Jack the Bodiless

Technically, God refers to himself as "I" in those verses, rather than by his own name. And God uses people to destroy cities (except Sodom and Gomorrah, but nothing like that happened to Tyre). Certainly, no other human conqueror is named, and no named being destroyed Tyre.
I have not misinterpreted the prophecy.
Yes, and you failed to demonstrate any such misinterpretation on my part. So why bring it up again?
Because the Bible says so.

Ah, I forgot: you believe that you can alter the meaning of Bible verses whenever it suits you.

So, as you reject the authority of the Bible anyhow: why are you arguing on behalf of a book you hold in such contempt? And why did you try to claim that it was "authoritative, trustworthy, accurate and dependable" when you don't believe this is the case?
Yes it is.

Jack the Bodiless

As we're taking about Hebrew here, the answer is obvious. The Hebrew past tense refers to the past, and this rule was invented by the Hebrews (remember them? The folks who wrote the Bible?)

As always with your posts, bfniii, it's very difficult to address replies to a mind so... strange.

I'm having trouble trying to understand how you can seriously keep questioning the very, very obvious (such as the notion that the "past tense" refers to the PAST), while also indulging in flights of pure fantasy and stating those fantasies as if they were facts ("the prophecy isn't concerned with the physical city", "God wanted Adam and Eve to eat the Fruit", and numerous similar examples).

If I believed in God, I'd be reluctant to simply make stuff up on his behalf: yet that doesn't bother you at all. You seem to be one of those rare individuals with the "imagination" (to put it charitably) to INVENT religions: and, so far, you are the world's only bfniiian (as far as I can tell).

Johnny Skeptic

Quite true. One of bfniii's favorite responses regarding the Bible is "why shouldn't I believe it"? Surely that argument will not convince anyone of his position. The problem for bfniii is that any Muslim can say "why shouldn't I believe the Koran"?

bfniii

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless Obviously, the "specifics" would have to be provided by the Christians. They cannot provide them.

you mentioned a vague "ongoing ability". i asked you for specifics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless This THREAD (not "forum") relates specifically to the failure of Christians to establish a date for the Tyre "prophecy". You keep drifting off this topic.

i have addressed this topic with johnny skeptic. i have directly answered his questions.

what would be proof for you that the date preceeded the event?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless Another allusion to the "secret evidence" that we would know about if we had "researched" it.

no, i am saying that some people are convinced. what makes you unconvinced?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless ..."Statement"? You simply failed to respond, despite initially pretending that you had relevant knowledge, and despite repeated challenges. Your bluff was called.

i invite anyone reading to go to that thread and decide for themselves. they can bring it up there if they perceive such a failure.

anyway, i maintain that i am unaware of any unanswered questions. if you feel like there are any, bring them up and i will be glad to clarify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless How many examples do you need? Plenty of those on the previous thread (Daniel,

addressed in detail in this thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless the Flood, the miracles of the Egyptian priests,

addressed in this thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless and so on).

oh yes, and so on. as if there has been even one example.

in summary, if you think there are any points that were directed to me that i have not responded to, then cite them. if i haven't already addressed them, i will do so. otherwise, i will link to my responses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless That thread is still active, if you DO decide to revisit it: no need to derail this one further.

why should i revisit it? there are several issues that i responded to that are still outstanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless I did. You're getting lost again.

no, you didn't. i asked you if you had a point to make about the specific instruments. hint: i am asking you to provide evidence that there is no way they could have been in the region prior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless This is YOUR argument, bfniii. YOU are the one who's supposed to have a "point" here!

i did make the point in this thread and i can quote it since you seem to have trouble keeping up with the posts.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: I have had trouble finding credible evidence that the Tyre prophecy was divinely inspired, that it was written before the events, and that the version of the prophecy is the same as the original version. Can you help me, and the undecided crowd as well? I just started a new thread that is titled 'The Resurrection is irrelevant,' and that includes the Tyre prophecy and the rest of the Bible as well, except of course as a second rate history book. As I showed in my new thread, the Bible depends in its entirety upon Christians reasonably establishing that the God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth. Otherwise, the God of the Bible's authority to enforce rules of his choosing would not be any more legitimate than the authority of other self-appointed dictators.

Are you deliberately ignoring my posts?

bfniii

it is? what verses?

btw, the graphic you provided said "hebrew worldview" not "worldview dictated by the bible".



there are metaphorical references in the bible. heck, the hebrew language was replete with metaphor. kinda makes sense.



hold on, metaphor doesn't equal incorrect.



such as....



they may not have believed the earth was round, but that doesn't mean the bible states it.



no, it does not.



nobody? no one at all anywhere? can you verify that with a petition or something?



yet they're still christian. hmmm. certainly they think their worldview is not contradicted by the bible.



how is that a problem?



the bible isn't intended to be a second by second account of history.



this is a blatantly false accusation. i made several posts regarding the flood. i can quote each and every one of them. what is interesting is that you were seemingly unaware that theories regarding the biblical flood abound. but that's not the worst part. you passed yourself off, with smuggled-in authority, as an expert and implied that your interpretation of christians and the biblical account was the only correct interpretation. how can you be so sure of yourself, how can you claim to accurately represent the christian faith, when you aren't even aware of all of the scholarship on the issue? when i brought up the fact that your knowledge may have been lacking, did you go out and study more? no. you just repeated your childish inculcations. this is no different than the egyptian miracles where i even referred you to a specific source and you failed to incorporate that information into your position.



in post #323, i specifically stated the reason why i wasn't interested in such a discussion.



ok. how would someone determine if the bible is authoritative? what makes you think the bible isn't trustworthy, accurate or dependable?



not if they are mutually exclusive.



no. should i be?



aversion? i wasn't aware that i have been averse to anything.



i wasn't aware of any confusion. you sure haven't shown any.

bfniii

i touched on that in this thread

i'll be glad to take up the issue again in that thread.

bfniii

actually i did touch on that issue. my main thrust was to point out spin's inability to competently and thoroughly discuss daniel.



are you running plays out of the spin playbook? of course it has shortcomings. i even hinted at that. are you unable to take up the torch for spin's failure? if you think you can defend it, then why don't you go over there and post?



what's that? you don't know them already? hmmmm.



yes it was.

just to make sure we're clear on this; a biblical prophet was a spokesperson for God. most often, they spoke about what would happen if certain people didn't repent. hence, the future. if you will kindly refer to brittanica, you will see it agrees with that characterization.



why are you now throwing the book of ezekiel in? he could have made the prophecy orally before the book was penned.



avoided? i don't recall that coming up in our discussions. perhaps you could point to the post number.



whether you actually believe this or not is irrelevant. it's recorded for all posterity (or as long as the servers are backed up) for any reader to judge for themselves.



which christians believe happened. why are they wrong?



christians believe that the prophecies in the bible are specific enough for them. why are they wrong?



this is a highly subjective and somewhat unfalsifiable requirement.



definitely unfalsifiable. how would you go about proving it wasn't a good guess?



i have been asking over and over how you would prove this.



good luck proving that one.



do you know of any specifically that aren't?



what about all those prophecies or miracles? can you not list even one that is irrefutably naturalistic or just plain lucky?

Johnny Skeptic

Of course not, nor can you list even one that was irrefutably supernaturalistic. I am not at all opposed to the existance of miracles that would be helpful to mankind. I don't know of anyone else who would be either.

It doesn't really matter whether or not God can predict the future. Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too, so it is not a question of who can predict the future, but of who has good character. Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" Since God deliberately hurts people, I will not accept him unless he explains himself to my satisfaction.

Christianity does not at all depend upon prophecy, or even upon the Resurrection. Rather, it depends completely, or at the very least initially, upon the claim that the God of the Bible created the universe and no one else. Otherwise his enforcement of rules of his own choosing would have no more legitimacy than any other being enforcing rules of his own choosing. You asked for an irrefutable argument, so now you have one.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
You are becoming confused again (and I suggest you try to include more of the context of these remarks in your quotes: it might help you to focus).

I was referring to the inability of CHRISTIANS to provide "specifics": actual instances of "supernatural knowledge" or "divine inspiration" in the Bible. Now, you appear to be agreeing with me: none can be provided.
Extra-Biblical support would be good. But we are under no obligation to "prove" that the prophecy WAS written before the event: this has been pointed out already. Maybe those Christians who want to claim "prophecy" should focus on those where there is a greater interval between the writing and the event.
They are "convinced" by blind faith, whereas my own beliefs are based on the available evidence, and on (genuine) scholarly opinion from (genuine) experts.
I note that you have again failed to include the context of this comment.

This referred to your false assertion that the Flood could be dated "anywhere from 2000bc to 10000bc" (the Bible says otherwise, as I pointed out). You then clammed up, and refused to post on the thread that was set up to discuss this: Alternative Biblical dates for the Flood?

Anyone reading can indeed go to that thread. They can plainly see that you MADE NO POSTS on the thread!
Post #323 was made AFTER I placed you on "ignore", therefore it was invisible to me (do you understand how the "ignore" function works?). You COULD have posted it on the Flood thread (where the issue was being discussed by myself and others), but you were still avoiding that thread. But, as usual, your "reasons" were bogus anyhow (and this COULD still be discussed, IF you ever actually SHOW UP on the Flood thread).
Another "my position is supported by scolarship" bluff. I am well aware of the relevant issues. YOU are the one who refuses to fully debate them.
You ongoing failure to provide examples, for starters.

And YOUR inability to explain how someone could determine if the bible is authoritative, and YOUR inability to explain why you think it IS trustworthy, accurate or dependable...
Muslims say "there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet". So, please explain why you have not abandoned Christianity because of this.
So you're not aware of which threads your posts go to?
I sure have (you even admitted it once). And now it's happening again.
Nope, that's the thread we have already discussed: the one in which you couldn't find any "problems" with the critical view, and hoped that Spin would do it for you.
Nope, that's the "Biblical errors" thread, in which you were unable to fit your explanations into the Biblical narrative (as explained on that thread).
I did this repeatedly on the "Biblical errors" thread, and you repeatedly evaded. I see no reason to bring up all those issues again on THIS thread (where they don't belong), and I have no illusions about your willingness to finally address them on THAT thread either.
You are merely demonstrating that you are STILL lost. The issue here is YOUR claim: the false claim that the musical instruments were evidence of an EARLY date for Daniel (i.e. they could NOT have been mentioned in the book if it was written LATER, for some unexplained reason).

I have not ADDRESSED the claim that the instruments are evidence of a LATE authorship, except to mention it in passing and to point out that you have misremembered it. Scholars are of the opinion that these instruments were introduced into the region as a result of Alexander's conquest of it. This sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and I am certainly not qualified to state otherwise (and neither are you): I am not an expert on these matters (and neither are you). But I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary (and, apparently, neither are you). But my point is that YOUR claim, that the instruments are actually evidence of an EARLY authorship, stems only from your own imagination: and you have basically confirmed this by your inability to support your position and your eagerness to divert discussion to the OTHER claim.

The existence of my grandmother's teapot is NOT evidence for a LATE authorship of Daniel. Therefore, according to your "reasoning", the existence of my grandmother's teapot would be evidence for an EARLY authorship of Daniel. Do you now understand why I don't accept such "reasoning"?
No, you cannot: and I hope this is now clarified.

Incidentally, while we're still on the subject of Daniel: you don't seem to understand what a "problem" would look like. A "problem" with either view would be a fact which appears to CONTRADICT that view. There are several such "problems" with the traditional view of Daniel (already discussed): however, even if you COULD resolve EVERY such "problem" in the traditional view, this would NOT itself be a problem for the CRITICAL view. Apologists really need to find evidence which CONTRADICTS the notion that Daniel was written in the Maccabean period (Ezekiel's reference to "Dan'el" was one attempt to do this: it failed because Ezekiel was plainly not referring to a contemporary, Dan'el is an ancient hero in older Ugaritic texts).
Educate yourself.

SAB: Science and History in the Bible
ErrancyWiki: Jude 1:14

Moving on:
An even more extreme example of context-snipping!

If you insist that it DOESN'T: then I can be pretty sure that it DOES. Whatever it is...

On Daniel (again):
It amazes me that you still think you can get away with the "secret knowledge" bluff.

Your inability to competently discuss Daniel was painfully evident on that thread: as is your ongoing inability to find any "problems" with the critical position. Nothing is stopping YOU from going back to that thread and actually doing what you have failed to do thus far: to actually POST this list of supposed "problems" with the critical position, the list that "of course" exists (I think you already know how quickly such a list would be shredded).
You have managed to snip off the context AGAIN. We were discussing the claim that the main purpose of a Biblical prophet was to predict the future.

Pat Robertson is a good modern example of a Biblical prophet. He rants and raves at what he perceives to be "ungodly", and frequently expresses his rants as predictions: warning of what will (supposedly) happen if the "ungodliness" continues. But nobody's particularly bothered when various Robertson "prophesies" don't come to pass (God moves in mysterious ways etc). Even among contemporary Christians (or, in Ezekiel's case, Jews), neither Robertson nor Ezekiel would be regarded as a Delphic-style soothsayer: the classical concept of a "prophet".
It has certainly come up in THIS thread (and I see that you have quietly dropped your claim that Ezekiel could have been "prophesying" in the past tense). On the "Biblical errors" thread, it came up in post #188.

Also, because we know that the book was not completed until AFTER the siege of Tyre: the only indication we have that the ENTIRE "prophecy" wasn't written after the event is the fact that it failed! If it WAS written after, then presumably Ezekiel wouldn't have written-in a failed prophecy. So, as you DON'T believe it failed: you are shooting yourself in the foot here. If it was successful, there is no reason to assume it WASN'T written later!
Because they have failed to demonstrate that any reasonably "unpredictable" event was indeed successfully prophesied. However, that's really a topic for a separate thread (such as Inerrantists: please demonstrate that ANY part of the Bible is "divinely inspired").
What a bizarre request! Yet again you've missed the point: that I am asking YOU to list even even one that is irrefutably NOT naturalistic or just plain lucky! Heck, even "probably not naturalistic or just plain lucky" would be a start...

...But preferably on the appropriate thread.