Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 01-02-2008, 06:21 AM

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

Did God tell a lie? At the very least, God was unnecessarily deceptive. A loving, perfect God would never be deceptive. No intelligent case can be made that the average person ought to be able to understand those Scriptures.

rhutchin · 01-02-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

Did God tell a lie? At the very least, God was unnecessarily deceptive. A loving, perfect God would never be deceptive. No intelligent case can be made that the average person ought to be able to understand those Scriptures.

The OT prophecies are full of symbolism and difficult to understand. As a general rule, God is concerned with the spiritual issues so that spiritual desolation is in view rather than physical desolation. Till, of course, has little interest in the spiritual welfare of people and would naturally read the passage for its physical elements. I don't really do much with the OT prophecies.

mens_sana · 01-02-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Did God tell a lie? At the very least, God was unnecessarily deceptive. A loving, perfect God would never be deceptive. No intelligent case can be made that the average person ought to be able to understand those Scriptures.

God did not tell a lie. God was not deceptive. And an average person can understand these passages.

The passage says specifically that Nebby will haul plunder out of Egypt, Nebby in his own lifetime, and apparently fairly soon after the Tyre debacle. Nebby didn't get into Egypt. No one knows quite what happened, but Nebby headed for Egypt, then turned back. It has been speculated that Nebby met an Egyptian army somewhere around Gaza and that the battle was a draw — no victory for anyone and no crowing about it afterward.

So this is nothing more than a failed prophecy, from the same source that told the world that Nebby (himself) would scrape the island city of Tyre down to barren rock.

Why would you suggest that God (if he exists) is a deceptive liar? Ezekiel is the one with the loud mouth.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-03-2008, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The OT prophecies are full of symbolism and difficult to understand.

On the contray: this one, like the Tyre prophecy that preceded it, failed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

As a general rule, God is concerned with the spiritual issues so that spiritual desolation is in view rather than physical desolation.

As a general rule, this is hogwash. There's a lot of symbolism in some books of the Bible (such as Revelation, and the dream-sequences in Daniel), but Ezekiel is pretty straightforward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Till, of course, has little interest in the spiritual welfare of people and would naturally read the passage for its physical elements. I don't really do much with the OT prophecies.

Egypt was never "plundered" or "depopulated" or "desolated" by Nebuchadrezzar in ANY sense: military, financial, whatever.

There is no sense in which the prophecy came to pass.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-03-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Did God tell a lie? At the very least, God was unnecessarily deceptive. A loving, perfect God would never be deceptive. No intelligent case can be made that the average person ought to be able to understand those Scriptures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens sana

God did not tell a lie. God was not deceptive. And an average person can understand these passages.

The passage says specifically that Nebby will haul plunder out of Egypt, Nebby in his own lifetime, and apparently fairly soon after the Tyre debacle. Nebby didn't get into Egypt. No one knows quite what happened, but Nebby headed for Egypt, then turned back. It has been speculated that Nebby met an Egyptian army somewhere around Gaza and that the battle was a draw — no victory for anyone and no crowing about it afterward.

So this is nothing more than a failed prophecy, from the same source that told the world that Nebby (himself) would scrape the island city of Tyre down to barren rock.

Why would you suggest that God (if he exists) is a deceptive liar? Ezekiel is the one with the loud mouth.

Well of course. Rhutchin knows that I was only assuming that the God of the Bible exists for that sake of argument. I assume that almost everyone except for you knows that. I stated what I said the way that I stated it because rhutchin is a Christian.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-03-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Till, of course, has little interest in the spiritual welfare of people and would naturally read the passage for its physical elements. I don't really do much with the OT prophecies.

That is ridiculous. The passage contains physical elements that did not happen. That no doubt harmed the spiritual welfare of some Bible believers. The same goes for Nebuchadnezzar's failure to defeat Tyre after Ezekiel called him a "kings of kings," reference Ezekiel chapter 26. I suspect that the "many nations" part of Ezekiel 26 was added after it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre. It is doubtful that Ezekiel would claim that a "king of kings" would get into the city of Tyre, tear down lots of its towers, and kill lots of people, and then fail to capture the city. Several generations of people who knew about the Tyre prophecy died without seeing if fulfilled. If anything, that would have caused doubt, certainly not confidence. You obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

mens_sana · 01-03-2008, 03:45 PM

Ezekiel's blunder, first telling Nebby that he would raze Tyre, then when Nebby failed, compensating him with the spoliation of Egypt, which also never happened gets compounded by Jeremiah.

In Jeremiah 43.8ff., the "word of the Lord" comes to Jeremiah, who is instructed to bury some large stones in the clay pavement at the entrance of Pharaoh's palace at Tahpanhes — and to do so in front of Judaean witnesses! Why? Because the "Lord of hosts, the God of Israel" is sending Nebuchadnezzar to despoil Egypt. (Sound familiar?) "And he (Nebby) will set his throne above these stones that I have buried." Unfortunately for these prophets' reputation, it never happened. (One has to wonder what happened to the witnesses, perhaps some protection program. At any rate, I thought the details were very nice.)

Now, in this instance, what do Ezekiel and Jeremiah add up to? How about — Pat Robertson!

rhutchin · 01-03-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Till, of course, has little interest in the spiritual welfare of people and would naturally read the passage for its physical elements. I don't really do much with the OT prophecies.

...You obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

That makes two of us.

Minimalist · 01-03-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted,

Now, wait just one minute, Johnny. Didn't some of our resident Christees jump up and down and hold their breath swearing that Nebby DID take Tyre?

Why does their 'god' need a Plan "B?"

mens_sana · 01-03-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted,

Now, wait just one minute, Johnny. Didn't some of our resident Christees jump up and down and hold their breath swearing that Nebby DID take Tyre?

Why does their 'god' need a Plan "B?"

Rationalization often wins the argument for the True Believer. Nebby did take the "sister cities" on the mainland. Effectively these were "suburbs" of the island city. Nebby did not take the island city, which had been his aim. That's why the later passage in Ezekiel gives Nebby Egypt in recompense. That second passage is a really damning one and is usually completely ignored by those stretching the first passage to cover Alexander the Great.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2008, 03:45 PM	#7
mens_sana Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: 1/2 mile west of the Rio sin Grande Posts: 397	Ezekiel's blunder, first telling Nebby that he would raze Tyre, then when Nebby failed, compensating him with the spoliation of Egypt, which also never happened gets compounded by Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 43.8ff., the "word of the Lord" comes to Jeremiah, who is instructed to bury some large stones in the clay pavement at the entrance of Pharaoh's palace at Tahpanhes — and to do so in front of Judaean witnesses! Why? Because the "Lord of hosts, the God of Israel" is sending Nebuchadnezzar to despoil Egypt. (Sound familiar?) "And he (Nebby) will set his throne above these stones that I have buried." Unfortunately for these prophets' reputation, it never happened. (One has to wonder what happened to the witnesses, perhaps some protection program. At any rate, I thought the details were very nice.) Now, in this instance, what do Ezekiel and Jeremiah add up to? How about — Pat Robertson!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.