Johnny Skeptic

In the case of the Tyre prophecy, I am not talking about what happened. I am talking about dating. Prophecies made after the fact aren't prophecies, so until we know when the claims were written, we cannot know that the claims were prophetic. This is why some Christians wisely choose to discuss prophecies where dating is not an issue.

I never said that I doubt what the prophecy records.

Please quote where I asserted that the prophecy was post-dated.

No. Regarding the Tyre prophecy, has something given you a reason to believe that the version that we have now has not been altered after it's original composition?

By all means, please quote where I said that the prophecy post-dated the events.

Where was that?

The question is most certainly not meaningless. In fact, the question is the entire point of prophecy. Let me put it another way: If the prophecy was mde before the events, which parts of it would have been highly improbable for a person to predict without divine inspiration?

Faith is subjective.

Regarding the issue of the dating of the Tyre prophecy, reasonable would be evidence that a sizeable majority of historians maintain that the prophecy pre-dated the events.

Unlike most skeptics, I never said that the events in Ezekiel 26 did not come true. I have found out from experience that the issue of dating is much more difficult for Christians to deal with than whether or not the prophecy came true, since no writings can qualify as being prophetic if they cannot be accurately dated, and we know that the Tyre propehcy cannot be accurately dated. The vast majority of historians will tell you this. If you will agree to contact Dallas Theological Seminary regarding the dating of the prophecy, I will contact Wheaton College and Liberty University. What could be more fair than me offering to use only Christian sources, and offering to conduct twice the research that I am asking you to conduct? You are not a trained historian, and neither am I. That is why we need some corroboration from experts. How about it? I have found out from personal experience that the best way to refute a Christian is to use exclusively Christian expert sources. In a debate at the Theology Web, I contaced NIV translation consultant Ed Rubingh, James Freerksen, Th.D., Liberty University, and another Christian experts, all of whom agreed with my position, but the Christian who I was debating disagreed with all of them. Will you be like that Christian if the evidence from Christian experts goes against you?

mata leao

one more timeuhleez! Tyre was a city-state, it was an empire unto itself. It had a KIng, it had a huge army and huge navy, Tyre sent ambassadors and received ambassadors, Tyre has never been "rebuilt".Today there is a small backwater little town there called tyre. Fishermen do in fact spread their nets on bare rocks that used to be part of the fortress palace.

Sauron

The same could be said of most of the city-states at that time. Kind of the definition of "city state", actually. There is nothing unusual about that.

Tyre had a navy. The size of its army is questionable.

That's because it wasn't destroyed - Nebuchadnezzar failed to destroy Tyre, thus invalidating the prophecy.

Incorrect. Tyre is a modern bustling town in Lebanon.

You'll have to provide a modern citation for this claim; everything I have read says otherwise.

I suggest you read through the existing thread on Tyre. None of your claims are new; they were all dealt with and refuted in that thread. Blowing through here and tossing out some claims isn't going to impress anyone, unless you can deal with the specific refutations already presented in that thread.

mata leao

and none of your claims are new either, this has been debated for many decades. And the prophecy is not invalidated. Its use as a prophetic apologetic may be in "equipoise" depending on one's interpretation of the Hebrew way of foretelling prophecy. near term, long term fulfillment and parrallel prophecy and eschatological prophecy do not always have static beginning and ending points. Hebrew prophetic lexicon is different than the way we think and speak in English/Greek. Eskimo lexicon is also illustrative; three men are dogsledding with an Esskimo guide, one of the men falls through the ice and becomes soaked through and through in sub zero weather. The eskimo guide says "your friend is dead". He will die in an hour or two, but in Eskimo thinking he is "dead" now. In English/Greek if we ask which ruler defeated Hitler, we would have a different question than if it was asked in Hebrew. Which leader defeated Islam's attack on the West? Which leader defeated the Communists in the cold war?

Sauron

And the prophecy advocates have lost.

Yes, I'm afraid it is. Since it failed to come true as detailed in the text, it is invalidated.

I'm afraid that changes nothing. If you believed that this was some kind of spiritual or non-temporal sunday school lesson instead of an actual prophecy about an actual city and an actual destruction --- well, then you shouldn't have tried to defend the literal interpretation. You would have done better to give us the alternative, figurative interpretation and then suggest the actors that qualify for the named roles in the passage.

By the way: you have misused the term "equipoise."

You are tossing around terms you don't understand. "Lexicon" is just another word for dictionary. It has nothing to do with interpretive framework.

You'll have to forgive me....

1. Where did you learn eskimo?

2. The problem does not go away because of your creative stalling tactic. The text connects the detruction of Tyre with a specific individual and a specific event.

No, we would not.

The response would be the same in Hebrew or Greek.

mata leao

sauron, you like to speak in such conclusory terms. I disagree with your conclusions. I dont think you understand how Hebrew prophets think and speak. As i said in the other thread, let your stones cry out and I will let God's stones cry out. I can tell you that the stones are rattling!

Johnny Skeptic

Message to mata leao: What is your opinion of the dating of the Tyre prophecy. You might have discussed this issue before. If so, please post your comments again. Bfniii is under the mistaken impression that the writer of the Wikipedia article had the ability to determine when the propehcy was written, but that is not possible. The article mentions King Jehoiakim and King Nebuchadnezzar, who existance no one questions, but there is no rule of logic that states that there is an automatic correlation that can be made between when certain historical people lived and when records about them were recorded. Later revisions/additions is also a possibility. The book of Revelation warns against tampering with the texts. If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warning.

Sauron

Excuse me? You've made quite a few "conclusory" point-blank assertions here. But you haven't backed them up. Your conclusions are contrary to the available information.

What other terms should I use to describe someone who tosses out assertions without proof? I could call you "lee merrill, jr" but I don't think that would be useful at the moment.....

What did you think when you first started posting here, mata leo? Did you think that this was a place for people to just drop in, give their opinion, and then leave? This is a serious discussion and debate board, where participants are expected to have their sources and arguments ready to go.

You're free to disagree, but if you can't come up with specific reasons *why* you disagree, no one is going to care. And I do understand how Hebrew prophets thought and speak. What you have yet to demonstrate is that they spoke or thought in the way you *claim* they did.

So we've come full circle to your buffet table of random claims again. Do you plan to show some evidence for this mysterious interpretory framework that you claim existed? Or is this another mata leo claim that will never be supported, for lack of proof?

And here we are, ladies and gentlemen, at another hastily constructed exit from the debate. Ask for sources, and mata leo scuttles for the doorway. The only thing that is rattling here are the shaky foundations of your assertions. One puff of breeze and they'll be a pile of rotten toothpicks....

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Regarding the dating of the Tyre prophecy, just plain old common sense should tell you that there is a big difference between being reasonably certain that a King named Nebuchadnezzar once lived, which no historian doubts who I am aware of, and when all writings about Nebuchadnezzar were recorded and/or revised. The word "prophecy" regarding the Tyre propehcy is not accurate unless it can first be reasonably proven that records of the events predated the prophecy. Even if the prophecy predated the events, what about it indicates divine inspiration?

bfniii

this is a good example of how my position is misrepresented and misunderstood. i have asked the christian critics to support their case. curiously, i get the response that they don't have to support their case. that seems suspiciously like they are unable or unwilling to.

anyway, you are incorrect. a case has been made for both sides despite your inability to recognize that reality.

and i responded showing how this is an incomplete analysis.

to you, NOTHING creates a burden of proof on the skeptic. how convenient.

i have already showed how you make a claim as well. i'm sorry you don't understand that.

how interesting. ok. let's proceed. what reason do we have to believe that they have been altered (other than the fallacy in the appeal to probability)?

this analogy is flawed. the flaw occurs in that you are assuming the water can be tested for something known. the bible can't be tested for editions because we don't have the original manuscripts to compare against. it's like asking if the water EVER had e. coli. without samples from it's entire life, you couldn't know that. what we do know is that extant manuscripts are abundant and have no significant deviations between them. also, the manuscripts we do have are dated close enough to the events that editions are less likely. in the context of your analogy, it's like having a sample of water from very close to the time it allegedly was tainted, but the sample doesn't exhibit the symptoms. as of now, there is no reason to think the manuscripts are not genuine.

the flaw with this response is:

1. expecting we can prove that there were or weren't editions
2. criticizing the bible without some substantianal reason to believe there were editions.

this non-response does not relinquish your statement from the charge of appeal to probability. the point is, if you are going to criticize, you should provide the reasons why you think the bible isn't genuine. otherwise, why would anyone take your critcism seriously?

and i have asked multiple times what is the method of testing and what conclusion do you reach from it?

the events are only extraordinary or unbelievable if they aren't executed by an omnipotent God.

no, i have a problem with people criticizing something but claiming they don't have to support their position. i will restate; any person or thing can claim anything. the claim itself does not require support, it's just a claim. belief for or against the claim does require support, otherwise the claim can be dismissed. if you are going to say it's likely the bible was edited and thus not genuine, provide the reason you think this is the case. so far, all you have done is appeal to probability and then back out by claiming you don't have to support your critique. why should anyone take your position seriously if you can't do any better than that?

nor should it. many people think it has more than earned it.

1. "quality" and "evidence" are subjective
2. what reasons do you have to doubt the case made by biblical proponents?
3. much of the evidence you ask for is not possible making the request unreasonable

many people think your assesment of failure is incorrect.

incidentally, the reason critics think bible proponents have failed is because the case they make doesn't match what critics think actually happened. what makes the critic's position stronger (the bible was edited and thus not genuine)?

actually, this does happen. people do all sorts of crazy things. someone pointed out in the other thread that people act contrary to the facts they know for various reasons.

your reasons merely repeat your original assertion. i provided specific and distinct reasons why your lazy position is incomplete. i fully expect you to continue your unscholarly denial of any responsibility you have to support your bible-critical beliefs, but any other behavior by you would be confusing.

i realize these may have come from a christian source, but there are several problems with these criteria. what reasons do you have to believe that the tyre prophecy, or any other in the bible, is not divinely inspired?

and what methodology can we employ to find out such information?

incorrect. first, you are correct in stating that it can't be done. therefore, the request for such a proof is a faulty request. second, the prophecy does not fail because it doesn't satisfy a faulty request.

you mistake the position i have taken. i am saying that what you request is unreasonable, but the prophecy can still be fulfilled, which many people believe that it has been along with all the others in the bible. what reasons do you have to believe this one, or any others, aren't fulfilled?

i mostly agree. i disagree with hume that causality can't be known. it's semantics.

so you are making the case that the prophecy is not likely to be true because what ezekiel predicted was common knowledge. what about the prophecy would have been common knowledge to such an extent that anyone could have made the prophecy?

incorrect. you are questioning that the prophecy was written before the alledged event and that is was divinely inspired. what makes you think that?

merely restating your original assertion about burden has not changed the fact that your critique presupposes your affirmation of a different set of events. so far, i have had to sift through your posturing to get to an appeal to probability and your position that the prophecy was about something that is common knowledge.

that's not what the problem is. the problem is your critique misrepresents what the bible states or assumes a different set of historical events. that is what i mean by accurately representing what the bible records.

i "ducked" nothing. i provided distinct and specific reasons for my position

creating? i didn't create it. it just exists. i am merely pointing out that it has been overlooked. what i find interesting is that you don't refute what i pointed out. you just repeat your assertion that you don't have to support your critique because somehow your claim isn't a claim. doesn't that seem irresponsible to you?

you would say this because you don't want to have to support your position. you want to take potshots and then duck back down in your foxhole. if you believe the tyre prophecy is untrue because it was either edited after the event or was common knowledge, let's hear your support. i hope it's better than your appeal to probability.

there is no negative or positive. there are only claims and support. if you criticize, you implicitly support a different set of circumstances. you doubt what the bible records because it doesn't reflect what you already believe about that time and place. i am sorry you are having trouble understanding this.

my "case" is to dispel inaccurate notions and to uncover the origin of statements made here.

they were? where?