Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bfniii · 01-05-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

the walls that Nebby failed to breach after trying for 13 years: the walls that the prophecy was rather obviously referring to (unless we assume that God was a trickster).

the chapter never refers to any specfic walls. any such assignment is speculation. "obviously" is subjective.

bfniii · 01-05-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Moreover, the prophecy speaks of "slaying your daughters in the field". That is a reference to the mainland colony. But the point of view of that comment is important: it is Ezekiel speaking as if to the mother city; that is, the island city. The prophesy was directed against the island, with the additional comment that the mainland colonies (daughters in the field) would be wiped out.

it was not directed at the island although some particulars might have been mentioned. i have already specifically addressed that in the other thread. i'll be glad to port those responses over here if necessary.

bfniii · 01-05-2006, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Hm. Without reading bfniii's posts in this thread, let me hazard a prediction. I'm guessing that what Sparrow said about bfniii earlier on a different thread, is probably still going on in this current thread:

"maintained that a document should be assumed to be true unless proven false"
no specific post(s) cited. just a vague charge.

"maintained that one must postulate an alternate set of events to prove another set of events false"
still not countered by anyone. if you are claiming something in history is false, you are by default claiming something else is true because you are necessarily comparing it to something else that you feel is more reasonable, even if you don't state what that is. to claim something in history is false, you are using a standard and a standard necessitates comparison. there are no vacuums in history.

"failed to provide substantiation for his for his claims"
sparrow=jack the bodiless? :huh:

no specifics. just vague, unsupported charges. all sparrow had to do was cull together my claims and then show no substantiation followed. should have been a piece of cake.

"attempted to refute others claims with little more than sentence fragments such as ‘how so’, ‘not everyone believes this’ or ‘so say some’"
yes, never question the beliefs of skeptics or ask them to support their beliefs.

bfniii · 01-05-2006, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I don't understand what you mean. What does specifics have to do with the issues of dating, whether the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version, and what indicates that God told Ezekiel about the future events. Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception. Even the great kings Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander (or Alexander's sucessors), each with a large empire, were themselves conquered, so there was nothing at all surprising about the mainland settlement of Tyre eventually being conquered. In fact, we know from history that the chances that it would eventually be conquered were a virtual certainty.

ezekiel doesn't merely say "tyre will fall". there's more to the prophecy than that.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-05-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I do not assume what most likely happened, but you do. Why is that? You said that I am non-committal, but that is what logical people do when they have good reason to believe that there is not sufficient evidence to make an accurate assessment one way or the other, especially regarding what happened thousands of years ago. Many historians will tell you that they are non-committal regarding a great number of historical issues. You have attempted to disguise faith as history and apologetics, but it won't work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

Some people believe there is sufficient evidence to make an accurate assessment.

Based upon what evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

That is why I am asking you, patiently, what would be proof to you?

As far as I know, it is impossible to reasonably verify that the prophecy was written before the events, that the version that we have today is the same as the original version, and that God told Ezekiel about the future events. I will be happy to consider any evidence that you have to the contrary. You have said that the prophecy is detailed enough to stand on its own merit. Which details do you mean? Are you not aware that if you defend specific details of the prophecy that you will embarrass yourself? Probably so, since as far as I recall you haven't defended even one single detail of the prophecy. The prophecy makes a lot of claims in three chapters. Which specific claims best indicate to you that the prophecy came from God, and that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version.

It is no more up to skeptics to disprove the Bible than it is up to you to disprove the Koran or any other religious book. No matter which religious book is discussed, the rules are always the same. It is up to the supporters of the book to explain why they believe that the book is true. This is analogous to a plaintiff making an original, primary assertion is a lawsuit. It is up to the plaintiff to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt because he asserted first, and it is not up to the defendant to disprove the plaintiffs assertions beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof and the burden of disproof are much different. The burden of disproof is much more difficult, as you would quickly find out if you tried to disprove the Muslim claim that Allah created the universe. While it is impossible for anyone to disprove that God can convert energy into matter, if God exists it would be easy for him to show up and prove that he can convert energy into matter. You are trying to reasonably prove that the prophecy is valid, but I am not trying to reasonably disprove that the prophecy is valid. Therefore, your position is much more assertive than mine is, but you never present any credible evidence that backs up your assertions.

You frequently ask skeptics what would be proof for them regarding the Tyre prophecy, knowing full well that no proof is possible regarding the aforementioned issues, but why won't you state what was proof for you? What was proof for the people of Ezekiel's time, that is, if they even knew about it during Ezekiel's time? What was proof for people who lived 200 years after Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre?

By the way, I caught the cheap trick that you tried to pull regarding the issue of whether or not the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the ORIGINAL version. You asked me if I had any evidence that the version that we have today is different from the ancient manuscript COPIES, but the point is, are the ancient manuscript copies the same as the originals? You knew exactly what I meant. You knew that the originals is the most important issue by far, but you tried to divert attention away from the originals to the copies because you know that it is impossible to reliably determine whether or not the version that we have today is the same as the original.

bfniii · 01-05-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Corroborative sources are definitely part of the point. Most any fundamentalist Christian scholar or layman will tell you that. Christian authors, and skeptic authors as well, typically have extensive bibliographies in their books.

you are missing the point. the quantity of corroboration is irrelevant. what is pertinent is the idea. where did the idea come from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Which sources are you talking about? I am not aware of any source that has accurate criteria for dating the Tyre prophecy. Are you?

i have already cited one. it took a cue from 26:1. how was the date in 26:1 derived?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I am also not aware of any sources that can accurately determine whether or not God told Ezekiel about the future events. Are you?

sources are irrelevant to this subject. the subject is the idea that it was divinely inspired. where did the idea that ezekiel was a divinely inspired prophet come from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Even if the prophecy did predate the events, what about it indicates to you that it was divinely inspired?

do you enjoy watching yourself type? how many times have i answered this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Better stated, do you know of any similarities between what we have today and the ORIGINAL documents?

do we have the originals? no. that means we have to move on to method number 2 which is existing manuscripts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why do you assume that the ancient manuscript copies are the same as the original documents?

i don't assume. i have studied the bibliographical implications of not having the originals and how the existing manuscripts came to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

How old are the ancient manuscript copies?

~250bc

Johnny Skeptic · 01-05-2006, 10:49 PM

Message to bfniii: For my benefit, and especially for the benefit of new readers who do not wish to sort through this large thread, please answer the following questions:

In your opinion, are there any reliable means of accurately dating the Tyre prophecy? If so, what are they?

In your opinion, how can we best determine whether or not the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version?

Even if Ezekiel wrote the prophecy before the events, what about it indicates to you that is was divinely inspired? Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception.

Do you find it to be surprising that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre?

Does faith have anything to do with your defense of the prophecy?

You have asked me why some people concluded that the prophecy is true. I don't know. Do you? Why do you think that some people concluded that the prophecy was false?

You have said that the Tyre prophecy is detailed enough to stand on its own merit. Which details did you mean? Possibly the details about fishing nets and like to top of a rock?

Please be cooperative and considerate. I am always willing to quote or restate my arguments.

Apikorus · 01-05-2006, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfnili

but it's sovereignty had already been lost, as predicted.

Ah, please show me the Hebrew where it refers to Tyre's "sovereignty".

Jack the Bodiless · 01-06-2006, 02:39 AM

bfniii:

Quote:

I think you're getting lost again. The issue here is YOUR failure to provide "specifics".

in case you have forgotten, this is a biblical criticism forum. not a "specific reasons why the bible is true" forum. besides, i've answered every point directed at me that i know of.

No, you have not.

You can take this to the "Existence of God" forum if you like. But claims regarding the Christian God, which are based on the Christian Bible, tend to get put in THIS forum. Also, one of the main criticisms of the Bible is that there's no reason to believe that it IS true (contrary to the assertions of many apologists): such debates belong here.

Quote:

As the Bible is merely a collection of books, there is no good reason to believe that the Bible as a whole is true.

by what reasoning? is it that way just because you say it is? on the contrary, christians find the internal cohesion of the disparate books to be one of the strong points of the bible.

No, Christians do NOT believe this.

Inerrantists believe this.

...And the beliefs of inerrantists are not evidence-based.

Actual Biblical scholars (many of whom ARE Christians) know that the Bible is incoherent: indeed, Biblical incoherence is the basis of much Biblical scholarship (tracking the evolution of Judeo-Christian belief over time).

Any partial coherency is easily explained by the fact that each author was NOT writing in isolation: each had access to earlier books. There is no reason whatsoever to imagine that any "internal cohesion of the disparate books" is evidence of anything.

I've seen you use this sort of "argument" rather a lot lately:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii (paraphrased)

Various people have chosen to believe {whatever} over the centuries. Why are they mistaken? Please do not answer this question. It is a rhetorical device only. I prefer to continue believing that their position has merit, for no reason whatsoever. If I get bogged down in a debate on the specifics, I will retreat to this position.

Various people have chosen to believe {whatever} over the centuries. Why are they mistaken? Please do not answer this question...

Quote:

But an unambiguous OT prophecy of an unusual event in New Testament times (that actually happened, verifiable by non-Christian sources) would be a good indication that part of the Bible is true, because the text of the OT has been preserved by non-Christians.

first, unambiguous is relative. who gets to decide what is and isn't unambiguous? second, christians claim this has indeed happened. what more could you want?

Support for the claim that "this has indeed happened". But you don't want to go there.

Quote:

Or maybe some scientific knowledge that the Hebrews lacked, which can be discovered only by modern scientific instruments.

and how would you prove it wasn't just a good guess or good reasoning, a la democritus?

Well, that would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. How unlikely is the principle being "guessed", how specific is the wording of the "guess" (i.e. how much word-twisting and context-mangling is the apologist indulging in), and so forth. As far as I know, there is no Biblical "good guess" that is as GOOD as the pagan guess regarding the atomic structure of matter. Why is this?

Quote:

There can be no disproof of "Last-Thursdayism" (the notion that the Universe was created last Thursday, complete with fake evidence for a greater age, false memories for all of us, and so forth). But there is also no reason why we should take such a claim seriously. And YOU cannot disprove the notion that it was ALLAH who did this: and yet, you don't take this claim seriously.

you don't know what i do and don't take seriously. allah has nothing to do with this discussion.

Yes, he does. You cannot disprove Allah, or Last-Thursdayism. For as long as your failure to demonstrate Biblical "divine inspiration" continues (and that IS a Biblical criticism), this argument holds.

Quote:

We go where the available evidence leads.

that's certainly not always true. i know you think it is. not all of the conclusions drawn by skeptics are immune from debate or critique.

I sincerely hope not! We prefer conclusions which have passed the test of debate and critique.

Quote:

More of the same. Last-Thurdayism (or any variant thereof, including "God faked the evidence for common descent and hid the Flood from geologists") is NOT "debatable": it's nonsense, not worth taking seriously. On the other hand, if we accept the evidence: that WAS debatable, and has BEEN debated, and the issue has been settled for two centuries now.

more of the same indeed. the flood isn't any more "hidden" than pontius pilate or belshazzar were until extra-biblical evidence was found for their existence. besides, i have said before (and you would know this if you studied the issue), there are people who have theories about the biblical flood and they believe they have evidence to back up their claims. once again, you are making debatable claims and passing them off as certain. in order for you to be accurate in stating that the issue is settled, you would have to be able to debunk every theory in existence and prove that no one is even bothering to research the issue anymore.

I can be confident that no "extra-Biblical evidence" will be found for the Flood, for the same reason that no extra-Biblical evidence will ever be found for flat-Earthism: because these have been disproved by the evidence we HAVE already found (and the people who "believe they have evidence to back up their claims" keep failing to present it, or failing to address other explanations for it).

Quote:

I was referring to the previous Bishop of Durham (hey, tenses don't matter, right?). From here:

interesting source. it fits your m.o. perfectly, vague. the article claims a "furious debate which has raged" but provides no support for such a subjective claim.

So, the "poll carried out by Christian Research" is fradulent?

Quote:

in regards to the point of the article, i refer anyone to romans 10:9. it doesn't matter what title a person has or how many of them there are, the christian ideal is represented in that verse and anything that deviates from it is not truly christian. that should be obvious.

1. Why must a "true Christian" be a Paulian?

2. Why must a Paulian believe that this verse refers to an Earthly resurrection rather than direct ascension to Heaven?

3. Why must any Christian or Paulian be an inerrantist?

Quote:

Obviously, they are (and, historically, they've killed each other over such disagreements). But why didn't you answer the question?

because any such disagreement is irrelevant. the issue has already been settled in the verse i cited.

No, it has not. So, will you answer the question now? Here it is again: Why is agreement among christians necessary regarding the resurrection? If a Christian believes that Jesus died for our sins, and is now in Heaven: why is it necessary to believe that he walked the Earth for a few weeks between the resurrection and the ascension?

Quote:

Nope, it's a simple fact.

let's get this on record. you agree that God did personally destroy tyre because you agree that saying that He didn't is mere semantics. i knew you could be reasonable.

It is a simple fact that God didn't personally destroy Tyre.

Quote:

So you've changed your position again.

what has this response got to do with the fact that you completely misunderstood the passages you tried to cull together?

This is not a "fact". You have failed to find any such "misunderstanding". The implication of those passages is clear, and confirmed by Ezekiel. You have failed to refute this. Your response has been a spectacular display of evasion, stonewalling, obfuscation, and general confusion. This was all pointed out on the "Biblical Errors" thread.

Quote:

So you would actually use this lame excuse elsewhere in the Bible too?

You MUST abandon the rules of ancient Hebrew in order to claim that the past tense does NOT refer to the past. So, what you're saying is "I'm not abandoning the rules, I'm merely choosing to completely ignore them, and I'm asking why YOU don't just ignore them too".

Why should I, or anyone else, do this?

this response outlines your confusion on the issue.

1. not all prophecies in the bible are written in future, or even present, tense.

2. biblical hebrew verbs don't have tense in the same sense that ours do today. are you aware of how biblical hebrew verbs are conjugated?

1. You are still failing to provide any examples.

2. You are still failing to explain why the great bfniii is the only person in the world who has managed to "correctly" translate those passages (except that you haven't provided your alternative translation) and every other translator got it wrong.

Quote:

the walls that Nebby failed to breach after trying for 13 years: the walls that the prophecy was rather obviously referring to (unless we assume that God was a trickster).

the chapter never refers to any specfic walls. any such assignment is speculation. "obviously" is subjective.

The walls of Tyre.

The walls that Nebby HAD to breach.

The walls that Nebby OBVIOUSLY had to breach (as any reader would have known).

The walls that Nebby FAILED to breach.

There are no other walls that Nebby HAD to attack. There are no other towers that Nebby HAD to pull down. And so on...

Boro Nut · 01-06-2006, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

it would seem to me that one prerequisite for determining if something were a prophecy would be if it came from a prophet.?

Join the dots. You're not a prophet until you make a valid prophecy. A prophet is someone who makes prophecies, not false prophecies. Moses was very clear on what constituted a false prophet like Ezekiel, and how to deal with him.

Quote:

are you referring to the tyre prophecy specifically? if so, what about it is false?

All of the pertinent parts that didn't happen, like all of it. Even Ezekiel admits it didn't happen, and you can't argue with a failed prophet.

Personally I don't base my world view on fairy tales of a previously anonymous young boy turning up out of the blue age 12 displaying miraculous powers, who then proceeds to save the world, just because it so happens to be by far the world’s best selling book, or that his fantasmagorical story is told in every country on earth. You clearly are. Don't get me wrong. I've nothing against Harry Potter per se, I just don't think it's a patch on LOTR.

Boro Nut

01-05-2006, 10:49 PM	#417
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	A simple invalidation of the Tyre prophecy Message to bfniii: For my benefit, and especially for the benefit of new readers who do not wish to sort through this large thread, please answer the following questions: In your opinion, are there any reliable means of accurately dating the Tyre prophecy? If so, what are they? In your opinion, how can we best determine whether or not the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version? Even if Ezekiel wrote the prophecy before the events, what about it indicates to you that is was divinely inspired? Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception. Do you find it to be surprising that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre? Does faith have anything to do with your defense of the prophecy? You have asked me why some people concluded that the prophecy is true. I don't know. Do you? Why do you think that some people concluded that the prophecy was false? You have said that the Tyre prophecy is detailed enough to stand on its own merit. Which details did you mean? Possibly the details about fishing nets and like to top of a rock? Please be cooperative and considerate. I am always willing to quote or restate my arguments.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.