Chris Weimer

*Sigh* - there's a reason why I avoided this thread like the plague. I hope I didn't catch anything from posting here. Perhaps I shouldn't even bother to see what some have to say about it...

Johnny Skeptic

As I have shown in this thread on a number of occasions, there is not any need to skeptics to debate the details of the prophecy with Christians because of the unresolved issues of dating and whether or not the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the version. In addition, as I have said before, even if the prophecy was written before the events, historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been to rule, not the exception. It was not surprising at all that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre, and it is plausible that Ezekiel learned about the invasion by ordinary means.

bfniii

because you referenced it



the hebrews may have believed that, but there aren't any verses in the bible that i know of that make such a claim.



to you.



read my responses to the SAB.



to anyone who can tell that the word flat, or anything like it, never occurs. perhaps you aren't part of that group.



the intent of the bible is not to cover every possible topic in science. that should be obvious since the title of the book isn't "holy science book".



i think you are missing the point of the verse. it's not intended to be a scientific statement about hebrew astronomy. it's a verse about God's omnipresence.



weak. the "setting" has nothing to do with the fact that the bible is merely representing whatever he said or dreamt, not what it itself espouses. it was pretty evident when it began with the qualifier "in a dream".



why are you adding terms to the omnipresence? the statement stands on it's own. if He is omnipresent, then certainly He is capable of being seen by everyone, everywhere simultaneously.




show an example.



if by "claim" you mean "show" or "point out", then you are correct.



are you out of responses? i've been addressing specific points, one at a time. is this a call for help to your peers?

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Even if there were no such verses, it would still be a reasonable assumption that the Hebrew authors of the Bible would have set it in the context of their own worldview: and, if they were "inspired by God", then God could have corrected their erroneous worldview, but failed to do so. It's another example of the lack of evidence of "supernatural knowledge" or "divine inspiration" in the Bible (which was my original point).

However, I note that you have not yet addressed any of the verses which refer to the sky-dome, the Firmament. These verses were referenced by the SAB page I provided, and were the focus of the ErrancyWiki article:
...And remember that all these "dreams" and "visions" were supposedly sent by God. So God is spreading misinformation.

My point stands: whenever there was an opportunity to give correct information about the shape of the world, the Bible ALWAYS gets it wrong.
To EVERYONE (and, yes, that includes you). You have not found a single verse of the Bible that would NOT make sense in the context of the Hebrew flat-Earth, solid-sky cosmology.
Your interpretation of Isaiah 40:22...
...Where you ignore the context of the Hebrew flat-Earth, solid-sky cosmology. And the second half of that verse, which describes the sky as a "tent".
Yes, that's the standard apologetic excuse. It's an interesting example of compartmentalization: stuff that the Bible is wrong about is put into a box called "science" and shelved, because the Bible "doesn't address that".

The title of the book isn't "holy book of factually-correct statements" either. If it was "inerrant", it would be accurate.
Only in the sense that it describes a God who was NOT thought to be omnipresent. This God lives in Heaven, above the sky-dome. Occasionally, he "comes down" from there.
You have never actually "shown" or "pointed out" a single instance where I have misrepresented the Bible. Nor have you ever demonstrated that any of YOUR idiosyncratic "interpretations" was what the author intended.

In each case, mine has been the most straightforward interpretation (especially in the overall context of what the Hebrews believed at the time), whereas yours requires that the author was expressing himself in a very odd (and even misleading) fashion.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: You said that the Tyre prophecy can stand upon its own merit without associating it with any other fulfilled prophecies. We are still waiting for you to post some examples that can stand upon their own merit.

Following are some hypothetical examples of your utterly absurd debate tactics:

Bfniii: Why do you believe that the prophecy is false?

Johnny: My current position is not that the prophecy is false. I am neutral. Why do you believe that the prophecy is true?

Bfniii: Because I do not know of any good reasons not to believe that the prophecy is true. In addition, I cited a Wikipedia article the verified the dating of the prophecy.

Johnny: Do you make it a habit of believing anything that you do not find any good reasons not to believe? Can you imagine what would happen if an undecided person asked to why you believe that the prophecy is true and you told them because you don't know any good reasons not to believe that it is true? They would laugh at you.

The Wikipedia article dated when Ezekiel lived, not when he wrote the prophecy.

Bfniii: Oh, er, uh.

Johnny: Do you have any evidence that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version?

Bfniii: Do you have any evidence that the version of the prophecy that we have today is different than the ancient manuscript copies?

Johnny: I didn't ask you about the ancient manucript copies. I asked you about the original version.

Bfniii: Oh, er, uh.

Johnny: That's an answer? Well, yes it is an answer, a ridiculous bfniii answer.

mens_sana

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."

St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

Doug Shaver

The title of the book isn't "Holy Prophecy Book," either.

Since the book's title was not chosen by anybody who had anything to do with its composition, I don't think we can infer anything from it about any authorial intent.

Since you raise the issue of intent, though. . . .

In your opinion, when God inspired the authors, was it his intent that everything they wrote would be believed by everyone who read it?

bfniii

the problem with this analysis is that you aren't incorporating the alleged fulfillment. the prophecy isn't designed to stand by itself. the fact that there are indications that many nations did indeed attack tyre indicates one of the elements of specificity.



not necessarily.



it's just a part of the prophecy, another element of specificity. it didn't have to happen, but apparently did.



but that doesn't guarantee that it will happen. again, when analyzing a prophecy of multiple parts, likelihood is an irrelevancy.



not necessarily. again, this part of the prophecy coupled with the rest of the parts is where the prophecy gains strength.



1. you haven't provided any sources that contradict it.
2. the sources we have batted around indicate an agreement with the prophecy as i pointed out earlier.



i think you are misunderstanding the purpose of this part. note the use of the word "like". it indicates a metaphor that ezekiel is using to refer to the city-state of tyre. this is a common technique in biblical prophecy, using the particular to refer to the general.



but by that time, the city-state of tyre had long lost it's independent sovereignty.



if you misinterpret the prophecy, i agree.



but ezekiel doesn't merely say that tyre will eventually go away. he does give specifics along with the generality.

bfniii

it could be a million times and it wouldn't matter regarding the genesis account. they don't have to be the same. clearly the creation account is much different than the chronicling of routine days.



not sure how that is relevant.



whether or not there is a new covenent in judaism is irrelevant to the existence of one in christianity regarding this point because:
1. pat robertson is a christian, not a jew
2. he doesn't fit the definition of prophet. as we discussed, brittanica can confirm this.



that's one function.



i'm here referring to the english translation. there are multiple prophecies that end up in english past tense. therefore, your point is flawed. there is a reason why some of these prophecies ended up in english past tense.



i never said that any translations are incorrect. some may be more parsimonious than others.



no, jack, he does not. here merely mentions that nebuchadnezzar is going to get an earthly reward for being God's instrument in the tyre incident.



just curious, what sources do you base this statement on?



except that he did. i've shown it multiple times now. i'm sorry you disagree. your agreement is not a prequisite for the prophecy being fulfilled.



actually, i am trying to point out that your reasoning is flawed and question begging. whether or not it is sufficient is irrelevant. first, you are assuming nebuchadnezzar failed when in actuality, he did what ezekiel prophesied. second, you are trying to claim that there is only one indication that the prophecy was written prior to the event. i showed how that is excluded middle.



whatever. you didn't show anything. all you did was make an unsupported claim. i addressed scores of mistaken points made by the SAB.



what you didn't show, however, is that the bible actually contradicts science. if you did that, then you might have a point. you referenced the SAB as your source and it was totally discredited. easily, i might add.



um, i have asked you what way one could determine if the bible was actually authoritative. therefore, the point is hinging on your response. see, christians already have plenty enough reason to believe such. since you are already aware of those reasons and reject them, let's see if you can provide a legitimate standard for determining authority or divine inspiration.

bfniii

first, you didn't answer the question. second, you have some colorful ideas about christians. who are these christians you keep referring to that argue with "inerrantists"?



1. that will happen de facto in rebuttal
2. why else would it be included in a book of prophecy? the language is clearly prophetic.



to you and your warped sense of biblical perception


sorry, i'm not following you. claimed otherwise what?