Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Minimalist · 11-24-2007, 09:43 AM

Ezekiel 29 seems to have been botched, as well.

You'd think that 'god' would do a better job, wouldn't you?

Quote:

8Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast from thee.

9And the land of Egypt shall be a desolation and a waste: and they shall know that I [am] Jehovah, because he saith, The river is mine, and I made it.

10Therefore behold, I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt deserts of wasteness and desolation, from Migdol to Syene, even unto the border of Ethiopia.

11No foot of man shall pass through it, nor shall foot of beast pass through it, nor shall it be inhabited, forty years.

12And I will make the land of Egypt a desolation in the midst of the countries that are desolated, and her cities shall be, in the midst of the cities that are laid waste, a desolation forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.

-Jay- · 11-24-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

Jews have rather a special claim to being special. Notably a prophecy that they would return to their homeland, which has since been fulfilled.

That is obviously false. God promised Abraham and his descendants ALL of the ancient land of Canaan (Genesis 17:8). Today, Jews DO NOT occupy ALL of the ancient land of Canaan.

Consider the following from the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia:

"Canaan, in the Old Testament, designation of the land to the west of the Jordan River, later known as Palestine, and the name of the reputed ancestor of the Canaanites, the original inhabitants of that land. The Israelites gradually conquered and occupied this territory during the 2nd millennium bc or earlier. It was probably the Canaanites who gave the Israelites the language now known as Hebrew."

How do you explain the fact that Jews have not always occupied the ancient land of Canaan since God promised it to them? If your answer is that the possession of the land was conditional based upon good behavior, you will need to produce evidence that that is actually God's position and not just the position of a Bible writer.

You believe that Jews are God's chosen people. Chosen for what, may I ask?

No rational God would ever choose questionable copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans. He would know that the best possible way to communicate with humans would be tangibly, in person, to every generation. In addition, he would know that what would have happened is exactly what has happened, some examples being unnecessary wars among Christians over who has correctly interpreted the Bible, and unnecessary disputes about slavery.

Thanks for that elaboration, Johnny Skeptic. It needed to be made, and I didn't have time earlier to dig it out.

regards,

NinJay

lee_merrill · 11-24-2007, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Can you produce one single expert fundamentalist Christian source that agrees with you? If not, why should anyone pay any attention to your own uncorroborated personal opinions?

Well, my points are not established by a show of hands, yes, it would be helpful if others made this point, no, it does not refute me if they don't.

Quote:

Why would you issue a challenge to someone who you know is not motivated to accept it?

Which is why I propose the challenge to people who post here, who are clearly trying to disprove the Christian claims about the Bible.

Quote:

Please quote the pertinent Scriptures.

All this is presented on my web page, which I referenced when I mentioned Hazor etc.

Quote:

That is obviously false. God promised Abraham and his descendants ALL of the ancient land of Canaan (Genesis 17:8). Today, Jews DO NOT occupy ALL of the ancient land of Canaan.

I didn't say they did, however, they have returned to their homeland.

Quote:

If your answer is that the possession of the land was conditional based upon good behavior, you will need to produce evidence that that is actually God's position and not just the position of a Bible writer.

There are many prophecies of exile if the Israelites disobeyed.

Deuteronomy 28:58-64 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name-- the Lord your God-- the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. ... You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess. Then the Lord will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diana

If we must presuppose divine inspiration to know something is prophecy (as opposed to mere prediction), then we cannot use any supposed prophecies as proof of the divine inspiration of the bible.

But the presupposition is not required, only a willingness to acknowledge that there might be supernatural agents who make predictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

[The return of Jewish people to their homeland] is, I note, an optimistic extrapolation of contemporary events from the perspective of the writer.

Which events, please? this was predicted thousands of years ago, and only recently fulfilled.

Quote:

Lee: Reinhabiting Babylon is quite specific, nothing loose about this to speak of.

NinJay: Your nonsense about Babylon has been demonstrated to be incorrect.

The point remains that reinhabiting Babylon would clearly accomplish what you all are trying to achieve.

Quote:

Lee: And I did address your question, a prediction that people can reasonably overturn at any time is not an extrapolation, nor is it ex post facto.

NinJay: ... whether or not a prediction (or prophecy? Which one?) can be overturned (to use your term) is completely, totally, unequivocally distinct from whether or not it fits either of these conditions:

A) reasonable (if perhaps optimistic) extrapolations of contemporary events
B) ex post facto writing about historical events that is styled to look like prophecy

Do you not understand this?

Well, if you can overturn a prediction, it's certainly not ex post facto, correct? and if you can overturn it at any time, forever, then it's not tied to events contemporary with the prediction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Ezekiel 29 seems to have been botched, as well.

I'm not sure how we know this, but this thread is about prophecies that arguably happened, questions about prophecies that seemed not to happen would be for another thread...

Minimalist · 11-24-2007, 10:38 AM

God makes prophecies that 'didn't happen?'

Wouldn't those be classified as mistakes?

Johnny Skeptic · 11-24-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If the prophecy only consisted of claiming that no Arab would ever pitch his tent in Babylon, would you claim that overturning the prophecy would not be valid because it would be easy to overturn?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

Sure, only overturning such a prophecy would be more difficult to verify (they have to be Arabs, not Persians!), which is why I focus on ways to overturn the prophecy that would be indisputable.

That is cute. Not only do Persians live in Iran, not in Iraq, but according to a web site at http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...pages/651.html, "Arabs constitute the majority in Iraq and the second largest group of Iraqi migrants to Chicago." At any rate, even if you were right that Persians live in Iraq, it would be easy to import some Arabs from other places. Of course, you already knew that, which invites the question "Why did you make a ridiculous argument like that?" I've got it, you wanted to be evasive in spite of the fact that you know that Arabs are as easy to find as Jews are, but your evasive tactic did not work. Part of Isaiah 13:19-20 says that no Arab will ever pitch his tent in Babylon. That part of the prophecy would be easy to overturn, and has most likely already been overturned many times.

Consider the following from William MacDonald's Believer's Bible Commentary:

Quote:

Originally Posted by William MacDonald

There are certain difficulties connected with the prophecies of the destruction of Babylon, both the city and the country (Isa. 13:6-22) 14:4-23; 21:2-9; 47:1-11; Jer. 23:12-14; 50; 51). For examples, the capture of the city by the Medes (Isa. 13:17 in 539 B.C. did not result in a destruction similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Isa. 13:19); DID NOT LEAVE THE CITY UNHABITED FOREVER [emphasis mine], Isa. 13:20-22); was not accomplished by a nation from the north - Medo-Persia was to the east - (Jer. 50:3); did not result in Israel or more than a remnant of Judah seeking the Lord or returning to Zion
(Jer. 50:4, 5); and did not involve the breaking fo the walls and burning of the gates (Jer. 51:58).

When we come to a difficulty like this, how do we handle it? First of all, we reaffirm our utter confidence in the Word of God. If there is any difficulty, it is because of our lack of knowledge. But we remember that the prophets often had a way of merging the immediate future and the distant future without always indicating any time signals. in other words,a prophecy could have a local, partial fulfillment and a remote, complete fulfillment. That is the case with Babylon. Not all the prophecies have been fulfilled. Some are still future.

I checked that commentary and about four other Bible commentaries over a year ago, and they all disagree with you. The odds of you being right, and all skeptics, probably all Muslims, and over 99% of even fundamentalist Christians being wrong are so small that no rational person would accept your very small minority opinion.

Why would God want to predict the future?

diana · 11-24-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by diana

If we must presuppose divine inspiration to know something is prophecy (as opposed to mere prediction), then we cannot use any supposed prophecies as proof of the divine inspiration of the bible.

But the presupposition is not required, only a willingness to acknowledge that there might be supernatural agents who make predictions.

OK. What is it about the bible's predictions that made you make that leap from "prediction" to "prophecy," as you so clearly did?

What, exactly, made you decide the source was divine?

d

Johnny Skeptic · 11-24-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

That is obviously false. God promised Abraham and his descendants ALL of the ancient land of Canaan (Genesis 17:8). Today, Jews DO NOT occupy ALL of the ancient land of Canaan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

I didn't say they did, however, they have returned to their homeland.

But Genesis 17:8 says that God promised the Jews ALL of the land of ancient Canaan. Today, Jews do not occupy all of the land of ancient Canaan. If God made someone a promise to give them back their house, he certainly would not give them back part of the house. He would give them back all of their house.

At any rate, if a God exists, it is obvious that he does not care whether or not anyone believes that he can predict the future. If he did, he would show up, make an indisputable prediction, and make it come true. Neither he nor anyone else would have anything to gain if he didn't. If the God of the Bible does not exist, everything would always be contestable. If a God exists, he could easily make his existence and will uncontestable, or at least much less contestable.

You ought to know that there is not a necessary correlation between power and good character. Even if a God can predict the future, that does not necessarily mean that he has good character.

If I start a new thread on inerrancy, would you be willing to discuss it?

-Jay- · 11-24-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Which events, please? this was predicted thousands of years ago, and only recently fulfilled.

Lee, Ancient Israel had a long and storied history of being subjugated, exiled, and repatriated. Given that history, "prophecies" of a return to their homeland are neither unexpected nor particularly interesting. Further, as has been pointed out to you, modern Israel is not Biblical Israel. Claiming that they are the same is, at best, a stretch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Well, if you can overturn a prediction, it's certainly not ex post facto, correct? and if you can overturn it at any time, forever, then it's not tied to events contemporary with the prediction.

Lee, this is, frankly, silly.

No writer would deliberately retroject a prophecy that hadn't come to pass, at least in their own understanding of history. That's why Daniel has so many howlers - the writer wrote of history as prophecy, but his history was pretty poor. What would be the point? Your assertion here is specious.

Your second assertion is absurd as well. What does a prophecy tied to contemporary events, like exile and repatriation, have anything to do with whether or not it could be overturned? If the prophesied event hasn't yet come to pass, it could be overturned, regardless of whether it was tied to an exile event, a repatriation, revenge on an enemy, or drug-induced ravings.

This overturning business clearly hasn't been thought through all the way.

Now, as entertaining as this little discourse is, I notice that Johnny Skeptic has asked you a collection of questions at least half a dozen times. I'll be happy to wait while you address his issues.

regards,

NinJay

lee_merrill · 11-24-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diana

What, exactly, made you decide the source was divine?

It would be most astonishing if a prediction was made that something would never be done, that was within human power--if people then tried to do this and failed, and failed.

This would indicate a real supernatural agent at work to stop this, and that is the essence of my argument.

lee_merrill · 11-24-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

God makes prophecies that 'didn't happen?'

I note that I did not say they didn't happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why would God want to predict the future?

Isaiah 41:22-24 Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods. Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear. But you are less than nothing ...

Quote:

Part of Isaiah 13:19-20 says that no Arab will ever pitch his tent in Babylon. That part of the prophecy would be easy to overturn, and has most likely already been overturned many times.

But I focus on what would be indisputable, lest (of course) people dispute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

No writer would deliberately retroject a prophecy that hadn't come to pass...

My point is that a prophecy that says "X will never happen" cannot be ex post facto. This is not a disputable point, nor an obscure argument.

Quote:

What does a prophecy tied to contemporary events, like exile and repatriation, have anything to do with whether or not it could be overturned?

Yet a prophecy that says "X will never happen" cannot be based in an essential way on contemporary events, for the prophecy must remain true after all these circumstances are long gone.

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

11-24-2007, 10:38 AM	#134
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	God makes prophecies that 'didn't happen?' Wouldn't those be classified as mistakes?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.