Gullwind

We do understand it. We just think its a desperate attempt to explain why they weren't fulfilled the first time around.

Let me ask this. How do you tell the difference between a "postponed fulfillment" and a simple failure to fulfill the prophecies?

Sheshonq

Oh that's easy. If they think they can claim it was fulfilled at the time in question, then it's "fulfilled at the time."

If history says that it never happened according to prophecy, then it's "future fulfillment".

If they thought it happened correctly in history, but then someone shows them later that they were wrong, then they switch their argument from "fulfilled at the time" to "future fulfillment".

So no matter what, they always work it out to be a "win" for their prophecy. instead of paying attention to the actual text and what history says, the bend and stretch it in multiple ways, in order to avoid admitting a mistake. It's dishonest, it's transparent, and it's precisely apologetics sources are unsatisfactory in a debate like this - they have an agenda that prevents honest discourse and discussion.

arnoldo

No one is desperate, in the case of Yeshua it's easy to understand he did not fail to fulfill any prophecies. In the case of Tyre it's not quite so easy, however here is a good article on the subject; A PROBLEM OF UNFULFILLED PROPHECY IN EZEKIEL: THE DESTRUCTION OF TYRE

Sheshonq

The case of Yeshua is irrelevant.

You can't prove that "future fulfillment" is a valid principle by dragging out another wannabe example.

Which, as we might expect, contradicts the very point you are trying to make:

In my opinion much of contemporary conservative interpretation of prophecy which transposes significant portions of Old Testament prophecies from their explicit historical contexts to a literal millennial or end-time fulfillment suffers from this same weakness. The interpretations proceed from the observation that certain prophecies have not been fulfilled. They further proceed on the premise that they are therefore necessarily yet to be fulfilled with precision more than from clear indications in either testament that they must be fulfilled, at least in any way resembling what one might expect from a common sense reading of passages involved.

One would think that you'd grow tired of being embarrassed like this.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: ROFLMAO :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

arnoldo

Y'all have the same logic that any fulfilled prophecy was "written after the fact" and a failed prophecy was "written before the fact" thus "prophecy fails" :rolling:

Sheshonq

Nope. That isn't even related to what I wrote.

Care to try again?

Johnny Skeptic

What evidence do you have that God inspired Ezekiel to write the Tyre prophecy other than "the Bible says so," and that the prophecy has not been changed?

Gullwind

Good article. It doesn't help your case, of course, but it clearly lays out the problems you have been unable to deal with.

Another question. What's the point of saying that Tyre would "never be rebuilt" if the final destruction wasn't supposed to be until the end times? Nothing will be rebuilt then, so isn't it rather redundant to say it will be destroyed at the end of the world and never rebuilt? Doesn't it make more sense if "never rebuilt" implies a period of time prior to the end times in which the city would not be rebuilt? When does that happen?

arnoldo

First of all I invite you to read the book of ezekiel, it deals with much greater issues than Tyre! Read how Zekey warned about the destruction of Jerusalem, I doubt that any skeptic is doubting that it did not occurr. In relation to Tyre, remember that Nebby did attack it for 13 years and after that throughout history Tyre has been repeatedly attacked, most notably by Alexander the Great who built a mole using the destroyed mainland city. Also recall that the prophecy against Tyre was not so much against the walls and streets of Tyre as the rulers of Tyre who gloated when Nebby destroyed Jerusalem.

Gullwind

I have, but we're talking about Tyre.

Whether they do or don't, we're talking about Tyre.

And failed to take it.

Which was three hundred years too late, not to mention not being mentioned in the prophecy. Kind of interesting how the great prophet Ezekiel couldn't come up with the name of anyone who wasn't living at the time.

Then why did he mention the walls and streets? Call them inconsequential details if you want, but the fact is that the prophecy mentions the walls and streets, and specifically describes who was supposed to knock them down and/or drive down them. He didn't. Or is that part of the "postponed fulfillment?" Maybe Nebby is going to be raised up so he can take a taxi ride through downtown Tyre.

You know, one has to wonder what's taking God so long to render his judgment against the rulers of Tyre. He's going to destroy their city for their arrogance and such, but he can't be bothered until thousands of years later? How exactly does that punish the rulers of Tyre that you keep insisting the prophecy is really about? Talk about holding a grudge. :huh: