Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
...And you base this upon an erroneous understanding of the role of an OT "prophet" (navi). This is what I have been trying to explain to you, most recently in post #466.

We do NOT have any evidence that Ezekiel's contemporaries regarded Tyre as a successful prediction of future events. Indeed, the book's incusion among the "prophets" indicates that Ezekiel was NOT primarily addressing future generations (e.g. Alexander and beyond), but HIS OWN generation (Nebby's time).
As I suspected! Isaiah 53 is NOT a messianic prophecy (or indeed any other sort of prophecy). And as for Isaiah 9: what part? The child "prophecy" is made in Isaiah 7, then the child is born in Isaiah 8. None of this refers to Jesus, this was all stuff that was happening in Isaiah's time (Isaiah, like Ezekiel, was a "navi").
They aren't.
It is abundantly clear that the land and spoils of Egypt are going to be "given" to Nebby, and that Egypt will be uninhabited for 40 years. This did not happen. Therefore it is abundantly clear that Ezekiel is a failed prophet. Do you deny this? Do you wish to claim that Egypt WAS devastated and uninhabited for 40 years?
More of the same. You want to argue that POSSIBLY it was written prior: I point out that there is no EVIDENCE for this (other than its failure). This is, obviously, CORRECT. So, why do you use the word INCORRECT to describe a statement that is clearly and undeniably CORRECT?
On the contrary. You are still trying to artificially create your "populum" with the still-baseless claim that Ezekiel's contemporaries believed it was fulfilled, and with the claim that "Christians" believe it was fulfilled (i.e. falsely implying that Christians in general believe it was fulfilled). Even if you succeeded, it would still be an ad populum fallacy.
Nope, you're STILL evading the issue. Why won't you address it?

There is only ONE set of walls that MATTERED. If there was ANOTHER set (unknown to historians), and God was NOT a trickster, he would have clarified WHICH set he was referring to.

Essentially, I'm saying "God deceived Ezekiel and Nebby", and you're saying "Incorrect, you haven't proved that God WASN'T deceiving them". DO you see why your comments fail to address my point, which remains unrefuted?
No, you keep falsely accusing me of not answering you, after snipping answers you deem to be "incorrect" because you don't like them.
You are again citing a personal fantasy as if it were fact. You don't WANT it to refer to the physical destruction of the island. But there is no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise, and your twisting requires you to ignore Biblical verses or treat them as "metaphorical" with no justification.
In the sense that Nebby failed to conquer it, and agreed to a face-saving "draw" that allowed Tyre to continue to prosper while leaving Nebby with no real reward for all his effort (as Ezekiel himself records).
The Babylonian empire fell not long afterwards. The Phoenician cities (such as Tyre) welcomed its fall at the hands of the Persians, and voluntarily joined the new Persian Empire.

Thus, Alexander (despite actually conquering Tyre) did NOT "destroy" Tyre in ANY sense whatsoever. He damaged, but didn't destroy, the city: he killed many people, but didn't exterminate or enslave all the Tyrians: he didn't put an end to Tyre's "independent city-state" status, because he was too late for that.

...So, why include HIM in the "many nations" at all? Presumably just because this was a future event in Ezekiel's time: the apologist's desire to have Ezekiel "predict" something that happened centuries later (and never mind the details).
And, as you're still wrong about this, my statement stands. Which ties in with my previous response: the apologist desires to extend the timeframe beyond that in which the book is still being written.
As previously explained, it is quite clear that Nebby was thwarted: and it is quite clear that Ezekiel did not foresee this. If Nebby had succeeded, he would have wreaked a terrible vengeance upon Tyre, possibly satisfying Ezekiel's requirements. The "twisting" is necessary (to apologists) because he failed.
...And God failed, therefore my statement stands.

So, moving on to the non-Tyre stuff:

It's called "apologetics". It's hard to see how the authors could possibly have made this any LESS "metaphorical".

On the Hebrew cosmology:
...So the Great Firmament Dodge continues, and even extends to a charge that I "haven't even mustered" the responses you are so desperately evading!
And I have shown that YOU are misinterpreting the verse.
Yes: the technology which proves that the Biblical worldview is false.

I suppose it might be amusing to read your explanation of how the sweep of a dragon's tail will dislodge one-third of the stars in the sky, in the "end-times" (Revelation 12:4).

...So, you're admitting that the supposed "visions sent from God" were just made up, based on what they thought they could see?
...Except that it certainly DOES say that God created Adam directly, from dirt (and Eve directly, from Adam). Not from apes. So you're wrong, as usual.
Again, "some people" are simply wrong. Genesis 7:19 refers to covering "all the high mountains that were under the whole Heaven".
These are inerrantists now?
Do you mean the inerrantist position?
I think it would be WELL worth your time to find out what CHRISTIANS actually believe, bfniii.
We have moved WAY beyond this supposed "standards" impasse. But you don't like the result, so you're trying to backtrack.

I've suggested at least THREE routes forward:

1. Tell us what YOUR standard is. So far we have "the Bible says so" and "argumentum ad populum" (with attempts to inflate the "populum").

2. Give us your BEST indication of a case of "divine inspiration" in the Bible: the one that it would be HARDEST for any skeptic to explain, and we'll see if it stands up. Rather amazingly, your reply implies that the Tyre "prophecy" is IT.

3. Trust the experts: qualified archaeologists, historians, scientists. But you summarily reject any that disagree with you.
And you were (as usual) wrong: in this case, wrong about what Christians believe (as I have pointed out).

On Biblical "coherency":
...Feel better after that rant?

OK, are you now ready to see that I DID, very specifically, point out WHY this "coherency" argument IS utterly worthless?
"Creationism" refers to YEC and its variants, which HAVE been scientifically falsified. The Genesis creation account is bunk.
Familiar pattern: this is not what Christians believe. This is what inerrantists believe.
Christians are under no obligation to abide by any Old Testament writing. They also don't have to regard the gospels as literally true in every detail.
...No, it isn't. And Christians are under no obligation to believe in an Earthly resurrection.
...And you were wrong, as usual. But the number was the result of the poll described in that article, so what do you mean by "no support"?
I did: my statement stands. Do you wish to continue this "elephant-hurling"?
As it is clearly impossible to verify that the Bible IS "inerrant", nobody can be convinced by this.
A miracle is rather obvious: and there is no extra-Biblical confirmation of any Biblical miracle.
Of course, you have that backwards. If Christians are using the same standard as skeptics to evaluate the authority of historical documents, then Christians should have no problem agreeing with skeptics. Since this is clearly not the case, Christians must be using some other standard.

On the "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy:
You are trying to claim that YOU have actual evidence, but the Emperor does not. This is incorrect: the Emperor DOES have evidence, similar to yours. He has the testimony of trusted authorities (the tailors who made his clothes) and the argumentum ad populum (everyone in his court assured him that his outfit was magnificent). Indeed, HIS evidence was better: because, until that kid spoke up, nobody contradicted his belief.

Doug Shaver

According to whom? That is not what it says.

bfniii

yup. again, i don't think it's going to do any good to get bogged down regarding the title. my point should have been clear; it's ridiculous to assert that the intent of the bible is to be a scientific manual.



and examples that interest you would be what?



would you be so kind as to give some specifics?



ok. you don't have anything to add. in what way was ezekiel's prophecy not fulfilled?



excellent response! this hits at the very heart of the issue. i wish i could get some of the other skeptics in this thread to get right to the point like that.

it may be your experience that there isn't a God that would do such, but other people have had such an experience. concordantly, it is beyond the ability of anyone to show that there isn't a God. incidentally, proving there isn't a God is not asking for proof of a negative. it is asking for proof that naturalism is the extent of existence.



what good would that do? you couldn't even be certain it was his other than someone else telling you it was. this criteria seems faulty. even if you are making this statement consequent to accepting that there is a God who is bent on divine inspiration, i still don't see how it would help you.



i must disagree; i think that it does answer the original question it responded to. you asked if God intended for everyone to believe what was written. if God intended everyone to believe, then that would be compulsion. if God desired for everyone to believe, that's different. the desire precipitated the choice.

as to this new question, it seems obvious that He did indeed intend for it to be read. otherwise, why author such a book?



but the pertinent word is sufficient. many people have sufficient evidence. however, that doesn't seem to be enough for you. what would be enough for you?



this treads on shaky ground. people have converted or deconverted without a change in the quantity or quality of information. for example, someone might have a near fatal car accident and become a christian or someone might see the devastation from a hurricane and deconvert. in those examples, it's not like some extra-biblical evidence was discovered that corroborates biblical claims.



all of this fails to preclude that a person can choose to change. genes have nothing to do with that. it starts with a willingness to be open-minded.

you were, and are, offered spiritual alternatives. therefore, choice necessarily must exist.



not always. intent can be the opposite of desire. you might not desire to go to work, but you intend to in order to make a living.



i think that if God inspired the bible, He would want all those who read the bible to believe it was so inspired.

Johnny Skeptic

And you have nothing to base your conclusion on that God is not an evil God who is masquerading as a good God. Unlike you, I have not stated a probable conclusion. All that I have stated is a possible conclusion. I am neutral, but you most certainly are not neutral. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 say “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.� If an evil, lying, deceptive Devil is reasonably possible, then why isn't an evil, lying, deceptive God also reasonably possible?

Please reply to my post #467.

bfniii

why, if i didn't know any better, i would swear you miss me. besides, there's nothing wrong with my responses. they are keeping up with the state of the discussion quite well.



i didn't respond to that because i don't feel like it was directed at me. i am not trying to "break up" the prophecy into two parts. nebuchadnezzar was an instrument, but not intended to be the ultimate downfall of tyre as i have said from the beginning. this is just distraction from the fact that you still haven't provided any verses that support your case.



more distraction from the fact that you still haven't provided any verses that support your case.



the city-state of tyre has not existed for a long, long time. tyre was destroyed just as ezekiel predicted.



because it doesn't address my response to those points. i provided a detailed response as to how the prophecy is not only referring to physical destruction. instead of pulling a johnny skeptic and just repeating your original assertion, how about responding to my points?



we're discussing that in other posts

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
No, they are not. You keep backtracking, and this keeps us going over the same points over and over and over again.

An obvious example: look at how many times you've recently made the entirely erroneous argument that "Ezekiel's contemporaries must have thought he was a prophet because they classified him among the Prophets". This nonsense was refuted quite some time ago.
Translation: "I am not trying to break up the prophecy into two parts, I am merely breaking up the prophecy into two parts".

Of course, YOU still haven't provided any verses that support YOUR case. We have different interpretations of the SAME verses, and I then went on to justify MY interpretations in the sections you snipped.
False. Point 2 remains unrefuted. Indeed, you seem to have given up.
He wasn't referring to the city-state, and the city-state didn't end by being "destroyed". This was further explained in point 5. Points 3 and 5 remain unrefuted.
I explained why you were wrong: in point 4, which you snipped.
You are currently evading this issue, and have been doing so for some time now.


To avoid excessive page-flipping, I will repost my points here:


PROPHECY MISSES

1. Nebby failed to conquer and destroy Tyre as prophesied. Of course, we all know the apologetic response: to break up the prophecy into two parts, "Nebby's attack" and "God's destruction". This creates TWO prophecy failures where there was previously one, as we shall see.

2. Nebby's attack failed to breach Tyre's defenses after a 13-year siege. Again, we have seen the apologetic response: the "walls and towers" of Tyre were some OTHER set of walls and towers unknown to historians. Apparently, a ruanway chariot accidentally flattening an outhouse and toppling a watchtower on the mainland would satisfy this "prophecy". The unresolved problem here is that we KNOW that the island fortress had massive 150-feet-high walls and towers: these are the ones that Nebby HAD to breach, the most formidable obstacle he faced, the obstacle that would determine his success or failure. We must therefore assume a trickster God if Ezekiel was really referring to the flattened outhouse. A prediction is supposed to convey information to its recipients (why bother otherwise?), and this one did not.

3. God did not destroy Tyre (from 1). There was no Sodom-and-Gomorrah "act of God" cataclysm. Nor did he do it by proxy (more on this later).

4. The language of the prophecy plainly refers to the physical destruction of the island citadel: Tyre "in the midst of the sea" would be "scraped clean" and become a "bare rock". This has never happened. Nebby failed, and history tells us that Alexander destroyed "half" of the town: some of the ruins from the subsequent Greco-Roman period are still standing, indicating that this never happened subsequently either. Furthermore, this destruction was supposed to be permanent: but Tyre still exists and is still inhabited today. Some apologists have tried to claim that the modern "Sur" is a different town, apparently unaware of the fact that the Greek form of the Phoenician "Sur" is "Tyre". And the island was supposed to be swallowed up by the sea, but its current inhabitants seem to manage without submarines and scuba gear (amusingly, the inept apologist Gleason Archer declared that the island WAS underwater: apparently he got the wrong island).

5. Attempts to make this destruction "metaphorical" (by blatantly ignoring the Bible) have also failed. The population of Tyre survived Nebby, and many also survived Alexander (escaping to Sidon and returning afterwards). The political city-state of Tyre survived Nebby, and had voluntarily been absorbed into the Persian Empire by Alexander's time: it was never "destroyed" by any hostile attacker, mortal or divine.

6. A "prophecy" MUST be made before the event. The only information we have regarding the dating of Ezekiel is that the book was not completed until AFTER the siege of Tyre (we know this from the past-tense description of the siege aftermath in Ezekiel 29:18). Bfniii has attempted to claim that this can be translated differently, and has been mistranslated in every Bible edition until now: we still await a detailed alternative translation. Currently, the only evidence that the actual prophecy was made before the event is the list of failures presented here: the implausibility that a retrospective "prophecy" would fail so badly. There is no evidence that Ezekiel's contemporaries were aware of a successful "Tyre prophecy".

7. Ezekiel's credibility as a "prophet" is further undermined by additional failed prophecies. In compensation for his failure at Tyre, Nebby is supposed to conquer Egypt (Ezekiel 29:19-20). Egypt will be ruined and uninhabited for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-13). This did not happen.

bfniii

of course we do. we have plenty of evidence of that.



wrong.

1. it would go against the very definition of God in the biblical, ontological sense.
2. it would go against what the bible tells us about God



what is absurd is that statement



what makes all of this response incorrect is that we can indeed know God if He so chooses to reveal Himself to us, which has apparently been the case.



christians can be deceived, but the deception won't be originated by God. it would be against His nature. if He were capable of that, He wouldn't be God in the biblical sense.



yup. you're right. but that isn't the totality of the issues we've been dealing with. the origination of this existence owed, at least partially, it's creation to God's morality.

bfniii

ezekiel is a prophet for more reasons than just that. as i have stated, prediction is not the only function of a prophet. he was a prophet for multiple reasons.

Johnny Skeptic

Please state some examples.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...krueger2.shtml

From the Krueger – McHugh debate

Originally from Edinburg, Texas, Doug Krueger holds a B.A. (in philosophy) from Grinnell College, and an M.A. (in philosophy) from Purdue University. He is currently [as of 1999] a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Arkansas, where he is ABD in the philosophy department.

Krueger's articles have appeared in American Atheist magazine, and his book 'What Is Atheism?: A Short Introduction,' is available through the Secular Web bookstore.

Doug Krueger has been heard on numerous radio shows, both local and coast-to-coast, and he has also participated in numerous formal debates on the existence of God and on secular ethics.

Krueger:

“McHugh has chosen as his sole weapon for his case the ontological argument. THIS ARGUMENT HAS NEVER BEEN POPULAR OUTSIDE OF ACADEMIA [emphasis mine], and for good reason. [Bfniii, that should be reason enough for you to discard ontology as a means of justifying your arguments regarding God's existence and his nature. If god exists, surely he did not intend for his existence and nature to be verified to the masses by using an ontological argument. Are you an expert on ontology? Would you like for me to try to arrange a one on one debate between you and Doug Kruger about ontology? If so, I will try to contact him.] To many, it seems to be little more than suspicious wordplay. Alvin Plantinga, one of the premier champions of the ontological argument in the twentieth century, admits that ‘at first sight, this argument smacks of trumpery and deceit.’ Plantinga holds that the argument can be somewhat rehabilitated, but for many the ontological argument is decidedly unconvincing. McHugh presents two versions of the ontological argument, I will focus my critique mainly on McHugh's own version and agree with him that Hartshorne's argument falls short of demonstrating god's existence. I will show that McHugh's ontological argument is not without problems, and that it too fails to serve as a proof of the existence of god.�

"Those who use the ontological argument should be reminded that the philosopher Schopenhauer wrote: 'Considered by daylight...and without prejudice, this famous Ontological Proof is really a charming joke.' Although McHugh's version may avoid some standard objections, it seems subject to at least some familiar problems as well as bringing with it problems of its own."

Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "ontology" as "1: a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being 2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existents"

The dictionary defines the word "metaphysics" as "the system of principles underlying a particular study or subject: PHILOSOPHY."

The dictionary defines the word "existent" as "1: having being : EXISTING 2 : existing now: PRESENT."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Wikipedia

"The common definition of God assumes omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. However, not all systems hold that God is necessarily morally good (see summum bonum). Some hold that God is the very definition of moral goodness and that God is equivalent to love. Others maintain that God is beyond morality.

"Negative theology, sometimes called apophatic theology, argues that no true statements about attributes of God can be made at all (because this asserts that the essence of God's being can be expressed accurately within the limits of human language), while agnostic positions argue that limited human understanding does not allow for any conclusive opinions on God whatsoever. Some mystical traditions ascribe limits to God's powers, arguing that God's supreme nature leaves no room for spontaneity."

I doubt that an extended debate on a complex topic like ontology would appeal to you, but if it does appeal to you, I am pretty sure that I can find an expert (possibly Doug Krueger) who will be willing to have a one on one moderated debate with you on those topics. Of course, you can go to the Existence of God(s) Forum and defend your ontological argument there, and I can assure you that you will get much more competition than you have bargained for, or maybe you already know that.

There is no logic that states that a possible creator must by necessity be good. The simple truth is that converting energy into matter deals with physics, not with morality. A possible creator might be moral, immoral, amoral, or as some skeptics have said, there are other possibilities. There are not any good reasons at all to automatically dismiss a reasonably possibility that there are many beings in the universe who can convert energy into matter. In fact, for some alien races, it might be child's play to convert enery into matter. Even if the creator of the original universe must by necessity be good, you cannot reasonably prove who he is. The universe that we have today might not be the same as the original universe. In other words, an evil advanced alien race might have created the earth and some other heavenly bodies sometime after the original universe was created.

But how did the Bible writers know what God is really like? What evidence did they use for their writings?

If you are talking about such evidence as the Resurrection and personal tangible experiences in your life, an evil powerful being, whether a God or a sufficiently advanced alien, would easily be able to duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible.

Unless God is evil, and you can't prove that he isn't.

But not necessarily the earth. If intelligent design is a given, there is not any evidence at all that the original creation of the universe had anything whatsoever to do with morality. You can claim otherwise all that you want, but you can never reasonably prove it.

Doug Shaver

I have nothing to add because the question has been been thoroughly addressed elsewhere in this thread.

I think our discussion of the Bible's purpose and issues related thereto are far enough off topic to warrant a new thread. I will start it in due course and take up where we're leaving off.