Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 01-31-2008, 07:45 AM

It's rather scary to see how the fundie mind squirms and struggles to avoid confronting inconvenient truths. It's like forcing two powerful magnets together, north-pole to north-pole: struggling to hold the magnet steady and stop it shooting off sideways or backwards.

Arnoldo: are you actually capable of reading the words "Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon"?

Try reading them on their own first, devoid of context. Then we'll try introducing you to Biblical verses which contain them.

Then you can let us know when they suddenly become invisible to you. Assuming you don't suddenly start quoting entirely unrelated Bible verses at us instead ("shooting off sideways").

Darklighter · 01-31-2008, 08:50 AM

Arnoldo, I asked you in the last thread, but it was closed before you could answer I think, but: What are you hoping to accomplish here? You are obviously less concerned with finding out what actually happened, and more concerned with proving yourself and the Bible right. As long as the SEARCH FOR TRUTH is not the focal point of this debate, and as long as you are intent on proving WHAT YOU WANT TO BE THE TRUTH^TM, we will get nowhere.

Why would a loving god prophesy/cause things to occur, and then cover up or at least distort the evidence that would prove such miraculous events? Would that not prevent millions of honest-hearted skeptics from believing in him? Would not judging how a person behaves in the face of indisputable evidence be a better barometer of his charachter than how he behaves in the face of disputable evidence? And calling the evidence that supports the OT "disputable" is generous, at best.

For example, if God wanted to make a remarkable prediction about Nebby going down and plundering Egypt, would it not bring glory and honor to him to make sure that the evidence supporting said prediction is preserved so that it cannot be debated? Such glory and honor is obviously VERY important to him as is evidenced throughout scripture (Why does he seem so insecure anyway?). So that begs the question: If he has the power to predict/cause certain events, why does he apparently lack the power to preserve the evidence?

arnoldo · 01-31-2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martini

Quote:

Originally Posted by martini

Arnoldo, you may have missed my query. answer it at your leisure.

once again, Arnoldo, you seem to be overlooking my responses. i can see that you have your hands tied -- and your feet as well as being gagged -- with other interlocutors but i would appreciate a terse explanation if you feel like your time is limited.

oh, and by the by . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Do you even read the shit you post? This is the first sentence of the document: "Tyre was founded during the third millennium BC on an easily defendable offshore island".

PWNED

you specifically cite a source that incontrovertibly tells you the island IS the city and, thus, the ONLY place for the riches of Tyre promised to Nebuchadrezzar but you STILL refuse to concede this point!

Look at a map. Can you find any Island that is called Tyre? Obviously not. What is the rest of the city on the mainland called? Tyre.

makerowner · 01-31-2008, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by martini

once again, Arnoldo, you seem to be overlooking my responses. i can see that you have your hands tied -- and your feet as well as being gagged -- with other interlocutors but i would appreciate a terse explanation if you feel like your time is limited.

oh, and by the by . . . PWNED

you specifically cite a source that incontrovertibly tells you the island IS the city and, thus, the ONLY place for the riches of Tyre promised to Nebuchadrezzar but you STILL refuse to concede this point!

Look at a map. Can you find any Island that is called Tyre? Obviously not. What is the rest of the city on the mainland called? Tyre.

This has been explained to you a dozen times. The causeway Alexander built has silted up and now connects the old island with the mainland. The whole conglomeration is now know as Tyre, in the same way that the term 'New York' now covers all 5 boroughs even though it once only referred to Manhattan.
There's an explanation of the silting process in the document you linked to above. Even more evidence that you didn't read it.

Amaleq13 · 01-31-2008, 09:03 AM

This thread is not about the failed prophecy of Tyre's destruction. Please focus on the subject of this thread and avoid tangents about matters already resolved to the satisfaction of any rational individual.

Thanks,

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

arnoldo · 01-31-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

This thread is not about the failed prophecy of Tyre's destruction. Please focus on the subject of this thread and avoid tangents about matters already resolved to the satisfaction of any rational individual.

Thanks,

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Ok. It however relates that since the "so called" failed prophecy of Tyre Nebby didn't obtain any riches which is the reason Nebby then went to Egypt. However since that particular thread is "closed" I will not bring up this issue in this thread again.

Darklighter · 01-31-2008, 09:15 AM

Back to Egypt... Why would God cause the destruction and 40 year desolation of Egypt 2500 years after he said so? More specifically: The people living there now had nothing to do with what happened back then, so why would God kill todays Egyptian babies to prove a point he made 2500 years ago? Sounds cruel and unjust to me.

How will Nebucadnezzer and his army receive "wages" from Egypt when they've been dead for thousands of years?

If Nebby's destruction of Tyre was to be literal, then so must his destruction of Egypt. Please explain...

Sheshonq · 01-31-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Uh, no - not quite. It was Apries, the former ruler why had been defeated by the new Egyptian king Amasis. Apries went to Babylon in disgrace, hoping to find an ally in Babylon to help him take back his throne. Britannica: <-- the real thing, not your cut&paste version

The next king, Apries (ruled 589-570 BC), tried unsuccessfully to end Babylonian domination of Palestine and Syria. With the withdrawal of Egyptian forces, Nebuchadrezzar destroyed the temple in Jerusalem in 586 BC. In the aftermath of his conquest, many Jews fled to Egypt, where some were enlisted as soldiers in the Persian army of occupation. Apries' army was then defeated in Libya when it attacked the Greek colony at Cyrene, some 620 miles west of the Delta; this led to an army mutiny and to civil war in the Delta. A new Saite king, Amasis (or Ahmose II; ruled 570-526 BC), usurped the throne and drove Apries into exile. Two years later Apries invaded Egypt with Babylonian support, but he was defeated and killed by Amasis, who nonetheless buried him with full honours.

The lesson for arnoldo? Quoting from sources is kinda dangerous when you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. :rolling:

The lesson for you is that Ezekiel prophesied that Nebby would destroy Jerusalem.

Ah. Trying to change the subject from your implosion about Apries, above? I don't blame you.

Prophesying the obvious - that Babylon woudl destroy Jerusalem - hardly counts as prophecy. More like political forecasting.

Quote:

The jews didn't believe him and threw him in jail.

More like they DID believe him, but didn't want him to agitate the population.

Quote:

Historical fact are historical facts.

You wouldn't know history if it had three heads and bit you in the ass.

martini · 01-31-2008, 09:57 AM

sticking to my primary point of the last post, Arnoldo:

Quote:

Originally Posted by martini

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Thank you for your explanation. But the theory is that Russia, in the future, may use that material, or a derivative, of much inferior quality than is used by the United States which obviously isn't flameable. The other theory is that oil production may actually be greatly diminished in the future (didn't they burn oil field in Iraq?) so armies may resort to weaponry that does not run on oil. Besides the overriding factor is that this invading army is defeated and Israel continues to exist.

how does this relate to the relevant prophecy by Ezekiel in 38 and 39 which clearly uses quite literal designations for bows, arrows, etc, and having Israel use these fallen weapons as FUEL instead of WOOD from the forests? you just said it cannot burn -- and if it does, i would imagine it to release quite deadly gases. . . :huh:

to Mr Hitman (unanswered from page three):

Quote:

Originally Posted by martini

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So ignorant of prophecies.

giving the Christian ignorance of Judaism and understanding fatidic scripture, the pot seems to have trouble with the kettle.

but Ezekiel is not talking about Apocalypse of John. you are shoe-horning your favorite scripture and interpretation into ancient Hebrew prophetic visions. that is a definite no-no, Mr Hitman. please try again.

where does Ezekiel say this? his vision has to do with Gog attempting to overtake Israel and specifically says, 38:14 "...In that day, when my people Israel are living in safety, will you not take notice of it?" it would seem that this happens when The Chosen People are LIVING IN SAFETY. how you can run a line from this to the orthodox Christian apocalypse is without explanation. care to do so? PLEASE re-read Ezekiel and try TRY not to read more into it than is there. your presuppositions astound me.

this is wholly unrelated to the topic. FUEL, Mr Hitman, is what Yahweh is discussing. ie, fuel in their fireplaces. He says there would be so many small and large shields, bows, arrows, etc, that the Israelites would not need to cut down any more wood from the forest.

again, please explain how this makes ANY sense in the 21st century given that we do not use any of this in warfare anymore. as i already said, and you failed to address: how does this relate to the relevant prophecy by Ezekiel in 38 and 39 which clearly uses quite literal designations for bows, arrows, etc?

Sheshonq · 01-31-2008, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Do you even read the shit you post? This is the first sentence of the document: "Tyre was founded during the third millennium BC on an
easily defendable offshore island".

That was my point, your argumment that Nebby attacked an easily defendanble offshore island for 13 years has absolutely no historical or archaeological evidence.

Your source doesn't help you.

It shows that the island settlement preceded the mainland - which one would expect, since the mainland were the colonies. It also hints at how Tyre was able to frustrate Nebuchadnezzar's siege - "easily defended offshore island".

Your "point" - and I use the term loosely - has no anchor anywhere in the source you gave. It's far more likely that you just googled "Tyre" and slapped a reference on the post, without ever reading it.

Quote:

Since Nebby didn't get any wealth from Tyre he then went on to Egypt.

Except that:

1. the wealth was on the island -- the esily defended island -- showing why Nebuchadnezzar didn't get the wealth;

2. there is zero evidence that he ever went to Egypt.

PROPHECY FAILS! :rolling: :rolling:

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

01-31-2008, 07:45 AM	#101
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	It's rather scary to see how the fundie mind squirms and struggles to avoid confronting inconvenient truths. It's like forcing two powerful magnets together, north-pole to north-pole: struggling to hold the magnet steady and stop it shooting off sideways or backwards. Arnoldo: are you actually capable of reading the words "Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon"? Try reading them on their own first, devoid of context. Then we'll try introducing you to Biblical verses which contain them. Then you can let us know when they suddenly become invisible to you. Assuming you don't suddenly start quoting entirely unrelated Bible verses at us instead ("shooting off sideways").

01-31-2008, 08:50 AM	#102
Darklighter Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Pale Blue Dot Posts: 463	Arnoldo, I asked you in the last thread, but it was closed before you could answer I think, but: What are you hoping to accomplish here? You are obviously less concerned with finding out what actually happened, and more concerned with proving yourself and the Bible right. As long as the SEARCH FOR TRUTH is not the focal point of this debate, and as long as you are intent on proving WHAT YOU WANT TO BE THE TRUTH^TM, we will get nowhere. Why would a loving god prophesy/cause things to occur, and then cover up or at least distort the evidence that would prove such miraculous events? Would that not prevent millions of honest-hearted skeptics from believing in him? Would not judging how a person behaves in the face of indisputable evidence be a better barometer of his charachter than how he behaves in the face of disputable evidence? And calling the evidence that supports the OT "disputable" is generous, at best. For example, if God wanted to make a remarkable prediction about Nebby going down and plundering Egypt, would it not bring glory and honor to him to make sure that the evidence supporting said prediction is preserved so that it cannot be debated? Such glory and honor is obviously VERY important to him as is evidenced throughout scripture (Why does he seem so insecure anyway?). So that begs the question: If he has the power to predict/cause certain events, why does he apparently lack the power to preserve the evidence?

01-31-2008, 09:03 AM	#105
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	This thread is not about the failed prophecy of Tyre's destruction. Please focus on the subject of this thread and avoid tangents about matters already resolved to the satisfaction of any rational individual. Thanks, Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

01-31-2008, 09:15 AM	#107
Darklighter Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Pale Blue Dot Posts: 463	Back to Egypt... Why would God cause the destruction and 40 year desolation of Egypt 2500 years after he said so? More specifically: The people living there now had nothing to do with what happened back then, so why would God kill todays Egyptian babies to prove a point he made 2500 years ago? Sounds cruel and unjust to me. How will Nebucadnezzer and his army receive "wages" from Egypt when they've been dead for thousands of years? If Nebby's destruction of Tyre was to be literal, then so must his destruction of Egypt. Please explain...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.