Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 02-23-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

What evidence do you have that Ezekiel was written after the fact perhaps in the 4th BC? Answer: none whatsoever.

That is cute. You have attempted to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. What evidence do you have that Deism is a false religion? Answer: none whatsoever.

Why does the Bible contain 100% disputable prophecies? Answer: well, er, uh.......

arnoldo · 02-23-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

What evidence do you have that Ezekiel was written after the fact perhaps in the 4th BC? Answer: none whatsoever. Besides Skeppies don't even understand the theology they are *attempting* to attack.

1. It's not theology we're attacking; it's bad history disguised as religion.
2. It's not an attack, it's a total devastation.

1. Probably because there is NO mention of Tyre in Revelation.
2. We dismiss it because of the frequent stupid and embarrassing claims you make.

Quote:

Sorry, many prophecies in Scriptures are fulfilled along multiple point in time along the future.

Sorry; that's the claim you want to prove - but you've utterly and totally failed to do so yet. Result?
PROPHECY FAILS! :rolling:

In order for "prophecy to fail" you have to prove that Zekey wrote before the fact, something which you have failed to do. So there is no prophecy to fail, if anything you only have a claim for poor history writing. Try again.

Sheshonq · 02-23-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

In order for "prophecy to fail" you have to prove that Zekey wrote before the fact,

Incorrect. You're the one with the claim that the prophecy came true. You're the claimant here, not me.

Since you failed to prove your claim, then PROPHECY FAILS!

Quote:

poor history writing...

Which shouldn't happen in a divine prophecy. Gotcha!

Minimalist · 02-23-2008, 02:12 PM

An interesting take on the whole situation.

http://davematson.edwardtbabinski.us/prophecy_tyre.html

Quote:

Bible-believers are full of clever (and some not so clever) rationalizations. The crucial question, however, is not whether "answers" can be generated in response to Bible difficulties but whether credible answers can be produced. What is the best explanation? Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem. Thus, it is not surprising that different, conflicting answers are often presented side by side. It never seems to occur to these people that such logic will also support the story of Goldilocks and the three bears! Or the Koran. Or, anything else. Once we abandon the probable in favor of the improbable--or even the less probable--we have abandoned objectivity. Without objectivity, there is not much hope of finding the truth; we only succeed in confirming our own prejudiced views--even as a group of flat-Earth folks in California did for years in their newsletters.

I think Dave has identified our Fundies!

spin · 02-23-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are being so silly about this. You are clueless about Tyre's history and you won't read about it. I've shown you in the Amarna age that Tyre was the island and all you could do is quibble that Ushu must have been part of Tyre despite Tyre not having possession of it. I've shown you in the time of Hiram it was an island, though I think you've been forced to eat your hat about your refusal to accept the island's status. I've shown you that in the time of Ashurbanipal Tyre and Ushu were separate entities. The one constant factor in Tyre's ancient history was that it was the island... which sometimes had possessions on the mainland.

The situation is somewhat like Japan in the period leading up to WW2. It was the islands, but it had mainland possessions. You wouldn't think of Japan as its possessions in Korea or China. But that's the madness of your position: you'd see the island of Tyre as having the mainland as an integral part.

Unfortunately, Ushu was some kilometers south of Tyre. There was little on the mainland opposite the island in ancient times.

It's on the coast, so people will fish there. But let's look at your fishing village:

You can drop this fishing village crap.

Hare Krishna, hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, hare.

spin

I remeber those letters which the king said he had to leave the mainland fleeing to the island where he had no water no place to bury the dead and no timber which showed that he was on the mainland also.

Yup and the logic is similar to that of an island in need of living beyond its physical limits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

There was a dispute between him and the king of Sidon...

There were always disputes between kinglets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

note there is no mention of a king USHU.... ever, that shows that it was not an independent city but was in fact a part of Tyre....

Attempted argument from silence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

in fact the island could not survive without it....as the King very well said.

Most of the kinglets whinged about how difficult things were in order to attract attention for their needs. You just don't know the material. Go to a decent library. Borrow William Moran's translation of the Amarna Letters. Open it and read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Hiram is credited as enlarging the island to 40 acres, imagine how small it was before he enlarged it.

Yup. Try to imagine how small Ugarit was. How small Troy was. You need to get out more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Some historians, has it that temples and the palace were on the island while most of the population lived in the mainland part of the city and the fact that the inhabitants of Tyre included both those in the mainland city and island shows that these are the same city....

Which historians?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Menander didn't seperate the mainland city from the island....

Doh! Menander was writing after Alexander joined Tyre to the mainland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

and neither does Ezekiel....

Uh-huh. That's why Ezekiel talks of Tyre in the midst of the sea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Nebby is seen by him attacking the mainland city...which happened.

The text says that he would attack the daughters of the field, ie the mainland. The text clearly doesn't refer to this as Tyre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"DOUBLE CITY" Google maps}

I'm glad you've looked at Google Maps, but "double city" is your fantasy. Google Maps shows a city which was a development on the link created when Alexander built the mole. The notion of "double city" is your own stupidity. Tyre was the island. It got joined to the mainland. That's how it now is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

you hear that spin D-O-U-B-L-E C-I-T-Y just because you seperate the mainlnad portion of the city....does not mean that Ezekiel did.

Ezekiel said that Tyre had "daughters in the field". Tyre was the parent. You've tried to twist this. You've squirmed. You've ignored. But in the end Ezekiel does not help your willful fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

God exists.....no matter how you delude yourself....He exist....and is watching.....

Now you're just being a sad religious nutter spouting rubbish on a street corner. You have the sympathy I can muster.

spin

arnoldo · 02-23-2008, 05:45 PM

Your right Nebby sieged Tyre for 13 years but failed to wipe it off the map. Even Jesus visited Tyre. Note the following

Quote:

7:24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid. (7:24, 31)
"And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre."
Ezekiel (26:14, 21, 27:36) prophesied that Tyre would be completely destroyed, never to be built again. But it wasn't destroyed and continued to exist, as shown by this verse in which Jesus visits Tyre.
7:25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
"It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs."
Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Greek woman's daughter, calling the woman a "dog". After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil.
7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
7:29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
7:30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.
7:31 And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.

(7:24, 31)
"And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre."
Ezekiel (26:14, 21, 27:36) prophesied that Tyre would be completely destroyed, never to be built again. But it wasn't destroyed and continued to exist, as shown by this verse in which Jesus visits Tyre.

"It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs."
Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Greek woman's daughter, calling the woman a "dog". After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mk/7.html

There even is a secondary source that Jesus visited Tyre: here.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-23-2008, 07:09 PM

Message to arnoldo: What evidence do you have the God inspired Ezekiel to write the Tyre prophecy, and that it has not been changed. If you ask me to prove that God did not inspire the Tyre prophecy, and that it has been changed, I will ask you to disprove Deism.

juergen · 02-23-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

In order for "prophecy to fail" you have to prove that Zekey wrote before the fact

I've been thinking about this for [Edit: half a day] now, and it doesn't make sense. Suppose prophecy X fails, it predicts something that doesn't come true.

How can one say that it was written "before the fact?" What fact? Before it came true, which didn't came true? How can a prophecy that doesn't come true, be written before it came true?

It is entirely possible that I've just worked too many hours today andam totally misunderstandting what you mean by "in order for 'prophecy to fail' you have to prove that Zekey wrote before the fact."

juergen

Sheshonq · 02-23-2008, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Your right Nebby sieged Tyre for 13 years but failed to wipe it off the map. Even Jesus visited Tyre.

Everyone knows this already.

It's all part of the reason why the Ezekiel prophecy is a failure, you know.

Minimalist · 02-23-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Your right Nebby sieged Tyre for 13 years but failed to wipe it off the map. Even Jesus visited Tyre. Note the following

Ergo - prophecy fails. Oddly, the historical evidence for the continuing habitation of Tyre far surpasses any historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.

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

02-23-2008, 07:09 PM	#437
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: What evidence do you have the God inspired Ezekiel to write the Tyre prophecy, and that it has not been changed. If you ask me to prove that God did not inspire the Tyre prophecy, and that it has been changed, I will ask you to disprove Deism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.