bfniii:
Quote:
...And you base this upon an erroneous understanding of the role of an OT "prophet" (navi). This is what I have been trying to explain to you, most recently in post #466.
i think there must be some misunderstanding. i have referred to the standard definitions of prophet whereas you have not. i'm not sure where you are getting your info, but if you would check brittanica or bible.org or new advent, you will see that ezekiel clearly fits the bill. i do not know of any source that does not consider ezekiel to be a prophet. the point is, he has always been considered a prophet. in order to be considered a prophet, the prophecies and teachings must be fulfilled.
|
Wrong, again. You are still fixated on the notion that a "prophet" is someone who makes "prophecies", despite multiple corrections. Have you entirely forgotten that the Bible wasn't written in English? A Hebrew "navi" was NOT "someone who makes predictions" (they might do this as a sideline, but it wasn't their primary
purpose).
You have still provided no support for your assertion that Ezekiel was "always regarded as a prophet" (in the classical sense: one who predicts the future). Furthermore,
even if he WAS regarded as such, you have provided no evidence that Ezekiel's contemporaries regarded his rantings about Tyre as an actual "prophesy" (and, if they were NOT regarded as such, their "failure" wouldn't matter). Hence my oft-repeated point that there is no evidence that Ezekiel's contemporaries were aware of a "Tyre prophecy".
Quote:
We do NOT have any evidence that Ezekiel's contemporaries regarded Tyre as a successful prediction of future events.
actually, we do. ezekiel's prophecies would never even be considered prophecies unless it satisfied the definition of a prophecy which includes being made prior to the event and being fulfilled. if the pertinent criteria weren't satisfied, it would have been considered something else altogether.
|
More of the same circular reasoning. You are assuming what you seek to prove: that Ezekiel's rants about Tyre WERE regarded as "prophecies".
Quote:
As I suspected! Isaiah 53 is NOT a messianic prophecy (or indeed any other sort of prophecy).
this is a perfect example of why, at times, it is pointless to even have discussions with you. isaiah 53 has always been considered one of the hallmarks of messianic prophecy. handel's "messiah" is based on isaiah 53. for you to make a statement like that reveals utter and blatant bias. it would have been accurate if you had said "christians accept isaiah 53 as messianic but i do not on these grounds", but you didn't. i realize that there are jews who do not accept the chapter as messianic, but even those jews acknowledge that christians regard the passage in that way (otherwise, there wouldn't be a disagreement) so for you to make such a blanketing statement is absurd.
|
You are again contradicting yourself. You claim that Isiah 53 has
always been considered a messianic prophecy, and then admit that the Jews did not consider it to be one. Remember that Isaiah WAS a Jew, and so was every other "Bible-believer" for many centuries. Also, you're making another blanket assertion with your claim that "Christians" consider Isaiah 53 to be a messianic prophecy. Any competent Biblical scholar,
Christian or otherwise, knows who the "suffering servant" really is: because Isaiah makes this clear in the previous chapters. The "suffering servant" is an allegorical reference to the nation of Israel.
You are again demonstrating your inability to distinguish between "scholarship" and "apologetics".
Quote:
And as for Isaiah 9: what part? The child "prophecy" is made in Isaiah 7, then the child is born in Isaiah 8. None of this refers to Jesus, this was all stuff that was happening in Isaiah's time (Isaiah, like Ezekiel, was a "navi").
incorrect. 7 and 8 are messianic prophecy.
isaiah 9:1-7 prophesy that He would minister in galilee.
|
Incorrect. Isaiah 7:14 is one of several OT verses blatantly ripped out of context by the author of "Matthew". It is certainly NOT messianic prophecy (as the Jews have been pointing out for two thousand years now).
Quote:
They aren't.
in post #458, you acknowledge that ezekiel wrote in the past tense. here, you seem to be saying the opposite.
|
You see how this context-snipping creates confusion?
Ezekiel didn't PROPHESY in the past tense. Neither did anyone else, apparently.
Quote:
It is abundantly clear that the land and spoils of Egypt are going to be "given" to Nebby, and that Egypt will be uninhabited for 40 years. This did not happen. Therefore it is abundantly clear that Ezekiel is a failed prophet. Do you deny this? Do you wish to claim that Egypt WAS devastated and uninhabited for 40 years?
if nebuchadnezzar did indeed chase necho from carchemish to the "Nachal Mitzrayim", then it is highly likely nebuchadnezzar did receive spoil from egypt. it is also possible that the 40 years has not yet occurred.
|
More pretzel apologetics? God was going to
give the land of Egypt to Nebby, not just let him rush about in a chariot for awhile. ANd this is the chapter in which the 40-year devastation is described. There is no reason to twist this into anything other than what it plainly is: another failed prophecy.
Quote:
More of the same. You want to argue that POSSIBLY it was written prior: I point out that there is no EVIDENCE for this (other than its failure). This is, obviously, CORRECT. So, why do you use the word INCORRECT to describe a statement that is clearly and undeniably CORRECT?
what is flawed is your reasoning in this case. i have exlained it already and will attempt to do so again.
you state that the only "evidence" we have that the prophecy was written prior to the event was that it failed. the first flaw is that the prophecy did not fail. you may claim that it failed, but you would be incorrect.
|
You have not shown that I am incorrect.
Quote:
|
i have shown that, in detail and at length.
|
No, you have not. At all.
Quote:
|
even if you disagree, any subsequent conclusions made by you are debatable at best because they are built on flawed premises.
|
...You see the double standard here? What about YOUR flawed premises, which cause YOUR conclusions to be erroneous?
This is what YOU describe as "elephant-hurling", IIRC.
Quote:
|
the next flaw is that, according to all indications, the passage was written prior to the event. there is no information that has been presented by anyone since the inception of the topic that undermines that belief.
|
False, of course. Other than the prophecy-failure issue, the ONLY indication we have of when the prophecy was WRITTEN DOWN is the fact that the book was not completed unti AFTER the siege of Tyre.
Therefore there is no reason to address the rest of your paragraph: you have the situation backwards.
Quote:
On the contrary. You are still trying to artificially create your "populum" with the still-baseless claim that Ezekiel's contemporaries believed it was fulfilled, and with the claim that "Christians" believe it was fulfilled (i.e. falsely implying that Christians in general believe it was fulfilled).
i am not falsely implying it. i am overtly stating it.
|
And your statement is false.
Quote:
Even if you succeeded, it would still be an ad populum fallacy.
it most certainly is not. the reason why is because you haven't presented anything to the contrary. in order for it to be appeal to numbers, you would have to show that there were people from that time, or any subsequent time during the formation of canon, who thought otherwise.
|
Why, when YOU have presented nothing to show that any people from Ezekiel's time shared YOUR opinion on the "Tyre prophecy"?
But first, maybe you should refresh your memory on what an
ad populum fallacy actually is?
Quote:
There is only ONE set of walls that MATTERED.
mattered for what? ezekiel is referring to destruction that will happen to tyre. since that is the case, there is no ONE set of walls that matter. they ALL matter.
|
No. There is ONE set of walls that determine the OUTCOME of the conflict. One set that determines WHO WILL WIN. One set that is relevant to the ISSUE being "prophesied".
Nebby failed BECAUSE he failed to breach the walls of Tyre.
Quote:
You are again citing a personal fantasy as if it were fact. You don't WANT it to refer to the physical destruction of the island. But there is no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise, and your twisting requires you to ignore Biblical verses or treat them as "metaphorical" with no justification.
i don't think you understand what i am saying. i am saying you are unable to provide support for what you claim. i have asked you to provide the relevant verses from which you derive this conclusion and you respond with this obfuscation obviously designed at distraction.
i have not said that the passage does not refer to destruction on the island. what i have said is that it does not refer to destruction only on the island. there are no verses that support such an assertion. you are using inference to arrive at such a conclusion. i am considering any of the verses in ezekiel. i have not ignored any verses. you, however, are the one engaged in twisting because you have arrived at a conclusion that is not supportable from the text alone. if you think i am wrong, then provide the verses that show ezekiel is referring only to the island or only to the walls of the island.
in response to your accusation of metaphor, i agree that some verses refer to the city-state, but i also acknowledge that others refer to specific physical destruction. there is some metaphor involved in this prophecy, as is the custom with most prophecy. the beginning chapters of ezekiel contain quite a bit of metaphor.
|
Again, why do you expect anyone else to let you get away with such a blatant double standard?
Other than the brief reference to Tyre's "daughters in the field", there are NO verses which clearly DON'T refer to the destruction of the island fortress! And we all know that "metaphor" is apologetic-speak for "not actually true" in issues like this.
Quote:
In the sense that Nebby failed to conquer it, and agreed to a face-saving "draw" that allowed Tyre to continue to prosper while leaving Nebby with no real reward for all his effort (as Ezekiel himself records).
i'm confused as to why you omit the fact that tyre was in no way independent after nebuchadnezzar got done with it. i have not seen any accounts that conflict with the notion that tyre became a vassal of babylon. that's at least part of the fulfillment right there. the rest came with alexander and the fact that tyre disappeared as a nation.
|
Of course it was "independent"! If it had been subjugated, Nebby would have paid his army with the loot he sought!
And, as already explained, Alexander contributed NOTHING to the "prophecy fulfilment" DESPITE actually conquering Tyre. SO what's the "rest"? There is no "rest". It's easy to see what's happened here: because Alex WAS successful against Tyre, and this WAS undoubtedly after the book was written, they WANT to drag him into it DESPITE his failure to actually satisfy the stated criteria! It's a sign of their desperation.
Quote:
And, as you're still wrong about this, my statement stands. Which ties in with my previous response: the apologist desires to extend the timeframe beyond that in which the book is still being written.
jack, it is well known that some prophecies in the bible are written in the past tense for a well-documented reason. when you take hebrew, you will learn this and the reason why. your continuing insistence on the contrary is preventing us from moving forward. tense is not always an indicator of composition date of ancient hebrew prophecy.
|
No, this is NOT "well-known": your previous attempt to provide an actual example turned out to be apologetic twaddle. So, without any actual
examples of clearly-intended-as-prophecy written in the past tense: there remains no basis for your claim.
Quote:
...So the Great Firmament Dodge continues, and even extends to a charge that I "haven't even mustered" the responses you are so desperately evading!
i am not evading anything. i am asking you, again, to provide any verses you think support the fact that the bible, not the hebrews, claims that the earth is flat. every verse you have provided so far has been refuted. you have barely even responded to my refutations other than in your customary unspecific manner. i do not dispute that the hebrews thought the world was flat. it was a common belief at one time. they were no different than anyone else. however, their observations can still be experienced today. the bible wasn't designed to make scientific observations on every aspect of life. the hebrews were merely recording their experiences.
|
What is this waffle about flat-Earthism? We were discussing the falsehood of the entire Biblical cosmology, most notably
THE FIRMAMENT DOME. I have been trying to get you to address the issue of
THE FIRMAMENT DOME for quite some time now. So can we talk about
THE FIRMAMENT DOME please?
Quote:
And I have shown that YOU are misinterpreting the verse.
40:22 records how things appeared to people of the time. in that sense, it is not incorrect. it can still be observed today. it does not state the earth is flat. no matter how long you stonewall on this issue, the word "flat" doesn't appear in that verse, or any other for that matter.
|
You are misinterpreting Isaiah 40:22 because the second part of the verse refers to
THE FIRMAMENT DOME.
Quote:
I suppose it might be amusing to read your explanation of how the sweep of a dragon's tail will dislodge one-third of the stars in the sky, in the "end-times" (Revelation 12:4).
it's a metaphor.
|
Only in the sense that the
whole book is a "metaphor" (beast = Nero and so forth). But is this really the
only FIRMAMENT DOME reference that you will ever address, I wonder?
Quote:
...So, you're admitting that the supposed "visions sent from God" were just made up, based on what they thought they could see?
it's not what they "thought" they could see. it is what they saw because we still see that today when we don't use advanced instruments or vehicles.
|
The recipients of those "visions from God" were
supposedly receiving "divine revelation". I guess God, not having such devices, was just as ignorant as those who made him in their image.
Quote:
...Except that it certainly DOES say that God created Adam directly, from dirt (and Eve directly, from Adam). Not from apes. So you're wrong, as usual.
where you are wrong is that there is no time frame mentioned by the bible in that narrative. that process could have taken millions of years.
|
Are you experimenting in different
ways of being wrong? There is indeed a timeframe specifically mentioned in the Bible. But this isn't how it happened, in ANY timeframe.
Quote:
Again, "some people" are simply wrong. Genesis 7:19 refers to covering "all the high mountains that were under the whole Heaven".
another shining example of your misplaced bravado. you are reading into the passage "of the earth" after "mountains". it could just as easily read "that could be seen" or "known to man".
|
...Ah. Maybe the aythor should have cleared everything up by using a phrase such as "all... under the whole Heaven". Oh, wait, he DID. Again, it's virtually impossible to imagine HOW he could have made this ANY clearer.
I never cease to be amazed at the apologist's
determination to corrupt "God's word", however clearly expressed.
Quote:
1. Tell us what YOUR standard is. So far we have "the Bible says so" and "argumentum ad populum" (with attempts to inflate the "populum").
my position is irrelevant at this point because we are starting on opposite sides. if you want to know what christians believe, go to church.
|
We have already established that YOU don't know what Christians believe. I have been to church, many times: have you?
Quote:
2. Give us your BEST indication of a case of "divine inspiration" in the Bible: the one that it would be HARDEST for any skeptic to explain, and we'll see if it stands up. Rather amazingly, your reply implies that the Tyre "prophecy" is IT.
pick any. pick any one you want. this has been my point all along. if any one is false, they are all false. if any one is true, they are all true because we are talking about a concept, a standard. how could any person prove something in the bible was divinely inspired?
|
And I can't "pick one", because THERE ARE NONE TO PICK (though you're again demonstrating your poor grasp of logic if you imagine that "if any one is true, they are all true"). Hence the "Emperor's New Clothes" parable. You're effectively challenging the boy to pick up one garment and discuss it, when there are no garments.
Quote:
"Creationism" refers to YEC and its variants, which HAVE been scientifically falsified. The Genesis creation account is bunk.
i assume you are referring to the creation of man, not the creation of the universe. in that case, science has not falsified the biblical account. science has supported evolution but the bible doesn't contradict it. some christians reject evolution, but the bible does not. those christians, like you, interject "immediately" into the creation account of adam. while it is a possible interpretation, it isn't the only interpretation. the bible does not make a definitive statement against evolution. it merely says that God created adam from the dust of the earth. that could mean many things. the specifics of it are obviously not pertinent to the bible. it says all that needs to be known from a spiritual standpoint. science is therefore free to fill in the blanks.
this is no different than the flood. the bible does not give an overtly detailed accounting of these issues because it distracts from the purpose of the narrative. the purpose is that God created the universe, which includes us. the details are not important in regards to the fact that God is the author of life. it is important to us to understand the specific mechanisms employed to increase our knowledge, but not from a spiritual standpoint. you seem to be unable to make this separation.
|
Again, the Bible DOES make many very specific claims on these topics, which are NOT TRUE. The authors COULD have used more general concepts, but they did not.
Quote:
...No, it isn't.
yes, it is. romans 10:9 succinctly and unquestionably delineates christians from not.
|
No, it does not, for the reasons already explained. So why repeat this refuted falsehood as if it was now established as fact?
Quote:
...And you were wrong, as usual. But the number was the result of the poll described in that article, so what do you mean by "no support"?
the article made no citation to any authoritative source regarding it's statistics. even if it did, it doesn't matter.
|
Why is
Christian Research not an authoritative source? Or are you saying that
Channel 4 (a major British broadcasting company comparable to the BBC in its sponsorship of in-depth articles) somehow fradulent? More "elephant-hurling", bfniii? And why does it suddenly "not matter" if many Christians do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead to walk the Earth again?
Quote:
Of course, you have that backwards. If Christians are using the same standard as skeptics to evaluate the authority of historical documents, then Christians should have no problem agreeing with skeptics. Since this is clearly not the case, Christians must be using some other standard.
you got that right. now, what would convince you, a skeptic?
|
The same standards that non-Christian historians use, Christian historians use for non-Christian documents, and
honest Christians (the many actual Christian
scholars) use when evaluating even
Christian documents.
Many Christians keep telling us that they have a "personal relationship with Jesus". The authenticity of documents, especially
Old Testament documents, is not an "article of faith" for them.
Quote:
You are trying to claim that YOU have actual evidence, but the Emperor does not. This is incorrect: the Emperor DOES have evidence, similar to yours. He has the testimony of trusted authorities (the tailors who made his clothes) and the argumentum ad populum (everyone in his court assured him that his outfit was magnificent). Indeed, HIS evidence was better: because, until that kid spoke up, nobody contradicted his belief.
you are failing to understand what i mentioned in post #447. you are trying to compare a naked emperor to christianity when you are unable to do so. in order for you to have the ability to shift christianity into the equivalent category of naked emperor, you must, with smuggled-in authority, be in a group that is able to make such a determination. the conclusions of that group are debatable, at best. a more accurate analogy would be if the emperor did indeed have clothes and one group of advisors said that they liked them whereas the other said they did not.
|
No, the analogy holds. What "authority" did the boy have? Was he a master tailor? Apparently not. He merely stated the obvious.
What is being discussed is far more significant than whether some people "like" various parts of the Bible whereas others do not. We are trying to find ANY part of the Bible that has the very special property of
divine inspiration: something miraculous, something inexpicable without resorting to the supernatural. Something that makes the Bible
different to all the OTHER "holy books" out there (other than just "which religion has the most adherents right now" or some trivial detail such as "which book has a character called Lazarus in it"). And there is STILL no sign of this elusive quality, which would supposedly be so "obvious" if it EXISTED at all.
Back to Tyre again:
Quote:
We have different interpretations of the SAME verses, and I then went on to justify MY interpretations in the sections you snipped.
and i have shown exactly where and how you are reading into the passage. you are interjecting your own personal preferences into the passages. examples would be "immediately", "only" or "all". these words don't exist where you imagine they do.
once again, your responses distract from the ongoing question i have posed to you that you bring forth actual biblical support for the words that you interject into the text.
|
I did NOT "interject those words into the text". Are YOU now going to confess to interjecting words such as "eventually" or "some" or "a few" into the text? Again, who do you imagine is
impressed by your use of double-standards?
Quote:
You are currently evading this issue, and have been doing so for some time now.
despite your claims, you have yet to show, at any time in all of our discussions, that i have evaded even one point. if you think i have, you can cite the example. i have addressed every single point directed at me that i know of. feel free to continue being dishonest and wasting time.
|
Again, this is so ridiculous that it's hard to imagine who it's aimed at. I have long since lost count of all the evasions you have attempted on this and other threads, and pointing them out doesn't seem to help (e.g. the Great Firmament Dodge, for another recent example).
Try explaining WHY God would inspire Ezekiel to so badly misrepresent Nebby's role against Tyre. "Breaching the walls, pulling down the towers and charging down the streets" is rather UNlike "utterly failing to breach Tyre's defensive walls after 13 long years of trying", yes? Don't you see how this
might have been made just a little clearer, if God WAS trying to impart information?
Quote:
2. Nebby's attack failed to breach Tyre's defenses after a 13-year siege.
then why did tyre become a vassal? because he did breach tyre's defenses. if he did not breach the defenses, tyre could have remained independent.
|
Not in THIS Universe, bfniii. The Tyrians eventually got fed up of being
cut off from the mainland after 13 years. Being beseiged must have been an inconvenience for them, despite resupply by sea.
Quote:
|
indeed, you can't even show that he intended to raze all of tyre, instead attempting to save important structures thus causing the conflict to go on longer than necessary.
|
If Tyre was supposed to be razed (by Nebby or whoever), maybe Ezekiel should have use a phrase such as "scraped clean, like a bare rock". Oh, wait...
Quote:
Apparently, a ruanway chariot accidentally flattening an outhouse and toppling a watchtower on the mainland would satisfy this "prophecy".
this is another great example of why it is often pointless to discuss the issue with you. if you think this strawman represents the case i am making in any way, then you are not very perceptive.
|
How is this a "strawman"? Don't you
agree that this would "satisfy the prophecy" in the same strictly-literal sense that you are attempting?
Quote:
The unresolved problem here is that we KNOW that the island fortress had massive 150-feet-high walls and towers: these are the ones that Nebby HAD to breach, the most formidable obstacle he faced, the obstacle that would determine his success or failure.
interesting, but irrelevant. ezekiel would have specified those walls if he intended to refer to those walls. your case works against you because if they were so conspicuous, how could ezekiel not have mentioned something specific about their proportions?
|
Why on Earth would Ezekiel have to describe exactly how high the walls were??? Why would ANYONE expect him to do this?
The reason he DIDN'T have to do this was BECAUSE what he was referring to was so very, very obvious.
02-09-2006, 06:47 AM
response to post #472
