arnoldo

Skeptics make many assmptions to prove the prophecy failed. Note the following:

.
"Many Nations" means Nebby and his armies right? In order for the skeptics to make the prophecy "fail" they spin it so only Nebby could fulfilll the prophecy.

The Skeptics argue that Nebby failed to destroy the walls of Tyre during a 13 years siege on an island fortress. The Skeptic also argue that the "daughters on the mainland" is in no way shape or form the mainland city of Tyre.

“
Skeptic assume that Zekey was ignorant that Tyre was an island fortress and would use horses to attack it.

Skeptics state "They" is referring to Nebby, since Nebby didn't get any riches after laying siege to Tyre for 13 years prophecy fails :rolling:
"They" could not possibly refer to Alexander the Great who did conquer the Isalnd fortress Tyre. Skeptics also fail to provide any evidence that ancient historians understood the Tyre prophecy to be a "failure." This recent view that the Tyre prophecy was a failure seems to be a result of "Higher Criticism" of bible texts.
This latter point clearly makes the Tyre prophecy apocalyptic and keeping with a final judgment of Tyre as stated in Luke:

Sheshonq

Irrelevant since

1. Ezekiel says that Nebuchadnezzar would be the agent of destruction, not Alexander;

2. Not even Alexander destroyed Tyre

Then maybe the Lord should tell Ezekiel, because that's exactly what Ezekiel prophesied would happen to Tyre.

Minimalist

I know one fundie who has literally stated that the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of the "Israelites" ever being in Egypt is proof that they were in fact there. So, yeah....they are capable of some pretty impressive mental masturbation.

Sheshonq

Not spinning anything. The prophecy identifies Nebuchadnezzar and the armies of Babylon.

No, that isn't the skeptics' argument - that's what history tells us happened. We're merely repeating the history.

Wrong. Skeptics will tell you that the 'daughters on the mainland' were the mainland colonies. At the time of Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre was an island city with only suburbs on the mainland. And destroying the suburbs obviously isn't sufficient to fulfill a prophecy about destroying the *city* of Tyre.

No, that is what sugarhitman thinks. I've been trying for weeks to get him to explain why he believes that Nebuchadnezzar would be stupid enough to launch an attack against an island nation and forget to bring the necessary equipment to execute the invasion.

You don't pay very close attention, do you?

No, the text indicates that "they" refers to the elements of the Babylonian army - horses, chariots, etc.

Does Ezekiel mention Alexander? No.
Who does Ezekiel say will conquer Tyre? Nebuchadnezzar and the armies of Babylon.

Fundies failed to provide any evidence that ancient historians knew about Ezekiel or cared enough to waste time disputing it.

arnoldo

You forget that prophecy is meant to cause repentance.

Minimalist

How are dead people supposed to "repent?"

Sheshonq

No, it isn't.

1. The passage you cite is not from Ezekiel's prophecy on Tyre. You don't get to splice together verses and sections just to suit your argument.

2. Second, we see again that you don't read the sources you quote. Your text passage specifically says

"O house of Israel?"

Not Tyre.

Aren't you getting tired of being embarrassed yet, arnoldo?

Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter. No rational God would make 100% disputable prophecies. The Bible and all other religious books contain 100% disputable prophecies. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, that would an indisputable prophecy. If that happened, surely some skeptics would become Christians who were not previously convinced. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of follower based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, surely more Jews would have accepted Jesus.

In your opinion, if God telephathically communicated the same messages to everyone in the world, would that eliminate a lot of doubt and confusion?

If you would rather discuss these issues in another thread, just let me know and I will direct you to other threads at this forum and at the GRD Forum where discussions regarding these issues have taken place, threads which, by the way, you conveniently vacated when you got into trouble.

By the way, you and sugarhitman are the most evasive fundies that I have ever come across. Evasiveness is good evidence of weakness. The undecided crowd are not impressed by evasiveness. You are sugarhitman frequently insist on choosing which issues get discussed. That is not fair.

I am a dedicated skeptic, and I am very patient. When I know that I have good arguments, I never give up. I exchanged over 220 posts with rhutchin over many months. He is a Calvinist. He eventually gave up, left the IIDB for months, came back again, and gave up against after a few months. The only way that you will outlast me is to outlive me, and my life expectacy is about 15more years. If you refuse to reply to my posts, I will still reply to your posts. I do not mind winning debates by default.

Sheshonq

Johnny, is it absolutely necessary that you post the same thing in all open threads and derail them off the topic at hand?

This is a thread about Tyre. Talk about Tyre in this thread.
The other thread is about Daniel and Babylon. Talk about Daniel and Babylon in that thread.

Start a new thread for general prophetic claims and messianic fulfillment.

Amaleq13

None of your examples are assumptions but conclusions based on the relevant passages. :huh:

There is no "spin" involved as far as I can see. They appear to be following what the text says.

They don't "argue" this so much as they accept it as what happened.

Again, that is not an argument but an acceptance of what the text states. The term "daughters" certainly indicates something other than the main city (ie some sort of suburb).

You are attributing this assumption to others but I've seen no evidence anyone is actually making it. It seems clear that he underestimated his target.

You haven't established this to be relevant, let alone necessary for their argument.

Not really. All it really requires is the application of common sense. Tyre was supposed to be utterly wiped out and never rebuilt yet it still exists to this very day.

The rather obvious flaws in claiming the prophecy was referring to events that have still yet to occur have already been pointed out to you several times but you have offered nothing to rebut them.

At the very least, this suggests you recognize that the prophecy has not been fulfilled but the idea that it was always supposed to refer to events thousands of years in the future is simply pathetic.