bfniii

you mean why does God allowing suffering? i responded to that in the other thread.

don't you think that an omnipotent God is capable of saving unborn babies?

bfniii

oh? and what would that be?



good for you



funny, i thought the bible was written in hebrew and greek.



according to you. what standard are you using to make such a judgement?

which behaviors specifically would you be referring to?

i noticed that you avoided answering my point that your belief could stem from misunderstanding. instead, you choose to post these biased statements.

Doug Shaver

I thought my response implied a denial of any misunderstanding.

I'll address the remainder of your post when I have a little more time.

Johnny Skeptic

But you haven't stated your ontological argument. Please quote your sources. If you don't quote any sources, I will assume that you do not have confidence in the ontological argument. I don't see how ontology can prove that there is a necessary correlation between morality and the ability to convert energy into matter.

The Bible won't do. If God is evil, he would easily be able to duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible.

In the NIV, Ezekiel 26:14 says “I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.� Outside of Ezekiel 26, Ezekiel uses the word “bare� eight times.

Ezekiel 13:14 I will tear down the wall you have covered with whitewash and will level it to the ground so that its foundation will be laid bare. When it falls, you will be destroyed in it; and you will know that I am the LORD.

Ezekiel 16:7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

Ezekiel 16:22 In all your detestable practices and your prostitution you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, kicking about in your blood.

Ezekiel 16:39 Then I will hand you over to your lovers, and they will tear down your mounds and destroy your lofty shrines. They will strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry and leave you naked and bare.

Ezekiel 23:29 They will deal with you in hatred and take away everything you have worked for. They will leave you naked and bare, and the shame of your prostitution will be exposed. Your lewdness and promiscuity

Ezekiel 24:7 "'For the blood she shed is in her midst: She poured it on the bare rock; she did not pour it on the ground, where the dust would cover it.

Ezekiel 24:8 To stir up wrath and take revenge I put her blood on the bare rock, so that it would not be covered.

Ezekiel 29:18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre.

In all nine cases, there is no evidence that the remains of the mainland settlement were comparable to the word “bare� as described nine times by Ezekiel.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the world “bare� as follows:

1 a : lacking a natural, usual, or appropriate covering b (1): lacking clothing (2): obsolete: BAREHEADED c : UNARMED

2: open to view: EXPOSED

3 a: unfurnished or scantily supplied b: DESTITUTE <bare of ALL [emphasis mine] safeguards>

4 a: having NOTHING [emphasis mine] left over or added <the bare necessities of life> b: MERE <a bare two hours away> c :devoid of amplification or adornment

5 obsolete : WORTHLESS
- bare•ness noun

synonyms BARE, NAKED, NUDE, BALD, BARREN mean deprived of naturally or conventionally appropriate covering. BARE implies the removal of what is additional, superfluous, ornamental, or dispensable <an apartment with bare walls>. NAKED suggests absence of protective or ornamental covering but may imply a state of nature, of destitution, or of defenselessness <poor half-naked children>. NUDE applies especially to the unclothed human figure <a nude model posing for art students>. BALD implies actual or seeming absence of natural covering and may suggest a conspicuous bareness <a bald mountain peak>. BARREN often suggests aridity or impoverishment or sterility <barren plains>.

There is no evidence that the remains of the mainland settlement qualified as being “bare of all safeguards,� or “having nothing� left over or added. At any rate, on various occasions the mainland settlement was partially rebuilt.

In the KJV, Ezekiel 26:3 says “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.�

I find the verse to be quite suspicious. Consider the following:

In the KJV, Ezekiel 26:7-12 say “For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.
With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.�

The verses do not indicate what credible historical records tell us. Consider the following:

Britannica 2003 Deluxe Edition

“…….in 585–573 it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II. Between 538 and 332 it was ruled by the Achaemenian kings of Persia. In this period it lost its hegemony in Phoenicia but continued to flourish.�

Wikipedia, which you have quoted before regarding the prophet Ezekiel, says:

“It was often attacked by Egypt, besieged by Shalmaneser III, who was assisted by the Phoenicians of the mainland, for five years, and by Nebuchadnezzar (586–573 BC) for thirteen years, apparently without success, although a compromise peace was made in which Tyre paid tribute to the Babylonians.�

I don’t see any good reasons to rule out a reasonable possibility that the “many nations� part of the prophecy was added “after� it became apparent that the king who Ezekiel referred to as a “king of kings,� reference Ezekiel 26:7, failed to conquer the mainland settlement.

How utterly absurd. Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception.

It is you who are confused. As I said, “Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception.� In addition, I previously quoted good evidence that Nebuchadnezzar DID NOT accomplish the kind of destruction that is indicated in Ezekiel 26.

Rather, since Ezekiel is the claimant, would you present evidence that Nebuchadnezzar tread down ALL of the streets of the mainland settlement?

Even if he did, he failed to accomplish what Ezekiel 26 indicates that he would accomplish. A “king of kings� would normally not fail in his military ventures. Of course, you need to provide reasonable evidence that the prophecy was written before the events, and that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the version that we have today, and you have previously proven that you cannot do that.

In the NIV, Ezekiel 29:18-20 say "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign Lord.� Will you please tell us how you interpret those verses?

Consider the following:

The Prophecy Farce, by Farrell Till

What about all of the prophecy fulfillments? Biblicists almost always ask this question when their belief in biblical inerrancy is challenged. No doubt those who ask the question sincerely believe that prophecy fulfillment is irrefutable proof that the Bible was divinely inspired, but in reality the question reflects a naive view of the Bible for which no credible evidence exists. The "evidence" most often cited by prophecy-fulfillment proponents will usually fall into two categories: (1) Unverifiable claims by biased biblical writers that certain events fulfilled certain prophecies. (2) "Fulfillments" of prophecies that were probably written after the fact. Anyone can successfully refute prophecy-fulfillment assertions by simply demanding clear evidence when confronted with either category of claims. In other words, if a biblicist cites a New Testament claim that such and such event fulfilled such and such prophecy, simply insist on seeing reliable nonbiblical corroboration that the alleged fulfillment event actually happened. Herod's massacre of the children in Bethlehem would be an example of an uncorroborated event. The massacre allegedly fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy (Matt. 2:18), but no one has ever found an extrabiblical source that corroborates the lone biblical reference to this event. If corroborating evidence of a fulfillment event should exist, then demand evidence that the "prophecy" of this event was undeniably written before the event. In the debate over Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy, which resumes in this issue of TSR (pp. 4-11), the demand for clear, undeniable evidence that this prophecy was made before the fact has proven to be an insurmountable hurdle for Dr. Price, who has yet to produce extrabiblical corroboration of the prophecy.

Another--and even more effective-- counterargument to use against those who claim that prophecy fulfillment proves the inspiration of the Bible requires sufficient knowledge of the Bible to show that many Old Testament prophecies obviously failed. Anyone who is willing to put the time into learning just a few of those failures will have no problems rebutting the prophecy-fulfillment claims of any biblicists he/she may encounter. The prophetic tirades of Isaiah (13-23) and Ezekiel (24-32) against the nations surrounding Israel provide a treasure house of unfulfilled prophecies. Ezekiel, for example, prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Egypt and leave it utterly desolate for a period of 40 years, during which no foot of man or beast would pass through it (chapter 20), but history recorded no such desolation of Egypt during or after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

Ezekiel also prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, which would never again be rebuilt (26:7-14, but Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre failed to take the city, and Tyre still exists today. A curious thing about this prophecy against Tyre is that Isaiah also predicted that Tyre would be destroyed, but, whereas Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would be permanently destroyed and "nevermore have any being," Isaiah prophesied that it would be made desolate only for a period of 70 years. A comparison of these two prophecies is an easy way to show the silliness of claiming that prophecy fulfillment proves the inspiration of the Bible.

As noted in my exchanges with Matthew Hogan on Ezekiel's tirade against Tyre (September/October 1997; November/December 1997), Ezekiel clearly predicted that Tyre would be destroyed, become a bare rock and a place for spreading nets, and would be built no more forever (26:7-14, 21; 27:28; 28:19). As Ezekiel did, Isaiah in his prophecies of destruction against the nations around Israel also predicted the overthrow of Tyre. In 23:1, he said, "The burden of Tyre. Howl, you ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Kittim it is revealed to them." The prophecy continued in typical fashion through the chapter, predicting waste and devastation, but beginning in verse 13, Isaiah indicated that the destruction of Tyre would be only temporary, not permanent:

“Look at the land of the Chaldeans! This is the people; it was not Assyria. They destined Tyre for wild animals. They erected their siege towers, they tore down her palaces, they made her a ruin. Wail, O ships of Tarshish, for your fortress is destroyed. From that day Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, the lifetime of one king. At the end of seventy years, it will happen to Tyre as in the song about the prostitute: Take a harp, go about the city, you forgotten prostitute! Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that you may be remembered. At the end of seventy years, Yahweh will visit Tyre, and she will return to her trade, and will prostitute herself with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth. Her merchandise and her wages will be dedicated to Yahweh; her profits will not be stored or hoarded, but her merchandise will supply abundant food and fine clothing for those who live in the presence of Yahweh.�

So Ezekiel predicted a permanent destruction of Tyre that would last forever, but Isaiah predicted just a temporary destruction that would last only 70 years or the estimated lifetime of one king. The fact is that neither prophecy was ever fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre forever, and it was never made desolate for a period of 70 years. Even when Alexander the Great succeeded in his campaign against Tyre in 332 B. C., the city was soon rebuilt (Wallace B. Fleming, The History of Tyre, Columbia University Press, p. 64) and has existed ever since. Matthew Hogan was objective enough in his consideration of the evidence to admit later that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre had failed ("From the Mailbag," TSR, March/ April 1997, p. 12), but regardless of whether this prophecy failed or succeeded, it was impossible for both Isaiah's and Ezekiel's prophecies against Tyre to succeed. At least one of them had to fail, and so proponents of biblical prophecy fulfillment have a problem that they must explain. If the Bible was really inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, why would he have directed one prophet to predict a temporary destruction of Tyre and then later direct another prophet to predict that Tyre would be destroyed forever and never be rebuilt? A likely answer is that neither prophet was divinely inspired; they both simply blustered in the exaggerated rhetoric typical of biblical prophets and, working independently, contradicted each other.

Johnny: Will you please tell us how Ezekiel got his reputation as a prophet? Which of his prophecies best indicate to you that his reputation as a prophet was well-deserved?

I challenge you to start a new thread about the book of Daniel. I predict that you will refuse to debate it. I also predict that if you are willing to debate it, you will embarrass yourself. Daniel is one of the best examples why no one should trust Bible prophecy.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Just out of curiosity, what tangible "blessings" have you received from God that skeptics don't get?

Jack the Bodiless

Earlier in this thread, bfniii claimed that he was willing to resume the old discussion of Daniel on the Daniel split from Biblical Errors split from "Lack of Evidence..." thread

...However, he wasn't. Despite informing him that I was doing just that, my post on that thread has remained unanswered since January 5th. And this is a familiar pattern.

Doug Shaver

It assumes its conclusion, making it a circular argument.

A majority of those people who insist that I ought to believe everything in it have assured me that I ought to believe what the English translations say. In particular, most of them assure me that the King James translation is close enough to the original as not to make any difference.

genocide, for starters.

Johnny Skeptic

[quote=Johnny Skeptic] What I am most interested in is reliable criteria for determining whether God is good, or whether he is an evil God who is masquerading as a good God. An evil God would easily be able to duplicate anything that the Bible attributes to God. Are you aware of any such criteria?

But you haven't stated your ontological argument. Please quote your sources. If you don't quote any sources, I will assume that you do not have confidence in the ontological argument. I don't see how ontology can prove that there is a necessary correlation between morality and the ability to convert energy into matter.

The Bible won't do. If God is evil, he would easily be able to duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible.

Doug Shaver

I'm not the one offering any interpretation. You are, but you deny that your rewording of the passage is an interpretation. You just keep saying, "That is what it says."

Johnny Skeptic

But you haven't stated your ontological argument. Please quote your sources. If you don't quote any sources, I will assume that you do not have confidence in them. Based upon your reluctance to quote any sources, I suspect that you know very little about ontology. I don't see how ontology can prove that there is a necessary correlation between morality and the ability to convert energy into matter.

The Bible won't do. If God is evil, he would easily be able to duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible.

Just out of curiosity, what tangible benefits has God provided you that skeptics don’t get?

I have noticed that you are quite reluctant to defend the book of Daniel after you had promised to do so. I said:

Jack the Bodiless replied:

Yes, Jack, it is a familiar pattern. Just like Lee Merrill, Bfniii is notorious for debating topics at great length until he gets into trouble and doesn’t want to embarrass himself. Of course, he sometimes avoids getting into lengthy debates that he knows he will lose. A good example is his claim that personal experience is an important part of his belief system. I have asked him on a number of occasions to provide evidence that God has performed tangible miracles for him, but he has always conveniently refused to do so. Bfniii frequently uses a double standard for debating. One of his favorite debate tactics is to ask skeptics lots of questions, but when he gets asked lots of questions, he is quite selective which ones he answers.