Sauron

But it is precisely because of his justice system that mankind is in danger. No one set the rules up, except God.

What's more, the NT specifically indicates that it *IS* God that we need to be saved from.

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" - recognize it?

bfniii

i responded with a link. here it is again:

Book of Ezekiel

there is a timetable towards the bottom

i responded to this as well.

Sauron

Well there is a cut-and-paste section from another source, listed as follows:

* Easton's Bible Dictionary, 1897.
* LaSor, William Sanford et al. Old Testament Survey: the Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996.
* Allen, Leslie C. Word Biblical Commentary Volume 28: Ezekiel 1-20. Word Books Publisher: Dallas TX, 1990
* Allen, Leslie C. Word Biblical Commentary Volume 29: Ezekiel 20-48. Word Books Publisher: Dallas TX, 1990

However, that's just a big circular marathon: citing biblical study aids to prove the prophecy's date? No, I don't think that's good enough.

What's more, you failed to answer the second half of Johnny's question:
and by what means any prophecy can be accurately dated.

The only method listed here is to use the internal statements of Ezekiel as a dating method. But that is precisely the problem: that does not provide any independent evidence for the date of Ezekiel. If I wrote on a piece of paper "written from the Tower of London, 1762" that would not prove that it was written at that time, or that place. Yet the biblical study aids cited by this Wikipedia entry take the text at face value.

bfniii

i assume you are implying that God is not following His own directives. in what way is He not?

either. make your case.

in what way?

in what way?

you are confusing predestination which is a christian concept regarding those who are to go to heaven with determinism. your criticism is premature.

Sauron

Incorrect.
You stated above that "He isn't trying to save us from Himself."
I just provided a verse indicating that you are wrong.

You dodged my question. So I'll ask it again (expanded version): you tossed in the words "evil" or "malicious". Either show a participant in this thread who has used such words, or your claim is a red herring.

As in "not correct". Your strawman above is not an accurate reflection of the naturalist worldview.

Same way as the immediate previous question: your strawman is incorrect.

I'm confusing nothing.

1. A naturalist worldview does not speak of "fate", since nothing is immutable. Fate belongs to the predetermination frame of reference.

2. You are assuming that a naturalist worldview incorporates a determinism that excludes altruism. Sounds like you need a review of evolutionary strategies.

bfniii

the former implies enjoyment by God and a lack of benefit to the sufferer whereas the latter implies compassion and an ultimate benefit to the sufferer.

it's not that God "makes" good. christianity purports that God is good.

no, we're discussing the issue within the christian context. [if God exists], then show......

i've already responded to his worldview by stating that suffering has no meaning for adherents of naturalism.

and i responded to that by addressing his assumptions that it shouldn't be the way it is. what standard is he using to judge christianity thusly?

bfniii

we can start with adam if you like.

if you're going to make the accusation, at least support your case. the exluded middle is that God may have an ultimately good reason for allowing suffering.

bfniii

why not? either it is correct or incorrect regardless of what source is cited.

no, i responded to it twice.

bfniii

in danger of what?

taken out of context. read verses 26 - 30.

Sauron

Well, no -- they are not.

They are examples of the OT God stating in vague terms what he will do. However, the actual execution of these acts is left to human beings. In the Ezekiel passage, God is still speaking about what Nebuchadnezzar is going to accomplish for God himself. Ezekiel is casting God in the role of general, and Nebuchadnezzar in the role of the captain that carries out the orders of the general.

The quotation of v.4 is followed by this quotation that shows how God intends to make the events of v4 happen:

EZE 26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.



Notice the phrase "For thus saith the Lord GOD"? That indicates how the preceding verses 1-6 will come to pass. Ezekiel again makes this plain in Ch 29:

EZE 29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:

EZE 29:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.

EZE 29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

Ahem.
caused his army to serve a great service...
Because they wrought for me.

So even though Nebuchadnezzar carried out the labor here, God still says "I did it." In such a scenario, it's perfectly reasonable for the general to say "I did such-and-such", because he gave the order. And it's also reasonable for the captain to say "I did such-and-such", because the captain actually carried it out.

So Jack the Bodiless was right: "I will" is not a means of destruction in this section of Ezekiel. It is a declaration of intent, but it does not actually "do" anything -- other than to (allegedly) mobilize Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon.