bfniii

1. i disagree. i don't recall you ever refuting one single point i have made. if you disagree, you can cite whatever "refutation" you like.
2. you again cite a post at the beginning of a thread that went several hundred posts. it's safe to say i responded to the points you made in that early post. why didn't you post my responses?



mangling? i provided justification from the text itself.



the original exchange was this:

jack: One of many examples is the one I raised again in my last post: your claim that the physical destruction "breaks at the end of verse 12", which ignores the physical destruction in verse 14 and beyond. And, hilariously, your new insistence that "ALL" actually means "NONE" (of Tyre's streets).

bfniii: my response doesn't ignore anything. here, take a look again:
1. i have stated prior that ezekiel/God was metaphorically referring to the nation of tyre. the physical destruction breaks at the end of verse 12. notice the change from "they will" to "I will". notice the change in subject from physical structures to intangible cultural indications.
to which you responded:

jack: Notice that you have entirely missed the point. You have ignored the switch BACK AGAIN to physical destruction in the VERY NEXT VERSE and beyond.

now tell me where you see verse 13 in all of that. your statement "very next verse" is vague and is the reason i asked a question instead of making some inflammatory statement like you do. your post is offensive and insulting. why don't you try to be more clear next time instead of insulting people.



not exactly



i made a case from the text, you didn't. you are unecessarily elongating the thread with these statements.



i have never disagreed that ezekiel does mention physical destruction as you seem to be implying here.



i agree. it's part of the overall picture



sigh. again: ezekiel considers the streets of the mainland to be part of tyre. this is evident when he says "your daughter villages" in reference to tyre. nebuchadnezzar did exactly what ezekiel said he would do.



according to your flawed understanding of the text. i have told you repeatedly that your are welcome to your opinion, but you have yet to show that in verses 8 - 11, ezekiel is talking about anything other than the mainland. this is a common tactic. you pick something from the text that doesn't exist and then proclaim it exists.



no, i am not, strawman builder.



i'll say the same thing to you that i said to johnny, produce a source that says that nebuchadnezzar did not level the mainland.



and what from the text tells you that? this is the question i have been asking you repeatedly.



i would be glad if i could get anything out of you other than "because i say so"



this misconception is nothing new from you. ezekiel says "your daughter villages". clearly, he considers them to be as much tyre as the island.



did that not happen?



ezekiel said no such thing



did you happen to notice "they" as opposed to "he" or "his"? we've seen "they" before in verse 4. guess who that referred to? besides, how do we know that nebuchadnezzar didn't do this in some form or fashion?



it's no shift. he mentions the daughter villages in verse 8. in order for you to be correct, you would have to show a shift from the mainland to all of tyre or the island in verses 8, 9, 10 or 11.



again: ezekiel thinks of the mainland as tyre as well as the island. he's not excluding anything. he refers to each part (the mainland, the island, the nation) at different points.



i am not the one who has to show a change in subject in verses 8, 9, 10 or 11. he starts with an idea and continues with that idea until there is an obvious change. if you want a change away from daughter villages in verse 9 or so, then you must show that from the text. if you think he is referring to all of tyre, show it in the text.



i disagree



you are trying to distract people from the fact that you present one miniscule piece of evidence from QCR for a position that you support and i challenged the authenticity, accuracy and authority of it. i'm not saying that QCR is mistaken because i made a point regardless of the information in his account. i asked you to validate his statements. you have been avoiding that for several posts now.



incorrect. who are "they"?



that's what people would call an example of prophecy. hence, one reason ezekiel was called a prophet.



how can you not see that you are providing information that supports my case? this fact dovetails into the prophecy perfectly. this is part of the dismantling of tyre. alexander came along and completed the job.



no, it did not. i have addressed this point. this is typical of your tactics. why don't you try addressing my response to this point instead of just repeating refuted claims?



i disagree.



i will cite them myself because i know that i addressed this issue.

flat earth

readers, please refer to post 392 of this thread. about 2/3rds of the way down that post, i begin addressing the flat-earth issue. several posts followed after that. please note that jack used the bastion of scholaticism and equity, the skeptics annotated bible, as a reference.

btw, it seems that you are still operating with the same misconceptions you had before. we can revisit this topic whenever you like. however, it would probably be more beneficial if you would just go back and study the responses i have already posted.



typical. you cite a pro-evolution website as support for evolution. if i ever tried something like that, you would go ballistic. why is that not hypcritical?



i can't believe the moderators are allowing you to get away with this but as long as they do, i'll respond.
1. i have already been in that forum.
2. certainly, you are aware that there are biologists and other scientists who oppose darwinian evolution. i am not saying that evolution is true or false. i am saying that the scientific community is not of one mind on the issue, at least not yet. it may happen in the future, but you are grossly misrepresenting the issue by stating it is a fact.



the question is, what does your statement stand in. it stinks.



i will restate, genesis has not been "disproven" in any way, shape or form. it makes references to the supernatural. therefore, it is doubtful it will ever be disproven on that account. science does not pretend to address the supernatural. for the most part, science is constrained by methodological naturalism.

Johnny Skeptic

Which prophecies do you have in mind?

So maybe God is dead, right? Or, maybe he no longer has any interest in helping us with our tangible needs, choosing rather to create hurricances in order to destroy lives and property. 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?" I know, Adam and Eve ate some fruit that God told them not to eat, so it is ok for God to hurt and kill people and destroy their property, but of course, only if he provides you with a comfortable eternal life.

bfniii

yes i have



skeptic-speak for "you rebutted my example".

am i moving the goalposts merely because you accuse me of it or can you actually show how i am moving the goalposts? why would you be surprised that i am comparing tyre to rome when you are the one who brought rome into the discussion?



anyone who can understand what my post was about.



my point was that while it may be common on the whole, ezekiel did provide some specifics into what tyre's fate would be. i was asking for examples that are analogous to tyre. so far, none have been provided.



if you can't provide an example, just say so.

bfniii

why are you asking us to go through this all over again? i thought we had already agreed this is a ridiculous request.



key words; "common sense" and "reasonably". both subjective which beg the questions what is common sense to you and what type of historical data?



no, that is not my entire argument. i have made multiple responses regarding this point. why don't you respond to them instead of repeating the question over and over?



read my posts. just once try to accurately recreate my position.



then why are you making statements like it is reasonable to assume the text was altered and the prophecy can't be dated? if you are truly neutral, then you don't have an opinion one way or the other. your OP is clearly not neutral.



read my exchange with noah.



over the course of several hundred posts in multiple threads on this issue, i have outlined almost every single verse in chapter 26. i feel certain that you are aware of my position on the nets and bare rock.



based on what?



this is ontological and we agreed to discuss this in the philosophy forum.

bfniii

you admit verse 8 refers specifically and pointedly to the mainland. now explain why you feel ezekiel changes the subject back to all of tyre in the next verse.



what you haven't shown is that nebuchadnezzar is prophecied to take all of tyre. i have been asking for textual support for this claim for hundreds and hundreds of posts. you haven't once provided anything of the sort.

bfniii

obviously, i feel like i have done that. if you disagree, state your issue.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: I stand by my previous posts in this thread and in other threads. You have not stated any credible evidence regarding dating other than "the Bible say so," not any at all. In addition, you have not stated any credible evidence that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version, not any at all. Yes, I do not believe that the version that we have today is the same as the original version, but some people are undecided, and they want you to provide some evidence that supports your position. Got any?

bfniii

that it happened. that it happened to them. that it happened to them starting at that time. that the specifics in the chapter were fulfilled.



i don't recall getting into "trouble" even one time.



what is dishonest and rude is for you to repeat answered questions ad nauseum. it is dishonest for you to claim to be neutral, but then post obviously anti-christian statements. it is rude for you to agree that a philosophical subject should be discussed in the philosophy forum, and then keep bringing it up in a non-philosophy forum and then mischaracterize me for not responding.



just above you admitted that i discuss issues at length. that would seem to indicate that i am not evasive.



i have stated that personal experience is not debatable. if you disagree, debate that. it is insulting for you to characterize me as afraid when i have repeatedly responded to that issue.



not germane to a biblical criticism thread.



and what "evidence" would that be?



we have already discussed this issue at length and contrary to your statement, i did participate.

Amaleq13

Please avoid personal comments and accusations of dishonesty. Focus on the facts and let the readers reach their own subjective conclusions about individual posters.


Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Johnny Skeptic

That is, if the prophecy was written before the events, but there is not any credible evidence that such was the case, nor that the prophecy has not been altered.

Why isn’t it debatable? It sure was debatable for the New Testament authors. They were willing to defend their personal experiences, but I guess that you are not as confident as they were.

Fine, so will you debate the issue elsewhere? I doubt it. Prophecy has to do with power, but it does not have anything to do with character, so even if I agree with you for the sake of argument that God can predict the future, you still have not provided sufficient evidence that God has good character. I challenge you to a debate on the nature of God at any forum of your choosing.

For the benefit of new readers, and for my benefit as well, please briefly restate your argument. There are in fact no tangible events that take place in the world today that can reasonably be proven to be answers to the prayers of Christians. If you have evidence to the contrary, please state it. There is also in fact no credible evidence that Jesus ever healed anyone. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then?

The simple truth is that Christians do not have any idea what tangible blessings they will get from God if they ask him, but a Christian with a lost limb can rest assured that he will not get a new limb. In other words, if the God of the Bible exists, he has gone out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist. Tangible good things are frequently distributed to those who don’t need them, and frequently not distributed to those who do need them, which is exactly what rational minded people expect if God does not exist. If God does exist, he is bi-polar. For example, 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?”

Do you believe that if Jesus made a personal appearance that a lot more people would become Christians? Would you be pleased if Jesus made a personal appearance?