mens_sana

I've never run into a skeptic who thought Ezekiel was a late add-on to the Nevi'im — something new every day. And I've never heard of skeptics asserting that Ezekiel and Daniel have common after-the-fact formats. So this has to be a strawman. Is Arnoldo really redating Ezekiel to the second temple period?

WVIncagold

anything as long as it is not reality will do. surprised Tyre wasn't built by Giant Sadistic cannibal vampire rapist and therefore they had to the two cities on the mainland and the island because they had to build bigger houses on the mainland. It makes as much sense as anything arny and supercaveman have posted.
if it Zeke is before the event its failed prophecy
if its after its failed history
in either cased why should you give an credence to a failure? A failure that is 2500 years wrong.

arnoldo

No, I'm just trying to apply the same logic to Ezekiel 26 that skeptics apply to Daniel 11. According to skeptics Daniel 11 was written after the fact since it is historically accurate to a certain point and merely uses language to disguise itself as prophetic. Thus Ezekiel 26 also was written after the fact and uses language to disguise itself as prophecy. Thus although there are historical accuracies,ie, Nebby did attack Tyre, the innacuracies "prove" that it was written at a latter time when the writer did not have accurate historical data to make his writing accurate. I admit it's just a minor point to illustrate that the claim that Ezekiel 26 is a "false prophecy" is bogus. A better argument the skeptics can make is that it is "bad history" written after the fact which disguises itself as prophecy (just like Daniel 11).

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: What evidence do you have the God inspired Ezekiel to write the Tyre prophecy, and that it has not been changed. If you ask me to prove that God did not inspire Ezekiel to write the Tyre prophecy, and that it has been changed, I will ask you to disprove Deism.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: In your opinion, if God had wanted to, would he have been able to inspire messianic prophecies that would have convinced more Jews to accept Jesus?

makerowner

Since you obviously don't understand the logic of the dating of Daniel, your attempt at parody failed miserably. The basis of the dating of Daniel is that the historical accuracy and detail increases the closer it gets to 167-164 BC, then drops off right after that (eg. Antiochus's death, the success of the Maccabees). That's the reason for the dating, not just historical mistakes. Ezekiel on the other hand goes in the opposite direction; he's accurate about Nebuchadrezzar attacking Tyre, but wrong about him conquering it. This shows that ch. 26 was probably written some time between the beginning and end of the siege. Other sections of the book, like the prophecies against Egypt were written later, when the siege had already failed.

Sheshonq

No, you're trying to waste everyone's time by force-fitting the historical background of one prophecy into ALL prophetic writings.

No, Daniel was written in the 160s BCE for several reasons, including style of writing, internal mistakes, and several other factors. You ignore everything else and try to zero in on the before/after the fact part.

Nope.

Wrong. Ezekiel was basing his before-the-fact prediction of Babylon attacking Tyre upon the past conquests that Babylon had made against other targets in the ancient near east.

It would be the same thing as a news reporter in 1941 predicting that Hitler would attack and conquer Britain. Since Hitler had overrun all of Europe, encountering little true resistance, why wouldn't the same thing happen when Nazi Germany tried to conquer Britain? It's a safe bet, and the past history of conquest is impressive. A news reporter would be gambling that Hitler would win.

But Hitler did try to conquer the UK, and he failed. That was unexpected. Just like Babylon's failure to conquer Tyre was unexpected - especially by Ezekiel. Which is why he had to add the section later about giving Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as payment - which also didn't happen, by the way.

Note also that Britain and Tyre are both islands - maybe that should drive home the point to you that the 13 year siege was against the island city, not the mainland.

WVIncagold

unless of course france is littel mainland england. sorry could not resist.

arnoldo

That has to be the lamest analogy of all time. IOW you are stating

A. Accurate Bible prophecy = written after the fact
B. Innaccurate Bible prophecy= written before event, prophecy fails :rolling:

Sheshonq

Not at all. It points out the glaring hole in your attempt to force-fit the historical considerations around the writing with Daniel into the situation with Ezekiel and Tyre.

For some stupid reason, you seem to think that "one size fits all"; i.e, if Daniel is an example of writing after the fact (and is still wrong) -- then Ezekiel, which is wrong, must also be after the fact.

Your logic is busted. What you have said is:

All dogs have four legs.
This cat has four legs.
Therefore, this cat is a dog.

Ezekiel and Daniel are both wrong, but for different reasons.

I haven't seen any accurate bible prophecies, they all have some kind issue or shortcoming; usually several.

You're confused as usual. I haven't tried to put these texts into the two buckets you keep trying to use (1= written before; 2= written after). I've been looking at them merely from the standpoint of their mistakes, regardless of when you think they were written.

You're confusing my arguments with someone else's - or trying to make me answer for arguments that I haven't been making. It won't work.