Johnny Skeptic

That is exactly what I have been asking you. Do you not claim that the events that are mentioned in Ezekiel 26 are a prophecy? If so, then you must provide evidence that the prophecy predated the events, and that the version of the prophecy that we have today was not revised in subsequent decades or centuries.
I did not contradict myself. There is not any historical evidence that Nebuchadnezzar’s army went down “all� of the streets of the mainland settlement. Just to satisfy you, let me put what I said another way: Is it not plausible that later additions were made?

[quote=JS] My position is that historians do not know when many writings of antiquity were recorded. What criteria do you believe that historians use dating the Tyre prophecy and other works of antiquity?[/qutoe]

I never asked for an absolute way. If there are clues, then please post them. What do you mean by “we’re relying on what someone else recorded.� Who is “someone else�?

The Wikipedia article that you cited was written by an anonymous author(s), and the article DID NOT date the writing of the prophecy. It only dated when Ezekiel and Nebuchadnezzar lived. Those are two separate and unrelated matters entirely. Can you imagine William Lane Craig attempting to accurately date the Tyre prophecy by referring solely to a Wikipedia article?

There would have to be a whole heap of ‘em since anyone can write about anything anytime that they want to. Just plain old common sense should tell you that. For now, let’s stay on topic. You need to accurately date the Tyre prophecy, and the best way for you do that is to quote some top historians who are recognized experts in the scholarly community. You haven’t done that.

So you do not assume that the supposed predictions that are mentioned in Ezekiel 26 predated the events, and that they were not revised in later decades or centuries?

[quote=JS] I am willing to say that we do not know one way or the other. Are you?

Please stay on topic. How well do we know when the Tyre prophecy was written, and how well do we know that it was not revised in later decades or centuries?
[quote=If I contact a historian at Wheaton College and a historian at Dallas Theological Seminary about the dating of the Tyre prophecy, and if they agree with me that the prophecy cannot accurately be dated, will you concede defeat? If I do contact the historians, I would also ask them how we could know whether or not later revisions occurred.[/quote]

I will be glad to do your homework for you because I know that you won’t do it yourself. Your shoddy research quoting a Wikipedia article because it was “convenient� is ample proof of your reluctance to embarrass yourself anymore than you already have.

Let me put my opening post another way: Unless Christians can accurately date the Tyre prophecy by citing research from some widely respected historians, there are not sufficient reasons to assume that the events that are mentioned in Ezekiel 26 are a prophecy. In addition, unless Christians can cite research from some widely respected historians that precludes a reasonable possibility of revisions in later decades or centuries, rational minded people have no choice but to conclude that there are insufficient reasons for anyone to assume that there it is not plausible that later revisions were made.

A capable and honest historian, or a capable and honest U.S. Supreme Court justice, does not allow his personal presuppositions to influence his opinion. He considers the facts on their own merit completely independent of any other factors. I suggest that you do the same.

The undecided crowd who are considering which worldview to choose are not trying to discredit the Tyre prophecy. They are asking you why you believe that the events that are mentioned in Ezekiel chapter 26 predated the events, and why you believe that revisions were not made decades or centuries later. [quote=JS] Even if the Tyre prophecy was written before the events, what about is indicates divine inspiration?

First of all, reasonable proof that the prophecy predated the events. Second of all, reasonable proof that revisions were not made decades or centuries later. Third of all, reasonable proof that Nebuchadnezzar’s army went down “all� of the streets of the mainland settlement. Fourth of all, reasonable proof that the events that are mentioned in Ezekiel chapter 26 could not have been predicted by an unbeliever. Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception. Given Nebuchadnezzar’s penchant for conquest, the riches of Tyre, Babylon’s close proximity to Tyre, and Nebuchadnezzar’s great power, it would have been much more surprising if he had not attacked the mainland settlement. In addition, the invasion would had to have been planned months in advance, and hundreds, if not thousands of people would have known about it, so it is certainly plausible that Ezekiel found out about the invasion in advance by ordinary means, possibly through a spy.

Regarding “many nations,� Farrell Till says that it was not uncommon for some conquerors to incorporate the armies of defeated nations into their own armies. Alexander did this. Still, I believe that the most likely scenario is that after it became obvious that Nebuchadnezzar would not be able to defeat the mainland settlement, the prophecy was revised to include “many nations.� Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a “king of kings.� Do you not find it strange that a king of kings would need many nations to help him defeat the mainland settlement?

Tyre held out pretty well for centuries against God and his human proxies, eh? It is of course a preposterous notion that the God of the Old Testament made war against puny humans, sometimes directly with a quick result, i.e. against Sodom and Gomorrah, and sometimes with the help of human proxies, which in the case of the Tyre prophecy, took God and his human proxies centuries to finally defeat the island settlement. If the prophecy predated the events, and if the Tyrians knew about the prophecy, many of them died of natural causes over a number of centuries content with the knowledge that not even the God of the Old Testament together with all of his human proxies could not defeat one relatively small group of puny humans.

Ezekiel 26:6 says “And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the Lord.� How do you interpret this verse?

By the way, even if I believed that God could predict the future, I would not become a Christian because there is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to predict the future and goodness. In the NIV, Deuteronomy 13:1-3 say “If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.� So, the Bible admits that bad people can predict the future too.

Regarding God testing people, how can we test God in order to find out if he loves us? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If it is fair for God to test us, then it is fair for us to test him. Please don't just tell me that God has been tested in the past, although I would still like for you to post evidence to that effect. I also want to test God now, and I want you to tell me how to do it. If you do not wish to address this issue in this thread, please do so in the thread on Biblical errors, or start a new thread and answer the question.

Sauron

1. It implies nothing.

2. Knowing the composition date - another task for the affirmative side to fulfill, in making its affirmative case. Any further attempts to shift the burden of proof will likewise be turned back.

I answer them quite willingly - you just don't like the answers you get. Being told that I will not accept the burden of proof and that the evaluative framework is your job, not mine -- well, it doesn't seem to go over too well.

I am not avoiding - I am refusing to do your work for you. Many of the questions you ask are items you need to research for your affirmative case. It isn't my job to answer your homework questions.

The ones about the Tyre prophecy - you know, accuracy of the text, divine inspiration, and dating? If you have changed your mind on these, feel free to update everyone with whatever your new position is.

*sigh* now you're getting confused.

1. It is the case that you made this claim ("if I disagree, I must have some alternate explanation in mind"). You made that claim - unsuccessfully - over and over.

2. Uh, yes I have refuted that idea. And you've continued to pretend to miss the point: identifying flaws in the logical construction of an argument does not presuppose that I have any answers or alternative explanations. I might have such alternatives, or I might not. But there is nothing that requires that I have them, merely to point out flaws in how you support your argument.

1. No, I got all your points - they're simply incorrect, and with amazing consistency.

2. You did say that someone was free to dismiss the subject altogether - but in the same sentence, you tried to dismiss the claimant's burden of proof. That was your error; the person making the claim is, in fact, affirming the truth of it. That is part and parcel of making the claim in the first place.

1. Yes, you have made such a claim - the Tyre dating, remember?

2. You have not questioned my skepticism. You have instead tried to:

* wiggle out of the burden of proof;
* re-write the rules of debate to create burden of proof on the audience, not the claimant;
* dumb down the standards by which to judge an extraordinary claim, merely because you cannot meet them;
* duck your responsibility to set forth your evaluative framework

You've been a classic debate leech; never wanting to do a thing to support your position, seeking only to stay alive by cleverly convincing others that your own work is actually theirs instead. I simply didn't let you succeed.

And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

Another childish attempt at distracting the discussion and baiting me into accepting the burden of proof. I turned back that attempt.

1. I did not say "cannot be absolutely dated." I said "has unknown dating." Strawman.

2. It does not bother you, because you aren't particularly concerned about proving your claims with evidence;

3. It implies nothing bad for my side, but it implies a lot against yours.

Another interesting claim; my you are just a claim factory, aintcha? Let's see the proof. Best to start a new thread; I suggest "The Bible is as solid as any other work of antiquity" as your title.

Not at all.

Not my job. I've already told you - it is your job to suggest an evaluative framework, not me. These are your claims; you are responsible for offering the standards by which you think you can fulfill them.

And once you do that, we can discuss whether or not I accept those standards.

No, I'm reminding you of a point of order here - this is your job, not mine. And hint: I will not do your job for you not now, not ever.

1. You didn't debunk anything. You merely whined that you wouldn't be able to meet such standards. That is an indictment of your case; it is not a flaw with the standards.

2. I did refute your (groan) debunking, with the same line of reasoning as #1, above.

Refer back to the christian website - the author sets forth the reasons for each criterion. Even though his conclusions were unsound, his rationale behind the criteria are good.

Or alternatively, offer your own set of criteria.

No, they are conclusive - you simply can't meet them. Nor do you offer any substitute standards of your own.

1. The comment was general; "christians".
2. As for you in particular - see your other thread on biblical evidence. It is chock full with you giving benefit of the doubt.
3. After you're done there, there was also your amazing post where you tried to defend the Katrina hurricane as maybe being a good thing.

1. Not true - what I did was simply to reject your claim, and/or repeat a previously offered rebuttal that you were cowardly avoiding;

2. Even if your claim above were true, it would not invalidate my statement.

Your time would be better spent offering your evaluative framework.

1. I did refute it - the fact that you can't successfully prove your case against the criteria does not show that the criteria is flawed.
2. I repeated that rebuttal because it is correct, and you have not shown otherwise.

Which is (a) just a stalling tactic and attempt at diversion on your part; I'm sure you would love to de-rail this discussion into a never ending rat hole. However, I'm not going to play along with you.

2. Your job, however, remains the same: offer your evaluative framework so that we can proceed to discover if we agree or not.

1. No, the criteria are not flawed - your inability to meet them is not a flaw in the criteria themselves, it is a flaw in your candidate test case;

2. I did refute it - using the same line of reasoning as #1, above.

mata leao

brother bfnii, this pathetic semantic ad lapidem stalling is why debating with Sauron is a complete waste of time, I would rather fire up the boat, strap on the tanks, and go spear fishing in Tampa Bay on such a fine Sunday! Grill the fish on the charcoal grill mounted on the stern and sip a glass of cabernet sauvignon, today... Napa Valley 1978,..... God is Good brother bfnii!!!!

Johnny Skeptic

Please stay on topic. The opening post was solely about the issue of dating. No writings can be considered to be prophetic unless they are accurately dated. Do you dispute this?

God is good? Oh my, what a preposterous and completely uncorroborated notion. So the Bubonic Plague was an example of God's goodness, right? I don't suppose that you would like to start a thread an defend your assertion that God is good, would you? You have a lot of audacity talking about enjoying yourself in Tampa Bay when quadriplegics can't even walk. The late Vincent Humbert live in France. He was quadriplegic, blind, and mute. How would you have told him to enjoy himself? Please start a new thread to reply to this these issues. I predict that you won't because you don't want to embarrass yourself.

I sent you a private message that I started a new thread at the
GRD forum that is titled 'Here we go again with homosexuality, folks.' I posted and replied to your patently absurd and grossly misinformed comments about homosexuality at this forum that were moved to Elsewhere. I chose the GRD to reply to your comments because it is the most visited forum at the IIDB.

bfniii

you are mistaken. you cannot say that the methodology is both circular and unlisted. it is one or the other. no methodology is listed so it's not circular. another mistake you make here is that my response somehow validates your point, which it doesn't. what is true is that you still haven't provided the starting point for us to begin dating the prophecy, that being what you would consider proof of composition date.

it wasn't my claim. i merely cited a source that relies on the date given in 26:1. why is that date incorrect? what method do you consider appropriate in determining whether it is valid or not?

based on your posts so far, it seems that your position is that you take no position on the date nor do you offer anything substantial on how the date can be determined. you don't outright refute the biblical position nor does your criticism give any reason to be skeptical of the date in 26:1. if so, in what way are you relevant to the discussion?

first, you can't even show that my claim (not that i made one) was merely an assertion because your position is so unsubstantive (we should be skeptical because you say so). second, you can disagree all you want. but since you offer nothing conclusive to the discussion, why should anyone listen to you?

yes and your response has already been refuted. i can reproduce it if you need it. this all too familiar tactic of yours doesn't exonerate your statement from the charge leveled at it. once again, this discussion can actually move forward when you show how my charge is inaccurate or your response isn't ad hominem. but you don't do that. you just keep repeating yourself like a broken record. it is starting to look like expecting you to have a response is expecting too much.

oh yeah? says who?

what sources are reliable?

what sources are without bias?

as i said before, you should welcome wacky christian sources because it makes your job easier and makes you look better. curiously, you seem averse to that. suspicious.

i have said over and over, bring whatever source or argument you think is appropriate. i don't care where you get it. i have no qualifications set on your positions. i will address whatever you bring into the discussion. that's how to avoid ad hominem. you haven't picked up on that yet though.

you offered an elementary school website. what does that say about the quality of your arguments? in your other posts, you offer nothing; no sources or positions (yes, i can quote you on that). that seems to indicate you are devoid of quality on those issues.

no you didn't. it's still ad hominem. you didn't refute that. you just repeated yourself.

this response does nothing to exonerate your assertion from being ad hominem.

no you don't understand. if all christians have to offer is low quality sources, you can more easilty dispense with their claims and you look better. the standards haven't been lowered. you just triumph more easily. but you are avoiding that.

it was? could you please point out where?

so what? why do you care? you should be glad because this shows how much better you are than the ignorant christians and now is your chance to crush them.

no it's not. all you did in that response is state their inclination. that doesn't make them biased nor does it exonerate any other sources from being biased.

in order for you to prove that the source is biased, you have to show that they are overlooking or omitting obvious information that contradicts the case they make. you haven't done that. all you have done is keep crying foul when you should be glad that your job is so easy. for some reason, you are missing a great opportunity.

1. you haven't shown that christian sources are purposely avoiding points made by non-christian historical, archaeological or linguistic sources.
2. you haven't shown that non-christian sources are authoritative
3. you still haven't provided a template for how to date the composition of a text.

then why did you misuse it twice?

humorous. in trying to accuse me of a strawman, you yourself commit the fallacy. i never claimed that you request "perfectly impartial sources". what i was pointing out is your request for "minimum bias". first, why don't you try to define what is minimum and what is bias. second, minimum is clearly subjective as i have said before. a source that you might consider minimally biased might not be so to someone else. so whose standard are we to use in determining which sources are "minimally biased"?

can you not see that this arrogant response doesn't address the question i raised? are you really not able to determine that?

i asked you what makes that elementary school website and nizkor authoritative. you didn't answer that. you just repeated yourself which you apparently love to do. would you mind attempting to answer the question?

i don't care who "informed" me of that. neither you nor anyone you cite has answered the point that in order for one to even know there are flaws in something, they necessarily have some idea of how it could possibly be otherwise. no one has refuted this yet. all you have done is continue repeating yourself like a broken record. you accused me of attempting to rewrite the rules of debate and when that didn't work you cited an elementary school website that doesn't actually address the point i am making

what makes you and your claque authoritative in the "rules of debate"? WHY is your position correct? let's see if you can answer that question without just retorting "because i (we) said so".

i didn't think you were capable of it. what's funny is you should see this as an opportunity to make your own rules about what is proof and what isn't.

:banghead:

i have asked you over and over:
1. show how an event can be proven to be, or not be, miraculous or divinely inspired
2. show how the composition date of a text can be determined
3. show who all knew that nebuchadnezzar was going to inevitably invade tyre or how it can be proven ezekiel made a good guess
4. show how a text can be exonerated of any tampering

please show how that is a case of me resisting.

not true and this is just more red herring. it is a fact that i have asked you what would prove the case to you. you ONCE said you would provide it after i proved my case. how can i prove the case to you until you tell me what will be proof to you?

WHAT?!?
1. YOU complained when i offered a christian source.
2. i told you i DON'T CARE what sources you provide.
3. i was the one who pointed out that ad hominem fallacies should be avoided.

wow. i am not trying to change any parameters. what i am trying to do is get us to a point of agreement on what would constitute as proof. i have openly and completely deferred to whatever standard you want to set. i have not put any limitations on ANY criteria you could use. i have, however, asked WHY your criteria is viable. you don't refute my points, you just repeat your original assertions and expect that we blindly accept what you say.

funny. you can't even answer why someone bears the burden of proof. all you do is keep repeating that i do.

let's sum this up:
1. you are unable to determine what sources are authoritative
2. you are unable to define who is, and who isn't, acceptably biased
3. you are incapable of showing how your standards of skepticism are ecumenical
4. you are incapable of showing how your skepticism does not preceed from proconceived notions
5. you are unwilling to provide what would be proof to you.

why are you relevant? why are you even here? you have no point to make.

yes you do.

that tells us their inclination but says nothing about bias. bias is when they are purposely ignoring pertinent information from other inclinations. you haven't shown that. look up the definition. i used merriam-webster.

BTW, claiming their stance is inadmissable because they are christian is ad hominem. look it up. i used brittanica.

i can see why you say this when you don't understand it. instead of asking for clarification, like a reasonable person would do, you spout off......

what does this have to do with the fact that christians think ezekiel's text is prophecy because they believe it was written prior to the event as 26:1 indicates?

the pertinent question is, is ezekiel 26 one of these cases? otherwise, the question is irrelevant.

no, once you answer the preceding question, then we might be able to conclude that. i have already cited one source that takes that position.

the traditional position does not rely on popular opinion

they "work" differently for different people. i am trying to find out how it works for you.

if information for or against the composition date isn't available, how does that vitiate the prophecy?

not only does this misrepresent what i stated, it doesn't even address what i stated. you merely insert a new childish retort, "hogwash", without explaining why or how it is so.

good grief. i never said it was proof. i said it is when the text claims it was written. please tell us why it is wrong. please tell us how we could even know it is, or isn't, wrong.

wait, you made the claim that your book was written on a particular date. is the great sauron not capable of proving when his own book was written? are you not able to answer the simple and paltry question i ask?

ALRIGHT! another rare case of support for your cause. i get excited when you actually contribute to the discussion.

arriving at a minimum age is great. but it doesn't tell us when the text was written, which is what the question was. second, you revert to the old "internal clues" flawed criteria. they are interesting, but not conclusive. i'll give you an example; the book of daniel mentions greek instruments from much earlier than the 2nd century bc. also, it is written in a style of aramaic from an earlier period. proponents use this as support for their case of the book being written during the hebrew captivity in babylon. critics claim it is inconclusive. why aren't you critical in this case like other skeptics are in the case of daniel? this is blatant special pleading.

wrong. you didn't answer the question. here are the unanswered questions (i've added one just for fun):
1. who is authoritative?
2, what makes them authoritative?
3. what are the other examples of tampering?

the reason why i added #3 is because it is pertinent to the discussion. i have asked you over and over what would be proof of tampering to you. this is the perfect opportunity for us to apply a template to the text in question. this is where you get to prove your point, but for some suspicious reason, you are shying away from it.

i showed how they weren't circular. perhaps you missed my explanation. if you did, i will patiently wait for you to read it and respond.

i did no such thing. see, i knew you understood what a strawman is. you are building one right now.

you wouldn't even know the pervasiveness of the explanation offerred unless you had a frame of reference.

yes you would. you wouldn't even have a conception of "good", or "bad, theory in this particular case unless you had a frame of reference. in order for you to have a frame of reference, you necessarily must know of other possibilities. without that, "holes" don't appear to you. i'm sorry you aren't catching on to this.

once again, you don't refute the points i am making. all you have done is introduce yet another sad personal attack, "Pathetically, tragically incorrect", and then repeat your original assertion (what a surprise).

oh yeah? how do you know?

then by what means are you rejecting it?

1. completely and utterly subjective. coherent and rational appear differently to different people.
2. you must necessarily know of alternate "causes and effects" in order for you to know mine is not the only one

no, but it's not distrust and disbelief as you claim. it's neutral (hence tabula rasa). it knows of no way one way or the other, except what it has been told, which is precisely the case here.

yes it is. how do you figure it's different?

i never said "fixed", mr. strawman. how many strawmen have you built now, 4 or 5?

subjective

"person would be willing" is subjective

what is absurd is that you are unable to see that "Tossing out more reasonable alternatives" affirms my point. i want to know what these "reasonable alternatives" are. why do you consider them "more reasonable"? these are the templates i have been asking for.

what would constitute "evidence" for you?

this response halfway addresses the point i made. kudos to you.

why? i already know what happened. why do i owe you an explanation?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Why haven't you replied to my post #91? I will contact experts at Wheaton College and Dallas Theological Seminary this week regarding the issues of dating and later revisions. I have found out from personal experience that the best way to defeat a fundamentalist Christian in a debate is to use exclusively fundamentalist Christian sources whenever possible.

Even if I believed that God can predict the future, I would still not become a Christian because of his questionable nature.

Jack the Bodiless

You have this claim backwards (and you've been corrected on this before IIRC).

The Book of Daniel mentions Greek instruments that were unknown in the region until after Alexander invaded it. This is often cited as evidence that Daniel was written AFTER this period.

(...Yes, I've finally taken you off "ignore", so I can read your posts now. I think your inability to address the dating of Noah's Flood and the Jewish rejection of Jesus has now been thoroughly demonstrated)

Johnny Skeptic

Bfniii has convenienty avoided making any posts in my thread that is titled 'It is time to put Daniel and Josh McDowell in their proper places,' but I will bet that he has read it and doesn't want to embarrass himself by replying to it. I showed that McDowell's own experts admit that much of Daniel was not written by Daniel, and that some of it was written centuries after bfniii claims it was written. Bfniii is notorious for making completely uncorrobated, preposterous assertions. His sole basis for dating the Tyre prophecy is a Wikipedia article by an anonymous author who is probably not a historian. It is interesting to note that the writer of the article DID NOT date the prophecy. He only dated when certain historical characeters lived, not when Ezekiel or whoever else wrote about them. Those are two entirely different unrelated issues. Anyone can write about anything anytime that they want to. It is much easier to estimate when a famous historical character lived than when people wrote about them, and whether or not writings about them were revised in later decades or centuries. Just plain old common sense should tell bfniii that. Even the Bible admits that tampering with the texts is possible. Revelation 22:18-19 say "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warning. Of course, we don't even know what texts constitute "the Bible." The contents of the New Testament Canon were voted on, and the vote was close.

Sauron

However, I did not say that. Learn to read:

you tried to cite the Wiki article as proof of the dating. But the article fails to list the methodology for the dating, other than to simply read the text and accept it at face-value. And if you recall, Johnny Skeptic's request included information about the methodology behind any such dating of the prophecy. That was your mistake. You made the same mistake earlier, in the main thread with Johnny Skeptic.

No methodology is listed, OTHER THAN TO.....

Which you already knew; you just felt like playing games. This is a classic example of why debating with you is just an exercise in watching your creative dishonesty.

Then it was your claim. I realize that your particular parlor trick here is to:

a. cite someone else;
b. pretend that you aren't making the claim - it's actually this other guy you cited who made the claim; and
c. by doing so, hopefully shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic and relieve you of doing any support or research

Unfortunately for you, it does not work that way. If you cited the date/source, then it becomes your claim. You'll get no mileage here by trying to insert a layer of abstraction and "plausible deniability" between yourself and your citation. If you cite the source, then you need to stand behind it and defend it.

And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

You have the affirmative case, not me. Therefore, you are the one who has taken a position, not me.

There is no supporting evidence offered; by definition, it is an assertion. There; see how easy that was?

1. I offer quite a bit to the discussion; I simply am not going to accept your burden of proof and do your work for you.

2. I think people are going to listen to me far more intently than they are going to read your continued evasions.

1. You have not refuted my response; attempts to assert that do not work;
2. Repeating your answer won't help you, unless you find a better answer.

1. I don't have to exonerate myself from a baseless charge. Your (ahem) "charges" do not automatically place any burden of disproof on me.

2. No, what exonerates my statement is the fact that your charge is invalid, and you have not refuted my response. You want to use tainted, biased sources. It isn't going to work, and your response is dead on arrival.

Interesting. Just several short posts above, bfniii had the arrogance to ask why anyone should care what I have to say. Yet here, ladies and gentlemen, we see bfniii questioning the need for unbiased sources, and trying to stall again.

If anyone around here has credibility issues in the debate, it is you.

Already responded to this:

You are engaged in a logical fallacy of false choices; either we have to have (a) 100% impartiality, or (b)nothing is impartial at all. You claim (a), therefore you absolve yourself of the responsibility to avoid tainted sources. How convenient. Since you missed it before, I'll repeat it:
You might not be able to have 100% honest govt; but that doesn't excuse political corruption, just because you can't be perfect. You might not ever be able to have a 100% efficient corporation; but that doesn't mean that you start wasting money left and right just because perfection is not attainable. The same principle exists here.

And I already responded to that particular attempt at baiting:

1. I would not welcome a lowering of the standards of evidence; how silly. But I can see where that might benefit you, of course.

Not curious at all - I have higher standards of debate and respect for the process than you do. I draw the line at garbage sources that you apparently have no problems accepting.

However, it is not my job to do so - not until AFTER you present your evaluative framework and the evidence to support your affirmative claim.

At every turn it seems you want to shift the burden of proof; you're not going to succeed, sadly. Any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof.

you offered an elementary school website. what does that say about the quality of your arguments?
[/quote]
Already answered that trite comment as well:

And again we see the intellectual (dis)honesty of so-called christians.

1. I gave two sources, not just one.

2. My claim that went along with the grade school website was that the burden of proof was such an elementary part of the debate process that even kids knew it. In order to prove that kids know something, an elementary school citation is right on target. There is nothing per se wrong with an elementary school citation anyhow, as long as it accurately reflects the facts - which is why I presented the 2nd citation from www.nizkor.org, to buttress that fact. You should take notes here on how to properly support an argument, by the way.

3. I notice that instead of admitting your failure on the location of burden of proof, you are now trying to create another of your famous distractions.

No, it indicates that:

1. you have the burden of proof, not I;
2. I am keenly aware of that important fact;
3. and therefore DO NOT NEED to offer sources or position;
4. and will continue to turn back your attempts to creatively shift that burden of proof.

I did respond to it. It is not ad hominem. I don't have to refute an unsupported claim. Repetition is perfectly acceptable, if you haven't worked the bugs out of your claim yet - repeating the mistake in your claim until you fix it.

1. My comment was not an ad hominem, and you have yet to show that;

2. The response above was talking about a different objection of yours anyhow - try to keep up with the discussion, hmm? I mean; why should I haev to give my responses, as well as baby-sit you and remind you of your own arguments?

3. I gave the comment above in response to your logical fallacy about everyone having bias, so there is no need to try and use impartial sources.

Yes, I fully understand you silly idea. Your latest re-hash doesn't tell me anything I didn't understand from your first attempt at watering down the criteria. I would not welcome the lowering of evidentiary standards; it is a waste of time and energy to have to debate garbage sources, sift them for any meager value they might have, and be constantly checking and double-checking them with actual bonified sources. I would much rather spend my time debating actual scholarly comments, and those are the only sources that I will use to defend any arguments I make - a debater is known by the sources he uses. No one truly interested in honest debate would want the taint of such sources present in their arguments, or expend.

Which is paradoxically exactly why you are trying to get them accepted - you are interested only in games, not honest debate. Let's face it: if you gave a shekel about honest debate, you would have formed your argument by now, submitted your criteria, and we'd be discussing the details. But that isn't going to happen, because you're wriggling and squirming, trying to get the burden of proof shifted onto someone - ANYONE - except your lazy self. I must say, the number of gameplaying christians on this board -- lee_merrill, mata leao, and now you -- it speaks volumes about your shared religion.

See this thread. As I said yesterday: primarily because you refuse to present your evaluative framework and your associated evidence. An affirmative claim where the claimant simply refuses to offer proof is probably the weakest kind of case imaginable.

Huh? You asked for proof of bias. I gave it to you.

Already answered this as well: I would not welcome the lowering of evidentiary standards.

Yes it is. A conservative evangelical christian publishing house could not, would not, print any book that ran contrary to the conservative christian line about the dating and prophecy of the book of Ezekiel. It's simply not going to happen. Their inability / unwillingness to do so renders them unacceptably biased, in the same way that Answers in Genesis is unacceptably biased on scientific matters. And back to my earlier example -- which you wisely ducked and avoided addressing -- I would no more accept the word of a conservative, evangelical publishing house about Ezekiel than I would accept the "data" from tobacco companies that magically demonstrated no linkage between smoking and lung cancer.

And given that there are numerous other sources out there without the stench of such bias, you'll need to pick someone else if you want to present your affirmative case to me.

I did not say "christian sources". I said this particular conservative evangelical publishing house. My rationale is found above.

You have it backwards again. You need to show that christian sources ARE authoritative - you are the one who offered the Wiki source, without ever showing that those sources quoted there are authoritative, remember?

Not my job. I've already told you - it is your job to suggest an evaluative framework, not me. These are your claims; you are responsible for offering the standards by which you think you can fulfill them.

And once you do that, we can discuss whether or not I accept those standards.

I did not misuse it twice, and you have not demonstrated so.

humorous. in trying to accuse me of a strawman, you yourself commit the fallacy. i never claimed that you request "perfectly impartial sources".
[/quote]
1. I did not create a strawman; precisely because I did not ascribe "perfectly impartial sources" to you -- you said my request was "ridiculous"; given that fact, I wanted to clarify what I was saying about "impartiality" so as avoid making the need for impartiality a human impossibility;

2. You are ducking the point - why are you resisting the need to have high quality sources with minimal bias and taint?

3. Thank you for reminding me of another deficiency in your original, earlier reponse - you state it's a fallacy to claim their conclusions aren't tainted because they don't have a bias. How weird; if someone hypothetically had no bias, then there conclusions most certainly would be free of taint.

4. Finally, I detect your attempt to set up a new parlor trick: you want to refuse to recognize any sources as being higher quality than any other source. Thus you hope to get your lame evangelical sources accepted - never mind that such a standard means that we must accept the Weekly World News, Jack Chick tracts, and the random musings of your senile Aunt Lizzie as sources.

It's not a request; it's a requirement.

Because those are well understood terms that do not need to be defined. The only reasons someone would even make such a request is that they are trying to stall and/or distract the discussion with slippery slope arguments over definitions. Attempts to redefine everything as subjective -- so as to remove the need for avoiding bias -- won't work any better than your other "subjectivity based" evasions have worked.

What? Didn't expect to be caught so early?


1. It is not arrogance - it is comment in recognition of your game playing debate tactics;

2. It does address your question.

3. Burden of proof resting upon the claimant is a well-known, established principle of debate. Again: I am not going to define commonly used words in the English language, nor am I going to waste any time proving commonly known facts to you, merely because you want to stall and rat-hole the debate.

I've refuted it dozens of times. And you've continued to pretend to miss the point: identifying flaws in the logical construction of an argument does not presuppose that I have any answers or alternative explanations. I might have such alternatives, or I might not. But there is nothing that requires that I have them, merely to point out flaws in how you support your argument.

That is because the status of your claims has not changed; they are still unproven assertions. In such a scenario, repeating my last comment is perfectly acceptable. I am not going to expend one iota more of explanation, as long as you refuse to support your claims and provide your explanatory framework. We are in stalemate until you:

(1) accept your burden of proof and present your case; or
(2) recant your position;

Again: I am not going to define commonly used words in the English language, nor am I going to waste any time proving commonly known facts to you, merely because you want to stall and rat-hole the debate.

The rules of debate are already set. You are merely avoiding them. What is funny is that you claim to want the parameters of debate, but then try your damndest to re-write them --- because you didn't really want those nasty, confining old rules in the first place, did you?

And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

And again: It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof.

Already answered:
I don't have to provide any names. I provided an example of a particular scenario that you have to rule out, in order to satisfy criterion #4:

4. Likelihood: The prophecy can’t be just a good guess.

You have to provide details of Ezekiel's life that rule out the possibility that he was just guessing, or found out about the invasion from his daily routine or from reading a news report in "The Babylon Times". Remember: science rules things out, not in.

And again: It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. That includes explaining to us how you plan to show no evidence of tampering as well, bfniii.:wave:

I just did that - above. In each and every question you raised, the actual burden is on yourself, and no one else. You are dragging your feet and trying to shift the burden. So it's more than resisting - it's stonewalling and gameplaying.

1. It is true - every time I tell you this, you most certainly *do* try to shift the burden of proof.
2. Therefore, it is not a red herring.

Already answered this as well. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof.

Stop stalling and offer your evaluative framework. The quicker you do your job, the quicker we can explore that framework and see if we can agree on it, or not.

Go ahead -- offer a suggested framework, and we will discuss it.

Nice try. But that isn't what happened. I did not say "christian sources". I said this particular conservative evangelical publishing house.

On the contrary. You complained that I rejected your sources without any reason that you agreed with.

It is true that afterwards, you did go on to offer me the opportunity to likewise inject low quality sources that reeked of bias. You also tried to erroneously say that I should enjoy arguing against garbage sources - I guess you were engaged in projecting again. In any event, I naturally I turned down your (ahem) 'generous offer'. My reasons were stated above:
I have higher standards of debate and respect for the process than you do. I draw the line at garbage sources that you apparently have no problems accepting.

And a lollipop and big red balloon for you, too -- however, no ad hominems have been used so far, so your advice is quaint, but pointless.

Your response has me asking, "What lies would Jesus tell?" You most certainly ARE trying to change parameters. That is why:

1. you have been trying to get me to prove the location of burden of proof;

2. you have been trying to avoid defending your position on the Tyre dating by saying, "oh, it's not my claim - it's that source's claim, way over there - I don't have to defend it, but I want to see your rebuttal to it anyhow";

3. you have been asking for the definition of common words such as "minimum" and "bias", instead of simply getting on with the job of presenting your case;

4. you have tried unsuccessfully to coax me into providing the evaluative framework by which we will decide if you have met your burden, when in fact you need to set that forth yourself, as part of your opening affirmative statement

As for arriving at a point of agreement upon what would constitute proof: offer your evaluative framework. We will see.

Translation: you have deliberately and repeatedly ducked your responsibility to provide said evaluatory framework.

But it isn't my job to suggest what your criteria of success should be -- it is your job.

No, I simply refuse to let you shift the burden of proof -- or the burden of providing an evaluative framework -- onto me.

Yes, I did. Burden of proof resting upon the claimant is a well-known, established principle of debate. Again: I am not going to define commonly used words in the English language, nor am I going to waste any time proving commonly known facts to you, merely because you want to stall and rat-hole the debate.

That is precisely what I just did, in all caps.

I do not have to provide you with your success criteria for your argument; that needs to be part of your opening statement - offer them, and we will see if there is room for agreement;

Because those are well understood terms that do not need to be defined. The only reasons someone would even make such a request is that they are trying to stall and/or distract the discussion with slippery slope arguments over definitions. Attempts to redefine everything as subjective -- so as to remove the need for avoiding bias -- won't work any better than your other "subjectivity based" evasions have worked.

I have no such burden, regardless of how much you try to create one for me;

I have no such burden here, either. What's more, you deliberately duck the reality: identifying flaws in the logical construction of an argument does not presuppose that I have any answers or alternative explanations. I might have such alternatives, or I might not. But there is nothing that requires that I have them, merely to point out flaws in how you support your argument.

And finally, any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

1. I am very relevant.
2. I am here to have fun.
3. You are the one who has the affirmative claim; any points that need to be made should be coming from you.

No, I don't. Sorry.

Incorrect. See the explanation above.

BTW: that isn't what I said about them. Misattribution of someone's position is called strawman. Look it up. I used Britannica.

No, I understood it quite well -- that is what enabled me to evaluate your comment as a stupid one.

Plenty.

1. You have not proven that this is the traditional position;

2. Telling me that "it wouldn't be called prophecy if christians thought otherwise" does not prove that this is the traditional position;

3. the Mormon example shows that there are things called "prophecy" which are not part of the traditional christian collection set of things called "prophecy";

4. you have not proven that you, bfniii, can accurately and authoritatively speak for christians on their position about the dating of this prophecy;

5. You have not proven that we should give a rat's ass about "traditional position", since that is a logical fallacy (appeal to popular opinion);

a) You said that we could know what the 'traditional position' was by what how christians referred to the text.
b) Yet we have two groups of christians referring to the same text in different ways.
c) Your method of differentiation yields contradictory results. Given that fact, why should we use that yardstick at all?

2. You have not proven that prophecy always refers to telling the future, which means that you need to prove that christians referring to this section as "prophecy" are doing so with the same foretelling connotations that you happen to attach to it. There are christians who do not believe that EZ 26:1 was written before the fact, yet they still call it "prophecy"; their definition of prophecy includes other items besides telling the future (i.e., words direct from God, spoken through a human voice).

No, your preceding question is irrelevant. The yardstick you want to use ("how christians refer to it") is broken, since it yields contradictory results.

Hardly. All you cited was a Wiki article - a community blog with little or no peer review. We don't know where the Wiki article got its opinion from, since the format of the Wiki article didn't include direct footnoting into their list of sources.

2. One single, solitary source does not support a broad claim of "traditional christian viewpoint" anyhow. Puh-leez.

1. Yes it does;

2. You have not proven that this is the traditional position anyhow; all you said was "i think it's safe to say". Assuming your way around the debate does not work.

I suggested criteria from a christian website; you are free to use them, or not. I happen to think they are rather good, but you don't have to use them if you think you have better ones.

Go ahead - suggest your evaluative framework. But don't expect me to do your homework for you; this is your job, not mine.

It means that:

1. anyone - such as yourself - who has argued for the affirmative case in this will have automatically lost, since a response of "we simply dont' know" is failure to prove the affirmative;

2. conservative evangelical christians will probably continue to accept it, but its usefulness in convincing anyone else will be nil;

3. it will remain an interesting piece of text and both sides will remain open to future new data that could change the argument.

1. My comment does not mispresent what you stated.
2. It does address what you stated.
3. I most certainly did explain why your comment was hogwash -- You tried to claim it wasn't circular, when in fact it was: dating a document by reading the claimed date is circular.

Whether proof or evidence, the rebuttal is the same: the mere mention of a date inside the text does not demonstrate when the text was written.

The Revolutionary war book was hypothetical - I trust that point was not to subtle for you?

1. I would get excited if you would actually present your affirmative cause and your suggested evaluative framework. I probably won't have cause to get excited, though.

1. You must be deaf in cyberspace. I already told you that science rules things out, not in; the C14 example was offered to show you one method of narrowing down the date.

2. For my hypothetical book, advanced forensics could be used (i.e., type of paper stock cross-referenced with the mill it came from; organic and synthetic elements in the ink, barcode/ISBN values assigned to the book, etc.) None of those exist for Ezekiel, so your job of proving your claim about the date will be much harder;

3. the "internal clues" criteria are not flawed, and you have never demonstrated that;

Wrong. You have it backwards; I see that Jack the Bodiless has corrected you. (snort) Again. :rolling:

Not wrong.

A great list of tasks for you - when you set forth the evidence for your affirmative claim, you need to also detail for us it what your evaluative framework and standards of success will be. These are your claims; you are responsible for offering the standards by which you think you can fulfill them. And once you do that, we can discuss whether or not I accept those standards.

No you didn't. Both your assumptions rest upon the same unproven assumption. But you haven't proven that any such event of supernatural intervention occurred. So you want us to assume that it did, and then accept your conclusion that said event also can't be tested. 100% pure circularity.

Yes, you did. Shall I quote you again? The bold section below is where you offered the Wiki article as evidence for your position on the dating:

Originally Posted by noah

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

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

No strawman here; you were asked if you could date the prophecy, and you said "Sure".

I said nothing about pervasiveness. I said I would know, based upon whether the evidence supports the stated claim or not.

No, I would not. All I have to do is know whether or not you have drawn logical inferences between your desired conclusion and whatever paltry, biased evidence you offered.

Uh, yeah. Actually I did.

Because there is no evidence for aliens. If you wish to persist in that theory, then before you prove that aliens stole your sandwich, you must first prove that said aliens even exist.

Good luck. :thumbs: :rolling:

By the flaws in how you constructed your argument - you refuse to present your evaluative framework and your associated evidence. An affirmative claim where the claimant simply refuses to offer proof is probably the weakest kind of case imaginable.

By your definition, there is no such thing as "coherent" or "rational". They're meaningless words, since they never mean the same to one person as they do to another; why, Batman, they're a waste of space in the English language!

So help me out here: would this be you:

(a) trying to redefine a perfectly good word? Or is this merely
(b) you trying to handwave and create stalling time?

It's quite easy to judge whether a particular claim is coherent/rational within a given framework. You can slippery-slope your way into an entirely nihilist framework; but I won't be joining you.

2. We have nothing but your claim that "coherent" and "rational" appear differently to different people anyhow; I await your proof of that claim.


Incorrect. Identifying flaws in the logical construction of an argument does not presuppose that I have any answers or alternative explanations. I might have such alternatives, or I might not. But there is nothing that requires that I have them, merely to point out flaws in how you support your argument.

I made no such claim.

We have no evidence that the default state of man is neutral, either. Your assertion is unfounded; citing the term "tabula rasa" is not proof of that.

Interesting assertion. Let's see the proof, though. You might want to consult the various studies of "wild children" who raised themselves before trying to pontificate upon (a) the default state of man, or (b) how the human mind forms opinions. Likewise, studies from similar organisms would be useful.

Proof of the existence of aliens.
Submit your affirmative claim, and your proposed evaluative framework.
Let's see if we agree on anything.

No, it addresses all your points. Yet you continue to stall for time.

JSDileo

Hmmm...I doubt it. The reason I doubt this is that there wouldn't have been any foreseeable threat against the city of Tyre after Nebbie went down to attempt to conquer Egypt. Alexander the Great, though, fulfills this part of the prediction perfectly:

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/zeketyre.html

I actually thought that historians didn't doubt that Nebbie did this.

I'll have to investigate this.

PS, can anyone show me how to use the smilies? Thanks.

Jonathan