Johnny Skeptic

Actually, in what way was the prophecy divinely inspired? It is plausible that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's invasion plans in advance by ordinary means, just like thousands of other people who surely knew about the invasion plans weeks or months in advance.

Ezekiel 26:4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.

The NASB says "I will make you a bare rock." We don't know what Ezekiel meant. He might have meant completely bare, almost completely bare, or some other version of bare. We don't know what the mainland settlement looked like after Alexander completed building his bridge to the island settlement. The mainland settlement was built upon rocky ground, so between the available rocks and the substantial remains of the mainland settlement, what was left might not have come anywhere close to resembling "a bare rock."

Ezekiel 26:5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

Actually, it would have been surprising if the inhabitants had not used fishing nets and spread them out to dry.

Ezekiel 26:14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

Actually, the mainland settlement was rebuilt on a number of occasions. Of course, you will claim "but not rebuilt to its former glory," but that would also apply to most ancient cities and empires as well. In fact, many ancient cities were never rebuilt at all.

As I have told you on a number of occasions, I don't care whether or not God can predict the future. He might be an evil alien imposter or an evil God. He also might be amoral. There are not any reliable means by which you can tell whether God is moral, immoral, or amoral. The texts say that if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived. Why do you believe that the elect will not be deceived? An evil God, or an amoral God, could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible.

The only way that skeptics can be fairly held accountable for rejecting the God of the Bible is if they know that he exists and still reject him. If God exists, if he clearly revealed himself to everyone, surely some skeptics would become Christians. Regarding skeptics who would become Christians if God clearly revealed himself to everyone, the intent of their hearts cannot be fairly questioned.

Jack the Bodiless

...Which is precisely why your argument that "Ezekiel must have been regarded as a prophet because he is classified among the Prophets" fails.

Among the Jews, predictive ability is NOT what distinguishes a "prophet" from a "non-prophet".

Glad we've cleared THAT up.

bfniii

we've been over this several times. why do you insist on asking the same questions over and over?

i am not assuming anything. ezekiel has always been considered a prophet which means that his predictions were just that, PREdictions. do you know of some reason for us to doubt this long held belief? if you have some evidence that contradicts this notion, i would hope that you will present it.



anything in ezekiel 26



all part of the same thing



sure we do



ok. whatever.



of course we have that. as i asked earlier, do you know of any historical sources that contradict the belief that Tyre was a vassalage after Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander? i don't think there are any.



the prophecy as a whole is not concerned with the physical city. some specifics are mentioned. i have listed some other specifics that don't refer to the physical city.



the prophecy as a whole in conjunction with it's particular constituents.



sigh. again, do you have any reason to believe it was written later or was revised? if you don't, and it certainly appears that way from the last 400+ posts, then you have nothing to base your skepticism on. you are free to remain neutral if you like. however, if you were truly neutral, one would expect much more apathy from you and much less skepticism.



if it were written afterward, you wouldn't be calling it a prophecy. why do you call it a prophecy? why is ezekiel called a prophet? because at least one person has believed from the very beginning that he was a prophet which presupposes that his prescience was accurate. now the question is why should we believe or disbelieve the testimony of these people?



first, this is excluded middle. the option that is excluded is that ezekiel would have been considered a fraud. i know of nothing from antiquity that supports such a position.



but when you question the timing of composition and later revisions, you aren't questioning the specifics of the tyre prophecy. you are questioning ezekiel's reputation. why can't i answer your questions appropriately?



i have asked you what would be evidence to you. your only rely is the ridiculous "time travel".



what i mean is i haven't seen any disagreement between any source you have provided and any part of the prophecy. if you disagree, bring up whatever you would like.



you don't know that. that is called unsupported assertion. there is nothing, from what i have seen about the babylonian empire, that states nebuchadnezzar included thousands, or hundreds, or scores of people in his planning of invasions. you may be speculating that such happened, but it's speculation. even if it were true, there is no way you can prove that ezekiel must have been one of those people, no matter what his political proximity was.

you didn't respond to anything i posted at the end of post #462. all you did was repeat your original questions.

bfniii

actually, i do. i have already brought up the ontological argument. the belief in "God", the God of the bible, is that what you are proposing is not in His nature. if you claim it is, then we aren't talking about the same God.

Johnny Skeptic

But you have not stated the ontological argument. Please state it.

I did not assert that God is evil, but you asserted that he is good. Therefore, it is up to you to back up your assertion. If intelligent design is a given, converting energy into matter is about physics, not about morality. A being who can convert energy into matter, whether a God or an advanced alien, might be moral, immoral, amoral, or as some skeptics have suggested, there are other possibilities.

I haven't studied ontology very much, but what little I have studied discussed the existence of God, not his nature. If you have any ontological arguments regarding God's nature, please post them. Why must a creator necessarily be good?

There is not any credible evidence that the risen Jesus was not an alien imposter.

In one of my previous posts, I said:

You replied:

Ezekiel's reputation might have been protected by later revisions by him or by someone else. It is equally plausible that later revisions were made, and that later revisions were not made.

I never said I did.

Since I HAVE NOT asserted what most likely happened, and since you HAVE asserted what most likely happened, I don't have to prove anything. Of course, the issue of how Ezekiel found out about the invasion is a non-issue since there is not any credible evidence that the prophecy was written before the events, and that it was not revised later by Ezekiel or by someone else.

Your "bare rock" analogy is preposterous. The mainland settlement was built upon rocky ground. Between the available rock and the substantial remains of the mainland settlement, what was left after Alexander completed his bridge to the island settlement might not have resembled anything close to a bare rock. You don't have any idea whatsoever what Ezekiel meant.

Ezekiel 26:14 says "And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God." Historical records state that the mainland settlement WAS rebuilt on a number of occasions. You will of course state that the mainland settlement was never rebuilt to its former glory, but that would also apply to many if not most ancient cities and empires. In fact, many ancient cities were never rebuilt at all.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: You have asked me what would constitute evidence for me. If you mean evidence about the Tyre prophecy, I am not aware of any reliable criteria for determining when the prophecy was written, or whether the version that we have today is the same as the original version. Are you aware of any such criteria?

If you mean reliable criteria for determining who can or cannot foretell the future, that is easy. If a person really has the ability to foretell the future, and he wants to prove it to everybody, he wouldn't have any trouble at all making prophecies that people of all world views could easily verify. Many religions have propheices, but whenever accepting them is world view specific, which means that faith is involved instead of logic, rational minded people always reject such prophecies. Stock market predictions can easily be accessed and understood by people of all world views, and unlike the Bible, one need not wait until after the facts to assess the predictions. If Ezekiel had predicted that Alexander would defeat the island settlement, that would have been pretty good evidence, but Ezekiel didn't do that.

What I am most interested in is reliable criteria for determining whether God is good, or whether he is an evil God who is masquerading as a good God. An evil God would easily be able to duplicate anything that the Bible attributes to God. Are you aware of any such criteria?

bfniii

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. otherwise, he would have never made it into the canon. therefore, at least some people, throughout history, consider his predictions and known history to be a match or at least without contradiction (even if history is silent on some issues).

it seems to me that the source you cited made two contradictory statements. in the first sentence you cited, it plainly states that prophets did not speak to future generations. in the second sentence, it states that the prophetic message was pertinent to the future. this is clearly a contradiction. either a prophet did or did not speak to the present or future. the sources i listed give a much more thorough accounting of a prophet's ministry.

daniel's visions were not only for future generations.



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.



again, you have a misunderstanding of prophecy. prophets did not only address their own generation although events during that time might have precipitated their ministry.



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.



incorrect. 7 and 8 are messianic prophecy.

isaiah 9:1-7 prophesy that He would minister in galilee.



in post #458, you acknowledge that ezekiel wrote in the past tense. here, you seem to be saying the opposite.



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.



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. i have shown that, in detail and at length. even if you disagree, any subsequent conclusions made by you are debatable at best because they are built on flawed premises.

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. there is a date listed in verse 1. in order for you to undermine the accuracy of that date, you would have to show some contradictory information which you have not done. stating that it is possible that it was later revised would require you to present some information that states so, other than mere conjecture. if you want to show that ezekiel may not have been trustworthy, you would have to present a source that casts doubt on his statements, not just present conjecture. the authenticity of the passage is not undermined because you merely present conjecture. it would require viable sources. i am not saying that ezekiel's statement should be taken at face value. what i am saying is that it is all we have to go on and there is no reason to doubt it. there is no indication from anything that ezekiel was untrustworthy or that the passage was written after the event or that it was later revised. if you disagree, present your sources, not just conjecture.

the next flaw is that alleged failure of the prophecy is, in no way, "evidence" that the prohpecy was written prior. this is excluded middle, as i have been saying. it is just as possible as the possibility you present that ezekiel wrote the failed prophecy after the event based on spurious information or that he wrote it prior to and it was fulfilled.



why do you call that baseless? you have presented nothing from that time, or any subsequent time, which casts doubt on the fact that ezekiel was considered a prophet. in fact, all we have to go on is the preservation of his works and ministry as a prophet.



i am not falsely implying it. i am overtly stating it.



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.



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. it's a reference to destruction in general. those walls were certainly important, but by no means the only ones that mattered in the historical context. in order for you to properly support your assertion, you would need to provide some historical sources from contemporaneous militaries that echo your sentiments.



of course there were other walls. they had buildings when nebuchadnezzar attacked (unless you believe that tyre didn't have any buildings). attackers from those times generally brought such structures down.



you still don't get it. the fact that he didn't clarify which set means he wasn't referring to any one specific set. hopefully, you will get that concept one day. ezekiel meant destruction in general. that's why he listed walls and streets, etc....



no, that's not what i'm saying. i am saying that you are incorrect when you unnecessarily restrict "walls" to one particular set when the passage implies no such thing.



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.



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.

ezekiel's comments in 29:18 do not imply that the prophecy was unfulfilled. he is merely stating that nebuchadnezzar did not receive an equal earthly compensation for his efforts at tyre.



there is no way you can say that tyre preferred being absorbed into the persian empire over being independent and free. regardless, the precipitating event, nebuchadnezzar's attack, was not in any way voluntary.



if tyre had already lost it's independent status, then that part of the prophecy was already fulfilled. alexander just put the icing on the cake.



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.



this response in no way addresses my comments. once again, i have asked you to provide verses that support your assertions that ezekiel was ONLY referring to the island, the island walls of nebuchadnezzar. you can't because there are no verses that support such conclusions. you have arrived at those conclusions via subjective inference. whether you are of the opinion that nebuchadnezzar was thwarted or not is irrelevant. he fulfilled his part. ezekiel must have seen this because the part that refers to him isn't the only part of the prophecy.



since tyre as an independent, sovereign nation has not existed for centuries, God must have succeeded. you are incorrect. i pointed out several specific verses that refer to the city-state and not the physical city.



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.



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.



not the biblical worldview, the worldview of people at that time. they didn't learn from God that the earth is flat. nothing in the bible suggests that they did. i realize you are saying that even if they didn't get that knowledge from God, God could have corrected them. my reply is that God did correct us in the sense that He gave us the potential to learn for ourselves.



it's a metaphor.



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.



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.



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".



no standard has been provided by you in regards to things like miracles or divine inspiration, etc. therefore, i am not backtracking.



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. this is an atheist/skeptic forum. i am asking you personally what would convince you; what you base your beliefs on. as i said, it is like pulling teeth to get this answer. i wonder why you are so obstinate about putting your beliefs on the line.

besides, my beliefs are going to be, and have been, stated clearly once we establish a standard.



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?



the "experts":
1. don't all agree
2. revise their ideas constantly
3. are unable to apply the ideas of science to anything supernatural

this is why we need to talk standards, not current popular opinion, whatever that may be.



not true at all. you are unable to determine what i summarily reject because you can't read my mind. you only know what i have presented here and i have considered everything directed at me that i am aware of.



it does not only refer to YEC. OEC is biblical as well. notice the last letter in the acronym. it's a "c". guess what it stands for.



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.



yes, it is. romans 10:9 succinctly and unquestionably delineates christians from not.



the article made no citation to any authoritative source regarding it's statistics. even if it did, it doesn't matter.



since when is being specific elephant-hurling? i cited a specific post where you made a mistake. obviously, you don't want to address my comments. if you did, you wouldn't just type another one of your mistakenly triumphant generalities, and you could provide some support for your case.



clearly an evasion. i posted two specific items that would be required of you and you don't even try to refute them, much less satisfy them.



even if there was, that wouldn't prove anything.



you got that right. now, what would convince you, a skeptic?



incorrect. the reason why is because the emperor's story doesn't continue like the saga of history. if it had, he could have confronted the liars with what the boy said in order to resolve the contradiction.



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.

Johnny Skeptic

How utterly absurd. You have said that the Tyre prophecy can stand on its own merit, but now you have brought up Ezekiel's general reputation as a prophet. If you wish to abandon defending the Tyre prophecy and defend other prophecies that Ezekiel made, then let's debate them one at a time. Regarding "at least some people throughout history consider his predictions and known history to be a match, or at least without contradiction," what is your point? The vast majority of people during Ezekiel's time DID NOT consider his predictions to be authentic, and the vast majority of people today DO NOT consider Ezekiel's predictions to be authentic. How do you account for this?

Please reply to my posts #485 and #486.

Sven

If some people would actually read what others say, they would not have to ask silly questions. Jack said fromt the start of his argument where he got his info from - see post #466.

Johnny Skeptic

You DID NOT state the ontological argument FROM ANY SOURCE. Please do so. I do not know much about ontology, but what little I read dealt with creationism versus evolution, not the nature of God. I am an agnostic, so I do not have any problems with a reasonable possibility of intelligent design.

I did not propose that God is evil. I proposed that God might be evil. However, you proposed that God is good, but you don't have any proof at all that such is the case. If God is evil, and if he is omnipotent and omniscient, he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible. There is no logic that states that the ability to convert energy into matter has anything whatsoever to do with morality. A creator might be moral, immoral or amoral. Creation deals only with physics, not with morality.

Regarding the Tyre prophecy, there is no evidence that Ezekiel did not learn about Nebuchadnezzar's invasion plans in advance by ordinary means, that he did not write the prophecy after the facts, and that the prophecy was not later revised.

In the NIV, Ezekiel 26:4 says "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock." That is not of any value to Christians whatsoever. Ezekiel might have meant mostly bare, or completely bare. If he meant mostly bare, we don't know to what extent. The mainland settlement was built on rocky ground. By the time that Alexander used the available rocks and the substantial remains of the mainland settlement, what was left might not have even come close to resembling a bare rock.

You once said that personal experience is an important part of your religious beliefs. I challenge to you start a new thread about your personal experiences, and I predict that you will refuse to accept my challenge because of your past failures to provide adequate proof of your assertions. Unexpected, unusual benefits happen to people of all world views, not just to Christians. Many non-Christians are much healthier than the millions of sick Christians in the world. The distribution of good things and bad things most certainly DOES NOT indicate divine intervention. Is it your position that God did not create Hurricane Katrina and send it to New Orleans. If so, I would find that to be quite strange. In the KJV, 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?"

But you said that the specifics of the Tyre prophecy can be adequately defended without mentioning Ezekiel's reputation as a prophet. Many of Ezekiel's prophecies might have been written after the fact, or written before the fact and later revised, or have been lucky guesses. Just so I understand you correctly, is it your position that the Tyre prophecy has merit on its own, or that it has merit because of Ezekiel's other prophecies? If the former, then you have failed to adequately defend its specific claims. If the latter, then by all means, let's debate some of Ezekiel's other prophecies. I suggest that we start with your favorite among Ezekiel's prophecies.