noah

Hi bfnii,

Can you date the Tyre prophecy? If so please let us know what criteria you are using to establish the date of the prophecy.

Best,

Noah

Johnny Skeptic

You did not show any such thing. First of all, you did not quote the pertinent parts of the article. Please do so. Second of all, as I told you in the other thread, stating “what� happened and “when� it was first recorded are two entirely different and completely unrelated issues. The article mentioned King Jehoiakim and King Nebuchadnezzar. No historian disputes that these kings one lived, but plenty of historians dispute the dating of the Tyre prophecy. Third of all, I told you that you lose hands down because you cannot reasonably prove that the prophecy was not revised years later even if it was written before Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Tyre. Fourth of all, I told you that even if the prophecy was written before Nebuchadnezzars’s invasion, Ezekiel might have learned about it months in advance through a spy, in other words without divine inspiration.

Even if the prophecy was written before the facts, what about it indicates divine inspiration? The correct answer is, nothing at all. Historically, kingdoms rising and falling have been the rule, not the exception. In addition, the "many nations" part of the proophecy might have been a later addition after Nebuchadnezzar's unsuccessful seige of the mainland settlement that laster for 13 years. A later addition is most certainly a reasonable possibility since Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings" and said that his army would go down "all" of the streets of the mainland settlement. There is no evidence that that happened.

noah

Johnny,

You mentioned earlier that Deuteronomy states that humans can predict the future. Can you tell me which verses?

Thanks,

Noah

bfniii

actually i did. perhaps you need to go back over there and review.

i quoted what you asked for, the whole reason for citing the article in the first place. therefore, i quoted the pertinent part of the article. i realize you don't like that, but don't say that i didn't provide what you asked for.

and i told you over there, just because some people have decided to take a critical view of ezekiel, that does not invalidate any other views.

and i told you over there that if you have evidence that it was altered later, let's see it. so far, no response from you.

if you have evidence of that, let's hear it.

what reason do you have to believe otherwise?

according to your subjective evaluation.

the prophecy is more specific than a kingdom falling.

and what is the evidence that it might have been appended?

curious, i see no reason to doubt that nebuchadnezzar's army was pervasive in tyre's mainland.

so far, your case is built on unsupported assumption. also, it fails by it's own criteria. if no one can accurately date when the prophecy was written, then all of your ramblings are inane.

bfniii

sure. according to this article, March/April 587/586. the article cites several sources for this information.

Sauron

However, the burden of proof here is on anyone affirming the dating of the prophecy and/or the reliability of scripture -- it is not on the skeptic.

Unnecessary. We know that such editing has taken place in various other books. Given that fact, it is encumbent upon anyone taking the affirmative position for authenticity and dating to show that such redaction did NOT take place here.

Also unnecessary.

If you are affirming the dating and the divine inspiration -- and last time I checked, you were -- then you need to show that the information could not have been arrived at by Ezekiel through more ordinary means.

No, based upon a total lack of evidence to show that the "prophecy" was anything more than an intelligent guess, or ancient news reporting. You're free to prove me wrong by giving such extraordinary evidence, but something tells me you'll duck out on that.

And again: if you are affirming the dating and the divine inspiration -- and last time I checked, you were -- then you need to show evidence that divine activity was involved, and not merely an astute political observation of current affairs.

Yes, and those other details failed to occur as well.

Sauron

1. Wikipedia is not a source - it's a online collaborative encyclopedia, more of a community blog with very little peer review;

2. The "sources" it lists are bible commentaries and reference books from conservative evangelical publishing houses - not objective sources;

3. It does not list any methodology for setting the date, other than to simply read the text of Ezekiel, which is circular (as you were warned once before);


Bottom line:
If you want to date this prophecy, it's going to require work. The only question is whether or not you are willing to do it.

Sauron

And to make clear to bfnii what criteria are being applied here, let me quote from a misguided christian who offered these standards by which to judge prophecy:

1. Clarity: The prophecy must not be ambiguous.
2. Prior Announcement: The prediction must clearly be made before the fulfillment.
3. Independence: The prophet must not be able to cause the prophecy to occur.
4. Likelihood: The prophecy can’t be just a good guess.
5. No Manipulation: The one fulfilling the prophecy cannot be manipulating the circumstances.

The Tyre prophecy fails on several of these criteria, and you have yet to establish it on others.

Johnny Skeptic

There is no rule of logic that states that all assertions are true until proven untrue. This applies even more so when claims of the supernatural are stated. Just like a plaintiff in a court trial, Ezekiel made initial, primary assertions. Skeptics are analogous to defendants. Defendants do not have to disprove initial primary assertions that are made by plaintiffs. Rather, plaintiffs have to reasonably prove there cases beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Bible said that a pig sprouted wings and flew 10,000 miles, would you say that I cannot produce any evidence that a pig did not sprout wings and fly 10,000 miles? My example is not any more outlandish than the talking donkey that the Old Testament mentions. By the way, I saw a mouse pick up a battleship last week. Would you like to attempt to prove otherwise?

I do not need any evidence. You are the claimant. You said that Ezekiel was inspired by God, but I did not say that he was not inspired by God. You made an assertion, but I did not make an assertion. I am simply asking you to back up your assertion. You attempt to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. That is not the way that court trials and debates work.


I did not say that I believe otherwise. What I want to know is why I should believe your assertions.

You did not answer my question. What about the prophecy indicates divine inspiration?

More specific in which ways?

I do not need any evidence. You are the claimant.

I have assumed nothing at all, but you have assumed a lot of things. You assume that Ezekiel made the prophecy before Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of the mainland settlement, but I did not state otherwise. You assume that the prophecy was divinely inspired, but I did not state otherwise. You assume that there were no later additions to the prophecy, but I did not state otherwise. I am simply asking you to back up your assertions with evidence other than “the Bible says so.� How about it?

What in the world are you talking about? Are you saying that it doesn’t matter that you cannot reasonably prove that the prophecy was written before the facts? It most certainly does matter. It is a fact that one of the chief requirements of a prophecy is that it can be reasonably proven to have been written before the facts. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a prophecy.

As I told you in another post, the issue of reasonably proving that King Jehoiakim and King Nebuchadnezzar once lived is a much different issue than dating when historical records were recorded. Virtually all historians agree that those kings once lived, but a sizeable percentage, if not most historians, will tell you that it is impossible to accurately date records that are thousands of years old.

Consider the following two possible scenarios:

The prophecy was made before Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of the mainland settlement. The prophecy was made 100 years after Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of the mainland settlement. What evidence would distinguish the first possibility from the second possibility? As any competent historian will tell you, nothing at all.

noah

Hi bfniii,

I really advise you te get out of the prophecy defence business, at least those supposedly uttered by Ezekiel.
Surely your credibility is more important to you than some prophecy no one's heard of or cares about.
If you insist on defending these prophecies than you must do so in a credible manner. That means citing sources other than those written and published by Christian evangelical apologists.
I recommend starting with a trip to the library and heading on over to the reference section and grabbing an encyclopedia.

The sources the Wiki article cites are Christian apologists and that's it. That's not enough.
Furthermore, Wiki is a good place to start sometimes when doing a little research but you shouldn't rely solely on it for reasons Sauron has already mentioned.

Best,

Noah