Quote:
Yes, of course "God" is supposed to be behind the overthrow of Tyre (according to Ezekiel). But which PERSON is supposed to carry this out?
"many nations".
Check out chapter 26, verses 7 to 11. Got any idea who "he" is? Hint: it's Nebuchadnezzar.
he is referred to as "king" not "many nations" as i have already pointed out using the original language. instead of responding to that, you jackism.
once again, where does the text say that nebuchadnezzar will be the ultimate downfall of tyre?
|
The evasion continues!
I am trying to draw your attention to the failed prophecy in Ezekiel 26, verses 7 to 11 (I have even quoted them for you). You keep trying to switch the discussion to earlier or later verses.
Quote:
Much of the population ESCAPED to Sidon. Later, they came back, repaired the damage, and Tyre thrived again.
...they escaped how? as slaves! alexander imported people to begin the rebuilding process. some of the slaves returning later does not the nation of tyre make. nor does it restore the 2000 compatriots crucified on the beach or the ~8000 killed in battle.
|
No, many escaped to Sidon by boat, as free people.
Quote:
Not that this matters, of course. The prophecy regarding NEBUCHADNEZZAR failed.
i sincerely hope that continually repeating this phrase makes you feel better. ever seen the movie "rain man"? i wonder if you have a macro programmed for that phrase. if you show me the macro, i could alter it to say he did and then we could macro each other to death.
|
ANOTHER evasion of Ezekiel 26:7-11.
Ignoring this failed prophecy won't make it go away.
Quote:
Punishment of person A for his crime. Here are two things I would NOT recommend:
1. Punishing the CHILDREN of person A for person A's crime.
2. Punishing person A, but declaring that the punishment is for the crimes of A's PARENTS.
alright. what kind of punishment would you recommend? keep in mind we need a punishment that affects ONLY the perpetrator and IN NO WAY affects anyone else.
|
It wouold be easy for God to do this. Some sort of non-contagious leprosy, or crippling arthritis, perhaps. Remember, God (being omnipotent) could easily compensate the descendants for any adverse side-effects of having an afflicted ancestor, such as reducing nutritional needs for dependents to compensate for the reduced efficiency of the family's main "breadwinner". And then there's the afterlife, of course: plenty of opportunity for punishment there that would have no effect on still-living descendants.
Quote:
You're still dodging, I see. According to the BIBLE itself, the punishment was NOT for THEIR actions.
verses please! please provide the ACTUAL TEXT where you get this conclusion from. forget about the original language. i'll supply that. you just provide the quotes.
|
Already given, way back on page 1, and repeatedly explained since.
Quote:
How is this not a response? How can you pretend otherwise?
how long will you avoid the challenge? how long will you jackism? crack open that hated book the bible and quote where i'm wrong.
And how long will you maintain this sophistry?
as long as you maintain jackisms.
|
How long will you continue these false accusations?
Quote:
1. God killed 70,000 people. This was some sort of accident? He didn't mean to do it? Don't be ridiculous.
WHOA! you were asked to provide where the text uses the word desire. this above response fails to do so.
|
When have I ever claimed that the word "desire" appears in the text? You ARE aware that the Bible wasn't originally written in English, right?
When God does something, it's reasonable to assume that he "desired" to do so. Heck, you've even tried to claim that ANYTHING that happens must be because God wanted it to, even when the Bible doesn't say that God did it! Later, you say "we have morality. where did it come from? ultimately, God. this implies He wanted us to have it".
Where did this slaughter come from? DIRECTLY, God. This implies he wanted to do it.
Quote:
2. Deut 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin". Where have I ever claimed that this is "an example of God punishing someone for someone else's crime"? This is one of the "NO verses". You have become hopelessly confused.
you had this on your no list of God punishing someone for someone else's crimes. i pointed out that this passage is enumerating human law. your response fails to meet the challenge.
|
Why not simply admit that you goofed? It's obvious, and you're only human. What "challenge"? You actually challenged me to explain how this was "an example of God punishing someone for someone else's crime". My response: "It isn't".
What it IS is a very rare example of a Biblical declaration that the punishment of people for the crimes of their ancestors/descendants is morally wrong. Sure, that verse is directed at humans: so, is it your defense that it's perfectly OK for GOD to punish people for the crimes of others? Shall we call this "the bfniii principle"? If so, why are you trying to argue elsewhere that God was NOT doing this? And where does that leave people like Moses: not divine, but generally assumed to be doing God's will? Does the "bfniii principle" mean that it's OK for THEM to punish people for the crimes of others?
Quote:
3. Again, this is one of the "NO verses". By arguing AGAINST this, and trying to restrict it to the future, you're SUPPORTING the claim that God has punished people for the actions of others. Your confusion deepens.
sigh. instead of addressing your oversight, your response fails to meet the challenge. it is prophectic. that is why i referred you to verse 31. it is eschatological (that means "end times"). it doesn't belong on your list.
|
See above. This is another example of that great rarity, a verse which hints that maybe punishing people for the crimes of others would not be a good thing. However, you apparently disagree...
Quote:
4, 5, 6, 7: I have not altered the context.
are you admitting you truncated?
|
Sure, some of those verses aren't complete, but nothing in the complete verses alters the context. They say (paraphrasing slightly) that God is generally merciful, BUT will punish children for the crimes of their parents.
Quote:
Each verse specifically describes the punishment of future generations for the actions of their parents, and nearby verses do not change that fact.
care to elaborate with some quotes from the text?
|
Which quotes would those be? I have provided the relevant verses, and here are the verses which alter the context:
{ }
(i.e. there aren't any).
If you believe otherwise, YOU must provide the verses which YOU think are relevant, and explain exactly HOW they transform the context. Vague references to "God's mercy" won't cut it. I'm not sure what WOULD, exactly: maybe "I say that kids should be punished for what their parents do, but.... haha, not really, I was only kidding". The nonexistence of such verses is YOUR problem, not MINE.
Quote:
9, 10: taken together, these verses describe the giving of the firstborn and the sacrifice of persons given. You don't like the implications, which is why you don't want to consider both verses together.
please explain what you mean by "taken together".
show where in the text of exodus 22:29 that you see the word or words meaning child sacrifice.
show where in the text of leviticus 27:28, 29 child sacrifice is alluded to.
But Ezekiel confirms that this happened, and I've already pointed out that it isn't just the Bible which says that the Caananites had a habit of sacrificing their firstborn, and that the fictional nature of the Exodus (and the Caananite origins of Judaism) were given as examples of historical scholarship that fundamentalists reject.
first, not all jews participated in that ritual which eludicidates a dichotomy of religious code. second, you won't respond when i ask you to show specifically in the verses you provide that child sacrifice is intmated, much less endorsed.
|
I have already done this. Why must I do it again?
Why are you pretending that I'm claiming the phrase "child sacrifice" specifically appears in Exodus 22:29? Why are you pretending that I'm claiming that Leviticus 27:28-29 specifies that the sacrificial victims are children?
They are children because Exodus 22:29 says so (well, they're "firsborn", but they'd be babies if handed over after birth). They are sacrificed because Leviticus 27:28-29 says so, and because that's what happened in those days.
You haven't come up with any other explanation. Presumably you can't?
Quote:
11. Please explain how MERE MORTALS can perform miracles. You have yet to do so.
explanations for the plagues have been well documented. all except the last one of course, which pharaoh's priests weren't able to duplicate.
|
So that's a "no", then. You cannot actually PROVIDE an explanation.
Quote:
12. I have not made contradictory statements on this, and I have pointed this out: your accusation is false.
quote #1 - the Bible says that we DO have the ability to "know good and evil"
quote #2 - Hardly surprising that he didn't want us to have that ability (morality)!
we have morality. where did it come from? ultimately, God. this implies He wanted us to have it. your second statement says God didn't want us to have the ability. these two statements are contradictory. explain
|
You have an erroneous hidden premise in there: that everything in Genesis happens because God wants it to. This is nowhere in the text: hence, no contradiction exists.
Quote:
God didn't GIVE this ability to us, we STOLE it!
HA HA HA. we stole from God. boy that's a good one. how did we accomplish that? did we distract Him with a female blow up doll? or "hey God, look over there". or the jedi mind trick "you want us to have that fruit". i know, it was a covert night operation while God was sleeping.
all fun aside, where in the text do you see the word "stole" or anything like it?
|
Yes, the Bible contains MANY silly stories. That's why
sensible people (including most Christians) don't believe them.
But I still find your ignorance of the Bible truly astonishing. You've been asked to read Genesis several times now: were you
unaware of the story of the "forbidden fruit"?
Quote:
Genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
|
God plainly did not approve, as the rest of Genesis 3 makes clear. He specifically commanded A&E not to eat, they ate, and he punished them.
Quote:
Caanan was cursed because of what his father, Ham, did:
OMG, you used a quote after being asked to! you actually responded to a challenge. maybe we're getting somewhere.
follow me. there is a significant amount of time in between verses 20 and 21. could even be years. where in that time gap do you see the bible proclaim canaan to be upright and blameless?
next, in verses 25-27, where do you see "because of what your father did"? it's not there. i realize the bible implies that canaan was cursed because of what his father did. but you are assuming he wasn't cursed for anything else. if you are going to assume that, you bear the burden of proof by quoting the text your assumption comes from.
|
Context, context, CONTEXT!
How often have WE had to put up with bogus assertions from apologists that we're "not setting verses in the proper context"?
Noah wakes up, finds out what HAM did, and IMMEDIATELY utters a curse against Ham's son. He doesn't actually take ANY other action against Ham at this point. Does he just wake up and decide that he ought to get around to cursing Caanan for past misdemeanors? No, he acts because he "knew what his younger son had done unto him".
...Besides, Noah is one of those "holy" men, like Moses. Does the "bfniii principle" apply here? He can curse innocent people because he's a man of God?
On the punishment of the Amalekites:
Quote:
Because of the actions of their ancestors, 400 years previously:
using the text, not your interpretation.
|
CONTEXT. Here it is:
Quote:
1 Samuel 15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
|
That's the message from God: "Amalekites attacked hundreds of years ago, now go and wipe out their descendants, and all their livestock too!"
Remember: the "bfniii principle" says this is OK, because God instigates it. Right?
Quote:
You apparently didn't realize that you ARE in the minority.
sigh. again, so what? is the minority wrong because there are less of them?
|
Hey, YOU'RE the one who tried to claim that those who disagreed with you were "a fringe".
In this case, however: the reason the minority BECAME a minority was because the majority realized they were wrong.
Quote:
I am giving you the standard Jewish interpretation:
why do you believe they are right? how about quoting some text? have you ever noticed that you criticize the bible but avoid quoting it when you meet resistance?
|
Have you ever noticed that every single one of my points is backed up by Biblical quotes? Including those in the article itself? What is this bizarre reading-comprehension problem which renders you incapable of reading Biblical quotes unless they're copied to this thread (whereupon you continue to ignore them anyhow)?
As if these posts aren't long enough already...
Quote:
But MOST Jews never converted to Christianity, because Jesus failed to fulfil the Messianic prophecies. Ask THEM why.
so what? numbers are irrelevant as i have pointed out. jews were converted because they believed He did. i'm asking YOU to quote some text as to why you think Jesus failed to fulfill prophecy.
|
I am not a Jew. When SOME Jews decide to follow Jesus anyhow, and others do not: shouldn't you ask THEM why?
In particular: could you explain why the majority of the people we now call "the Jews" are, well, Jewish? What is YOUR explanation for the overwhelming rejection of Jesus by "God's chosen people" who are still awaiting their Messiah?
Quote:
Science, history and archaeology have conclusively proved that Noah's Flood never happened.
is that so? what do you mean by "conclusively"?
|
Yes, that is so, as I pointed out on the E/C spinoff thread. This is too big a subject to tackle here, that's why it has a special forum. But it IS rather curious that you know fairly obscure facts such as the existence of DSS fragment 4qdanc, but are unaware of vast areas of human knowledge such as biology, geology, paleontology, physics, astronomy, history and arachaelology.
Quote:
No, my POINT is that the REASON WE WERE THROWN OUT OF EDEN was to prevent us obtaining yet another power which deities have and humans aren't supposed to have.
and the text that gives you that idea is.......?
|
Genesis 3:22-23, already QUOTED to you. So you can't use the "it's against my religion to actually read the Bible" excuse.
Here it is AGAIN, repeated from post #65 on this thread:
Quote:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
The NIV makes this even clearer: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever".
You choose to believe otherwise because later Christians concocted an entirely different "meaning" for this story.
|
You never responded to that, except to start the "what is a godlike power" evasion.
Are you ready to tackle it now?
Quote:
The first 14 verses of WHAT? Exodus? Leviticus? Deuteronomy? Which chapter?
deut 28.
You're getting hopelessly muddled by mixing your responses to different verses, and even different BOOKS.
whatever. if that excuse makes you feel better, then good. after you feel better, maybe you could provide some quotes from the text.
|
OK, I have now given you TWO chances to recover from your blunder, and you have declined both of them.
Here (again) are the quotes under discussion:
Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.
Leviticus 27:28-29 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.
Now, it's up to YOU to explain how Deuteronomy 28:1-14 is relevant to this discussion. A DIFFERENT BOOK, written by a DIFFERENT AUTHOR at a DIFFERENT TIME (for your information: despite the tradition of including Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, those pesky "Biblical scholars" say it's post-exilic).
Have fun.
Quote:
I have, in many cases, checked the actual claims of the crackpots/scholars: and found them to be baseless. So have others.
how about quoting some of those claims?
|
Plenty have already come up. You're getting YOUR stuff from crackpot/scholars, yes?
Quote:
as the most recent documents date from the 1st century AD.
since the oldest is second century, daniel couldn't have been written anytime after that.
|
Daniel was written between 167 and 164 BC. I was correcting the fundie "logic" which implies that the existence of (some) DSS material from the 2nd century BC means that Daniel must have been written prior to the 2nd century BC. Apparently, some believe that the entire DSS is as old as its oldest piece, which is older than 167 BC.
Quote:
There was also no centuries-long period of "canonization".
oh yeah? how do you know? should i just accept that jackism merely because you type it?
|
Dude, the "canonization process" is an INVENTED APOLOGETIC EXCUSE to create a "problem" for a Maccabean Daniel. It has no basis in fact. You are reversing the burden of proof here.
Quote:
And if the scholars are arguing that Daniel's style resembles other apocalyptic literature of the period: doesn't that suggest to you that there IS other apocalyptic literature from the period?
the first, most obvious response is that apocalyptic fashion in the 2nd century doesn't mean daniel had to necessarily be in that group. that is unverifiable supposition. however, it is still much less preponderant than the other signs that point to earlier composition for daniel as i enumerated earlier.
|
And what "other signs" would you be referring to, other than the archaisms of that style?
Quote:
...Bfniii, maybe you should take a break from Biblical apologetics.
why? are you tired of me asking you to back up your assertions? don't you have the winning argument? the cards are stacked in your favor, but you are still aren't doing too good.
|
You're losing on all fronts, and you still haven't DEMONSTRATED (rather than merely CLAIMED) a single Biblical error on my part. I think I'm doing OK.
Quote:
Let's consider a non-Biblical analogy instead.
ok. i've made a few modifications to make it more accurate.
|
Considering your track-record of utterly missing (or evading) the point, this is highly unlikely. And, sure enough...
Quote:
Mr. Smith has a neighbor, Mr. Jones. One day, Smith guns down Jones' teenage son, Jones Junior.
the judge sentences smith to life in prison, or death (depending on where you live).
jews point out that this sentence is appropriate in accordance with deut 24:16
christians point out that God never promised we would be fair with each other and that He has always been fair with salvation. those who repent suffer only temporarily and go to heaven.
|
Mr. Smith is GOD, who punishes people (such as Jones Junior) for the crimes of their parents (such as Jones Senior). Smith's lawyer is the Christian apologist, trying to find a excuse.
So, what you're saying is: if you were a Jew, you would throw God into prison for his crimes, or execute him if you could, and the Bible endorses that. As a Christian, you'd like to punish God only temporarily and give him a chance to redeem himself.
...Fascinating! You are well on the way to becoming an atheist, congratulations!
Quote:
Let's look again at Till's summary of what NEBUCHADNEZZAR (specifically) was supposed to do:
Now, it's rather obvious that the shift to THEY refers to HIS (Nebuchadnezzar's) horsemen, wagons, chariots etc. More importantly, however, HE (Nebuchadnezzar) FAILED to carry out the actions prophesied for HIM. The siege, described as HIS action, is supposed to succeed:
and what exactly is meant by "succeed". the bible never claims that nebuchadnezzar would be the ultimate downfall of tyre, so there doesn't seem to be a problem
|
Another evasion of the prophecy failure in Ezekiel 26:7-11.
Quote:
HE is supposed to break down the towers, enter the gates, trample the streets, slay the people by the sword, and cause Tyre's "strong pillars" to fall. This did not happen.
might i inquire as to what source that information comes from?
|
Ezekiel 26:7-11.
OK, maybe your deconversion isn't quite imminent yet, you still have some waking-up to do.
08-16-2005, 05:39 PM
