Johnny Skeptic

Then please give us a complete explanation.

Please give us your definition of “perfect” as it applies to God, and after you do, please provide evidence that God is perfect other than “the Bible says so.”

In my previous post, I said:

You did not reply to that argument. Please do so.

Johnny Skeptic

God told Moses that if a Jew killed a Jew, he was to be put to death, but if a Jew killed a slave, he would only be punished. Do you believe that that was fair for slaves? Do you believe that it was fair for God to kill babies at Tyre, Sodom and Gomorrah, and at New Orleans when he created Hurricane Katrina and sent it there? Will you justify those actions by God based soley upon your claim that Adam and Eve ate forbidden fruit, and that God has had a right to get even with mankind ever since any way that he wants to get even? If the story of Adam and Eve is true, Adam and Eve were treated unfairly. They had no concept of good and evil, they were not sufficiently warned about the serpent, and God shouldn't have put a serpent in the garden in the first place. If Adam and Eve had never sinned, what in the world would they have had to discuss? They would have had no concept of comparing good with evil, good days and bad days, sickness and health, good food and bad food, war and peace, and happiness and sorrow.

Johnny Skeptic

I notice that Bfniii did not reply to the following from one of my previous posts, so here it is again:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../983front.html

The Prophecy Farce, by Farrell Till

What about all of the prophecy fulfillments? Biblicists almost always ask this question when their belief in biblical inerrancy is challenged. No doubt those who ask the question sincerely believe that prophecy fulfillment is irrefutable proof that the Bible was divinely inspired, but in reality the question reflects a naive view of the Bible for which no credible evidence exists. The "evidence" most often cited by prophecy-fulfillment proponents will usually fall into two categories: (1) Unverifiable claims by biased biblical writers that certain events fulfilled certain prophecies. (2) "Fulfillments" of prophecies that were probably written after the fact. Anyone can successfully refute prophecy-fulfillment assertions by simply demanding clear evidence when confronted with either category of claims. In other words, if a biblicist cites a New Testament claim that such and such event fulfilled such and such prophecy, simply insist on seeing reliable nonbiblical corroboration that the alleged fulfillment event actually happened. Herod's massacre of the children in Bethlehem would be an example of an uncorroborated event. The massacre allegedly fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy (Matt. 2:18), but no one has ever found an extrabiblical source that corroborates the lone biblical reference to this event. If corroborating evidence of a fulfillment event should exist, then demand evidence that the "prophecy" of this event was undeniably written before the event. In the debate over Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy, which resumes in this issue of TSR (pp. 4-11), the demand for clear, undeniable evidence that this prophecy was made before the fact has proven to be an insurmountable hurdle for Dr. Price, who has yet to produce extrabiblical corroboration of the prophecy.

Another--and even more effective-- counterargument to use against those who claim that prophecy fulfillment proves the inspiration of the Bible requires sufficient knowledge of the Bible to show that many Old Testament prophecies obviously failed. Anyone who is willing to put the time into learning just a few of those failures will have no problems rebutting the prophecy-fulfillment claims of any biblicists he/she may encounter. The prophetic tirades of Isaiah (13-23) and Ezekiel (24-32) against the nations surrounding Israel provide a treasure house of unfulfilled prophecies. Ezekiel, for example, prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Egypt and leave it utterly desolate for a period of 40 years, during which no foot of man or beast would pass through it (chapter 20), but history recorded no such desolation of Egypt during or after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

Ezekiel also prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, which would never again be rebuilt (26:7-14, but Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre failed to take the city, and Tyre still exists today. A curious thing about this prophecy against Tyre is that Isaiah also predicted that Tyre would be destroyed, but, whereas Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would be permanently destroyed and "nevermore have any being," Isaiah prophesied that it would be made desolate only for a period of 70 years. A comparison of these two prophecies is an easy way to show the silliness of claiming that prophecy fulfillment proves the inspiration of the Bible.

As noted in my exchanges with Matthew Hogan on Ezekiel's tirade against Tyre (September/October 1997; November/December 1997), Ezekiel clearly predicted that Tyre would be destroyed, become a bare rock and a place for spreading nets, and would be built no more forever (26:7-14, 21; 27:28; 28:19). As Ezekiel did, Isaiah in his prophecies of destruction against the nations around Israel also predicted the overthrow of Tyre. In 23:1, he said, "The burden of Tyre. Howl, you ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Kittim it is revealed to them." The prophecy continued in typical fashion through the chapter, predicting waste and devastation, but beginning in verse 13, Isaiah indicated that the destruction of Tyre would be only temporary, not permanent:

“Look at the land of the Chaldeans! This is the people; it was not Assyria. They destined Tyre for wild animals. They erected their siege towers, they tore down her palaces, they made her a ruin. Wail, O ships of Tarshish, for your fortress is destroyed. From that day Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, the lifetime of one king. At the end of seventy years, it will happen to Tyre as in the song about the prostitute: Take a harp, go about the city, you forgotten prostitute! Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that you may be remembered. At the end of seventy years, Yahweh will visit Tyre, and she will return to her trade, and will prostitute herself with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth. Her merchandise and her wages will be dedicated to Yahweh; her profits will not be stored or hoarded, but her merchandise will supply abundant food and fine clothing for those who live in the presence of Yahweh.”

So Ezekiel predicted a permanent destruction of Tyre that would last forever, but Isaiah predicted just a temporary destruction that would last only 70 years or the estimated lifetime of one king. The fact is that neither prophecy was ever fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre forever, and it was never made desolate for a period of 70 years. Even when Alexander the Great succeeded in his campaign against Tyre in 332 B. C., the city was soon rebuilt (Wallace B. Fleming, The History of Tyre, Columbia University Press, p. 64) and has existed ever since. Matthew Hogan was objective enough in his consideration of the evidence to admit later that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre had failed ("From the Mailbag," TSR, March/ April 1997, p. 12), but regardless of whether this prophecy failed or succeeded, it was impossible for both Isaiah's and Ezekiel's prophecies against Tyre to succeed. At least one of them had to fail, and so proponents of biblical prophecy fulfillment have a problem that they must explain. If the Bible was really inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, why would he have directed one prophet to predict a temporary destruction of Tyre and then later direct another prophet to predict that Tyre would be destroyed “forever” and never be rebuilt? A likely answer is that neither prophet was divinely inspired; they both simply blustered in the exaggerated rhetoric typical of biblical prophets and, working independently, contradicted each other.

Doug Shaver

Bifnii:

OK, I give up.

For the time being, I have had all I can take of your insults, evasions, special pleadings, pettifogging, balderdash and nonsense.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Except that, of course, I DID respond to the article. I pointed out that it didn't address the previous chapters in which the identity of the "suffering servant" was established.

...Which you then snipped, in order to pretend that there was no response.
Incorrect. God says (to the servant) "Thou art my servant Israel, in whom I will be glorified".

The servant is Israel, and through Israel will God be glorified. No mention of any other servants here.
Only one servant is ever mentioned throughout the "suffering servant" section of Isaiah. This is the same sort of utterly unsupported crackpottery that we've seen before. Different walls in Tyre, different censuses... you have no basis in making such claims, and THAT's dishonest.
In the earlier verses, Isaiah is quoting God talking TO the servant ("you"). In the later verses, God is talking ABOUT the servant ("he"), to Isaiah's readers.

And your "deeper references" are the inventions of Christian apologists. There is certainly no evidence for them in the text.
..."NT Jews"? Do you mean "Christians"?
Isaiah 53:4 "...yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted". Strong's Concordance, naga: "d) (Pual) to be stricken (by disease)". Commonly translated by Jews as "diseased", but of course the Christians would like it to say something different.
...Because that's what the actual messianic prophecies predict, yes.
Here, and here.
It came from the Bible, yes: but not from Isaiah 53.

If you would simply ASK the Jews about their messianic prophecies, or VISIT sites such as Jews for Judaism, you'll find that they are quite willing to TELL you which verses you should be looking at. There really is no excuse for this ongoing ignorance.
Wrong as usual. Ezekiel 29 was written AFTER the siege of Tyre (hence, not a prophecy). I never claimed that this WAS a prophecy. The PROPHECY is Nebby's future conquest and depopulation of Egypt (which failed).
The firmament (Hebrew "raqiya`") is the solid sky-dome to which the stars are attached, not "the land".
Clay, dirt, "dust of the ground", whatever. Yet another thing the Bible got wrong.
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. As previously explained, the Bible DOES make a definitive statement regarding the extent of the Flood. And we know all about the Hebrew sky-dome cosmology from various sources, including (for instance) 1 Enoch, which you have been referred to before.
So, rather than accept that many Christians don't believe Jesus (physically) rose from the dead: you'd prefer to believe that Christians would lie about conducting a poll, you arbitrarily label their belief as "mistakes", and you prefer to believe there is something called "Christianity" which doesn't "endorse" their beliefs (i.e. you have declared yourself Pope and excommunicated them).

...And I couldn't

Back to Ezekiel:
Based on the total LACK of ANY evidence whatsoever that anything more happened! Have you entirely forgotten WHAT Nebby was supposed to do to Egypt?

Heck, maybe the Soviet Union fell because NATO conquered it with a million tanks in WW3. Any claim to the contrary would just be an argument from silence.

And so, back to Tyre, and its walls:
So now, in Bfniii's Fantasy Universe, Nebby actually DID breach the walls and conquer Tyre!

Why are we still having a discussion about a subject you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about, even after all this time? We seem to be going backwards. Next you'll be denying the EXISTENCE of Tyre, and demanding that I provide "support" for the notion that it DOES exist!
Amazing. Truly amazing. WHY can't you find these things out for yourself, bfniii? SURELY you've checked Wikipedia by now, at least?
bfniii, why do I keep having to provide "historical justification" to refute a story you're just making up as you go along, with no citations from you whatsoever? MANY sources have been provided, on SEVERAL threads now, giving various overviews of the history of Tyre. Yet now you wish to pretend that Tyre was NOT a part of the Persian Empire when Alexander attacked, and you want to imagine that it was still a "sovereign nation" JUST so that you can pretend that Alexander "destroyed" it? (...meanwhile hoping that we'd forget that the failed prophecy referred to the permanent physical destruction of the city anyhow?)

Tyre was Persian when Alexander attacked it (indeed, a Tyrian rebellion against Persian rule had been crushed previously). And it returned to prosperity AFTER Alexander had left, and less than two decades later it withstood a siege by the Macedonian general Antigonus for more than a year. But, rather than provide more sources for you to ignore, I'll let YOU find them this time.

...Or maybe YOU will deign to provide us with YOUR "historical sources" (probably apologetics sites ) which say otherwise.
But Ezekiel is referring to the ISLAND. This is clear from the text. The switch from "your [Tyre's] daughters in the field" (mainland settlements) to "your" [Tyre's] walls and towers. And the failed prophecy that Nebby's horses would go down ALL Tyre's streets (which would HAVE to include those on the island). And so on.

Also, Nebby was actually the one who was supposed to destroy Tyre completely and permanently: you seem to have forgotten that you have NOT demonstrated that the prophecy should be split into "Nebby's part" and "somebody else's part". You haven't justified from the text your notion that "many nations" does NOT refer to Nebby's army of many nations (no other conqueror is named), and you have repeatedly ignored Farrell Till's evidence regarding Ezekiel's unreliable use of pronouns:
Again, anyone can see that this is the exact opposite of the truth. You make unsupported assertions with no regard for the actual text or the wider context.

Boro Nut

Ah, the classic ad hominem. How ad hominems used to be, before we understood what hominem meant. Why didn't you say silly? I thought you meant ad hominem like everybody understands it nowadays, ie you need to have a hominem. You can remember this rule by humming this simple mnemonic (careful - once you start you can't stop):

Ad hominem dut dur dut dut duh
Ad hominem dut dur dut duh
Ad hominem dut dur dut dut duh
Dut dut duddle dut dut duddut duh

Boro Nut

bfniii

read post #505



yes i did over the course of several posts.

bfniii

i have addressed all of this in the biblical errors thread.



god allows suffering because there is purpose in suffering. He's not trying to "get even".



you can elicit semantics all you want, but they knew in advance what not to do.



what does that have to do with the tree? typical, trying to blame someone else.



why not?

bfniii

read post #556

bfniii

i have read those posts again and i don't see any egregious insult. if i did insult you, i'm sorry. i'm not sure what i said to insult you.

i certainly don't see any evasion or special pleading.