have searched harder for a better source. I know the drill with credible and unbiased sources, and would expect the same if others were to make a claim. I have tried to use good sources when posting info on this board. I am also not a skilled apologist, and I did not know that was a requirement for posting here. I have very little experience with apologetics, and did not come here to convert anyone. I never expected to like this board as much as I do. I am hoping I will get bored with this site soon, it is taking up a lot of my time.

Diogenes the Cynic

Jenn, with all due respect, I think you're being a little too defensive. Just because people disagree with you or challenge your arguments doesn't mean we think you're irritating us or that we want you to leave. This is largely a debate forum. That's what we do. Don't take it personally. It's not that we don't like you, you just need to expect that apologetics will be challenged pretty vigorously here. That's a large part of why this board exists.

Amaleq13

Yes but I don't consider rational thought to just be "my" standard.

According to your reasoning, we could claim that the United States became an independent nation in a single day and that every war that was ever fought was won on a single day simply because the declaration of the accomplishment happened on a single day. Doesn't that make it pretty clear that such an interpretation is nonsensical?

That you can keep repeating this assertion in no way addresses the problems with it I have noted. While it only took one day to proclaim Israel a nation, it clearly took much longer to make that proclamation possible. The only rational measure of the time required to achieve the status of nation would incorporate all of it and not just the day of the declaration.

If you are defining the birth of a nation as the day it was officially declared, then every nation was born in a day.

Sauron

1. The US was not the key player in the formation of the modern state of Israel; the UK was.

2. Nations often changed hands quite peaceably in ancient times. Babylon, for example, surrendered to Cyrus II in 539 BCE in a peaceful transition. This was made easier on the losing country, by many rulers (Cyrus, Darius, Alexander, etc.) being surprisingly wise in victory. They basically told the conquered country that they could manage their own affairs as long as they accepted administration from the new conqueror, paid taxes on time, and supplied soldiers in time of war. Darius and Alexander repeated that approach when they both conquered Memphis in Egypt. It was easier on everyone that way - less blood spilled, less money and resources wasted. And given the tendency of ancient emperors to oppress their people, the common folk and the merchant class were often willing to gamble on the new king being a change for the better.

3. Meshech, Gomer and Tubal are actually in central Turkey, not Russia at all. The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Map 6, "The Near East in the Time of the Assyrian Empire."

PS - it's good to see Jenn sticking around. She's making an honest effort, which puts her in the top 1% of christians on this board. :thumbs:

Jenn6162

I promise you I am not being defensive. I just don't want to let my points go ignored, and more importantly I don't want to appear to be trying to shove any of my beliefs down your throat. I do not take it personally, I just don't want to be told well you are wrong when it can be interpreted differently only not by your standards. You guys are passionate about your views as I am mine. If I am wrong I will admit it, as I did above where I stated that I cannot come up with anything to challenge the lingering problem of Isaiah 11:11. I am being sincere, to me it is not so much debate as it is my side, because I am not as equipped as you are in the apologetics. I never came here to debate, as much as it just happened. My point I am trying to make is that none of us knows anything for sure without a doubt. So I am fine with agreeing to disagree. I disagree. Can we just leave it at that, or does the debate have to keep on going when we have drawn lines and drawn our own conclusions? You cannot prove to me without a shadow of doubt that there is no God anymore than I can prove to you without doubt that is a God.

Jenn6162

Okay I am not sure why I can't make this point. Was America born in a day? I say no a war was fought, then we declared our independence. I am not sure of the history behind this, but however long it took to fight the war and then get them to admit defeat is how long it took. How did Britain become a nation? I don't know it has been a long time since I took history, but I don't think it just happened in a day. The same could be said for many other nations. Things happen differently than they happened in Isaiah's day, war was fought then the winning army got the nation. My point is that now the UN and nations do things differently. The UN recognizes a country and that is what the history books say. This was the case with Israel, British Mandate was up, they declared independence, America recognized them. There was no war, they became a nation and were recognized by the US on the day the Mandate expired. Now I have no problem arguing this point, but don't ignore the point that I am trying to make. Please.

Jenn6162

Thanks for your recognition of my effort. I am no apologist, so I know the battle I am up against. I would definately say I am the least intelligent in this discussion, but I am not intimidated. I just want my point recognized, even if I am wrong I still want it recognized. Not just saying it did not happen in a day.

1) From the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website

http://www.mfa.gov.il

Britain was a player because of the Mandate, but the US recognized them that night which is why I am referring back to the prophecy.

2) Thanks for that info, I really appreciate that. That is debate to me, and you recognized the point I was trying to make. Now I don't feel like I am talking to myself anymore. So my question is (because I do not know) was that normal for that time period? Did nations typically just agree that someone else would run the country and just gave up rights to it completely? To me that seems strange, but it is possible. When I think of those days I think of that movie Braveheart or something. Sorry if I come across as totally uninformed, but I basically am in history.

3) Thanks for that as well, as I said before I had to wade through several pages of Google just to find that one, all were prophecy sites on the first pages. I will trust that they are in Turkey, because that is what I have always heard was one of the nations in the Gog/Magog coalition. I would go further but for tonight I am tired and will come back to the rest of the nations at a later date.

Thanks for making me feel so welcome. I don't want to be the crazy fundie Christian who can't make a point to save her life, like I was afraid I was becoming. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong, my faith doesn't require any of these prophecies to be true. I am comfortable with my faith, and have had plenty of evidence for myself which I cannot show you.

Sauron

Right. The history you gave is correct. But I don't think it helps or supports your argument. Here's why: even from a christian standpoint, I don't see what US recognition has to do with it. If the prophecy was about the state being *created* in one day, then the US didn't contribute to the *creation* of the state. The declaration of statehood was the creative action, and tht was done by the zionist govt in mandate Palestine. And yes, it reflected many months and years of events that occurred beforehand. US recognition was nice, but it didn't create the state.

Also, keep in mind that in another post discussing Jerusalem, you indicated that it was only "PC reasons" that the US didn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital, and that it didn't matter because the Jews were in de facto control of the city. That same argument ought to work for the statehood scenario as well. So either US recognition is mandatory in both scenarios, or it isn't needed in either scenario.

Mind you, I don't think recognition is important in *either* scenario - I think the de facto situation is the thing to focus on. But I just wanted to point out to you that you are arguing two opposite things here; one for the statehood question, but the opposite for the Jerusalem question.

I don't know if it was normal or not. I suspect it would have to do with the odds of a successful fight - which only makes sense, I suppose. You'll fight if you think you can win; otherwise, you'll sue for peace. Alexander, Nebuchadnezzar, Cambyses II, Darius, etc. usually inspired enough fear that the cities were willing to try the peaceful path.

But in a more evenly matched scenario, there was a lot of fighting; for example, Nebuchadnezzar vs. Pharaoh Necho at Carchemish. In other scenarios, an alliance would be formed. Twelve smaller states banded together to fight Shalmaneser III at the battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE.

It would also have to do with how badly the people had been oppressed. Cyrus II was welcomed as a liberator by the people in Babylon, and the priesthood of that city actually conspired with Cyrus' own spies to assist the Persians in taking the city quickly. This was because of the infidelity of the rulers to the traditional Babylonian religion, among other things. But it was made easier by Cyrus II's reputation as a religiously tolerant ruler, generous in victory. How did they people know this was the case? The Achamaenid Persian empire had been on the march for several years, gobbling up territories all around the Persian homeland. So there were previous examples that the Babylonians could look at, to see how they would be treated upon being conquered.

This sort of religious tolerance even occurred with the Roman Empire, now that I come to think of it:

In general the Romans showed enormous tolerance toward religion. The Romans had their traditional rituals, supplemented, after Augustus, by a cult of the divine emperors. But these Roman faiths were heavily flavored by an eclectic spice of foreign religions. In Bath, England, I visited a temple to a deity called Sulis Minerva - an amalgam of a Celtic goddess with Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom. Almost every army post had a temple to Mithras, the Persian god of light, who became a favorite of Roman soldiers. When Pompeii was discovered two centuries ago, one of the first structures uncovered in that Roman city was an opulent temple to Isis, the Egyptian goddess of fertility.

In his masterly Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon offered a famously cynical view of Rome's attitude toward religion: 'The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.'

-- Reid, T. R., "The Power and the Glory of the Roman Empire," National Geographic. July 1997, Volume 192, No.1. Page 34.


Sleep well.

It can get a little harsh in here sometimes. But you shouldn't take any of it personally. Never confuse this forum with having a real life. :Cheeky:

Amaleq13

You can't make your point because it denies reality. I'm not ignoring it, I'm denying it. In no rational sense did it only take a single day for Israel to become a nation. Your "point" contradicts this blatantly obvious fact.

Frankly, I think Sauron has done a better job of explaining why than I have but it really comes down to your choice to identify U.S. recognition as when Israel became a nation. That choice appears to have absolutely no basis except to create a fulfillment of the prophecy. Again, that requires no appeal to supernatural powers to understand it. If you want to present an amazingly fulfilled prophecy to gives pause to atheists, this is clearly not the one to pick.

If we follow your reasoning with regard to Israel and consider the formal declaration to constitute the birth, the answer is "YES". Do you really not see how that makes no sense yet follows from your argument? If the argument doesn't make sense for the U.S., it doesn't make sense for Israel.

War is not the only process the leads to nationhood but the specifics of the process aren't even relevant because you are denying that any took place!

Yes and none of those countries can be said to have become a nation in just one day. The declaration was the culmination of a process and that entire process is how long it took for each to become an independent nation. The day of the declaration is not an accurate measure of how long it took for them to become a nation.