bfniii

on the contrary, we can infer what is already known, that the bible is the hitory and doctrine of the christian faith of which prophecies are an integral part. which is more likely, prophets orating about morality and it's consequences or prophets orating about the pythagorean theorem or the theory of relativity?



it was His intent that everyone had a choice of whether to believe it or not.

Johnny Skeptic

As Farrell Till has stated regarding the “many nations�? part of the Tyre prophecy, in ancient times, sometimes victorious conquerors incorporated the armies of defeated nations into their own armies. In addition, historically, it has not been uncommon for many nations to defeat a particular city or empire. The Roman Empire is a good example. It took many nations centuries to defeat the Roman Empire.

So the verse is not of any value to your arguments, right?

Well, it did have to happen if the Tyrians were fishermen and chose to use nets to catch fish, which was obviously the best way for them to catch fish. Do you find it surprising that people who live near water often prefer to catch fish?

Likelihood is in fact the entire point of prophecy. In this particular case, how unlikely was it that without divine inspiration someone could have accurately predicted that the island settlement of Tyre would eventually have become uninhabited due to rising water? Certainly not unlikely enough to reasonably prove divine inspiration. Any competent oceanographer will tell you this.

Not unless you can reasonably prove that the prophecy was written before Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement, and that Ezekiel did not learn about the invasion plans in advance by ordinary means. I am willing to be neutral on those issues since it is impossible to reasonably know what happened one way or the other.

[quote=JohnnySkeptic] Nor do I need any. You are trying to prove the prophecy, but I am not trying to disprove it. I am neutral. It is no more incumbent upon skeptics to disprove the Tyre prophecy than it is incumbent up Christians to disprove a given prophecy in another religious book. There is no logic that states that all assertions are true until proven false.

Agreement regarding which specific parts of the prophecy?

The NIV and the NASB do not use the word “like.�? I checked a number of other translations, and none of the ones that I checked use the word “like�? except for the NKJV. Are there any amateur or professional Greek scholars out there? Does the word “like�? appear in the Greek?

The prophecy does not mention anything about independent sovereignty. It essentially says that the city would never be rebuilt, and we know that it was rebuilt and inhabited by various groups of people.

I was not aware that you had discussed this matter with Ezekiel and that he told you how to interpret “shall be built no more.�? By all means, please tell us about this meeting.

Which specifics do you mean?

Even if God can accurately predict the future, what gives any more legitimacy to his enforcing rules of his own choosing than any other self-proclaimed dictator enforcing rules of his own choosing?

Doug Shaver

You rather deftly evaded my point. You tried to suggest that one could infer the Bible's purpose from the title that was given to it after it was compiled, which was many centuries after its constituent documents were written. Such a notion is nonsensical.

There is no contrary there. I did not say nothing could be inferred. I said that nothing about the book's purpose could be inferred from the book's title.

To observe that we can infer what is already known is trivial, a tautology. It is an elementary rule of logic that X => X, so all you are saying is that if we know X, then we know X. What you have to demonstrate now is that we do in fact know X.

That is not known except under the assumption that your inerrantist dogma is infallible. You are arguing in a circle.

That is irrelevant to the present issue. The present issue is whether, when you tell me that a book written some 2,500 years ago contains knowledge revealed to its author by divine reveleation, I should believe you.

Another evasion.

If God inspired the writing of the Bible, then he either did or did not want everyone who read it to know that he inspired it. Which do you think was the case?

Johnny Skeptic

Most certainly not on an equal basis. God is not an equal access provider. The texts prove it. Consider the following scriptures:

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee [Johnny: Solely because of his words? Not a chance.], and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

In the NIV, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders."

As I have shown, on some occasions Jesus and the disciples did not rely upon subjective spiritual/emotional experiences to confirm tangible experiences, but rather relied upon tangible experiences confirm spiritual/emotional experiences. 2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." It is a fact that that is lie. A loving God would give everyone equal access to the truth. If Jesus (or some advanced alien who was impersonating him) returned to earth and perform miracles, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced that the Bible is true.

bfniii

i agree. i'm not following how this point addresses my response. i was addressing how you were trying to make the prophecy out to be unspecific by only acknowledging one part of the prophecy.



sure it does.



i think you are missing the point. the point wasn't the nets, it was the bare rock on which the nets were spread. moreover, the bare rock represents how the city-state would be stripped down to nothing which obviously happened.



are you saying that ezekiel is prophesying that tyre would eventually be swallowed by rising water? that's not what the prophecy says.

again, when the prophecy has multiple parts with different factors, likelihood is not a good measuring stick. any one factor is difficult to impossible to ensure. add another and the percentage changes exponentially.



that's why i have been asking you what would dislodge you from a neutral position. what standard can we use to determine these things?




since you have adopted a neutral position. i agree. you state that there isn't enough information to know one way or the other. clearly, other people have decided one way or the other so there is disagreement. what we need to do is establish a standard by which these things can be known.



great. what would make you not neutral?



i have not claimed statements are true until proven false. i am saying that people have believed that ezekiel was a prophet which also implies that his prophecies were actually that, prophectic. that presupposes they were written prior.



any




it doesn't matter because it's still metaphorical either way. God's ultimate concern is not whether tyre is flattened or not. God is ultimately concerned with morality and our spiritual destination. it is common for prophecy to use ordinary physical objects to metaphorically refer to something spiritual.



yes it does.



no, it says tyre will not be rebuilt.



therefore, the interpretation is what is incorrect.



it doesn't require a meeting to know these things. i'm not the only person who understands this.



how about the fact that he prophecied against tyre at all. you claim nebuchadnezzar had a proven penchant for conquest and that nations invariably rise and fall thus making any such prophecy about tyre unremarkable and almost inevitable. if that's the case, why don't we see ezekiel take advantage of nebuchadnezzar's other conquests? why stop at just tyre and egypt? why even pick tyre? tyre wasn't any closer than the other campaigns except for egypt.

why bother prophecying about conquests? egypt held important political considerations for judea, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that tyre did to the extent that egypt did.

why prophecy victories for the empire that just took hebrews into slavery and had destroyed much of their homeland? why not focus on the exiles themselves and their fate? why not predict the downfall of babylon? in fact, we see the opposite; babylon apparently goes to work for God.

your statement that nebuchadnezzar had a proven penchant for conquest might be overstated a bit. i don't think it was as profound as alexander. why marry amuhia? why not attack the medes? they were much closer in proximity than tyre. even if he did marry amuhia, he still could have attacked the medes regardless. it seems that the qualifications of his thirst for conquest and tyre's proximity are a matter of degree and somewhat subjective. it was certainly no guarantee that he would attack tyre.



i have already answered this question. instead of repeating it, how about responding to my answer.

bfniii

i wasn't trying to evade anything. i mean that in the common understanding of what the word "bible" applies to, you can infer that it is a religious book, not a science manual.



sure it can



exactly. therefore, given the fact that we know "bible" applies to a preponderously religious book, we can know that it does not stand to reason to expect musings on the scientific method or empiricism.

i don't think it's productive regarding the tyre prophecy for us to get bogged down in semantics over the word "bible". you seem much too intelligent for that.



incorrect. we do know that it is indeed intended to be the history and doctrine of the christian faith. it's veracity is a completely different topic, one that this thread is built on.

do you have something about the tyre prophecy you would like to discuss or would you rather continue quibbling over semantics?



it is exactly the issue. jack is making the point that God could have corrected the hebrew belief that the world is flat. in other words, he wants to know why God would allow them to believe such a thing. my counter is that God seems to be content on allowing us to discover these things at our own pace. He isn't misleading us on such scientific issues. however, He has given us the capacity to learn the truth for ourselves. given His preoccupation with our morality, it doesn't make sense for us to expect to see His prophets wandering around preaching about the sciences and empirical knowledge.

regarding your new inquiry; what would convince you that something was divinely inspired?



there was no evasion in my response. we know that we are not compelled to acquiesce to christianity. therefore, it is clear that His intention is that we decide on our own. if He didn't want that, there would be no alternatives. i think that's reasonable to conclude if you assume God is omnipotent. furthermore, His desire is irrelevant to this paradigm.

however, since you are now asking about desire as opposed to intent, the bible purports that He wants all to choose Jesus.

Johnny Skeptic

My question is how does the “many nations�? part of the prophecy help your arguments? If you will say that it doesn’t, then we can dispense with that part of the prophecy.

Why is that?

Please cite your historical evidence that the city-state resembled a bare rock, and while you are at it please define what Ezekiel meant by a bare rock.

You are correct. Ezekiel 26:5 says “It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.�? Historically, many defeated cities that were destroyed were never rebuilt and could be considered spoils, some of which were destroyed by earthquakes, so what is your point?

It depends upon the quality of what you add, and the quality of what you have added is poor.

Time travel. No other standard would be sufficient.

I just gave you my standard.

What people believed is completely irrelevant. All that matters is the evidence upon which their beliefs were based. Since their isn’t any historical evidence that people had access to the prophecy before Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement, all that you have come up with is guesswork. Even if the prophecy was written before the events, unless people had access to it, they couldn’t have know that it was a prophecy. History has amply proven that you can fool many of people much of the time, and most of the people much of the time.

Just pick any two parts and will discuss them.

Consider the following scriptures:

Ezekiel 26:21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord God.

Ezekiel 27:36 The merchants among the people shall hiss at thee; thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt be any more.

Ezekiel 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

Those claims could also have applied to many destroyed cities or empires.

We know that the mainland settlement was partially rebuilt, but we do not know what Ezekiel meant by “shall be built no more.�? He might have meant rebuilt to its former glory, which historically has not been the norm regarding fallen empires, or he might have meant perennially deserted ruins. If the latter, perennially deserted ruins are common in many parts of the world.

Nor is any guarantee needed for me to ask you if you find it surprising that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre?

I forget what your answer was and in what thread I asked you the question. Please restate your answer for my benefit and for the benefit of new readers.

Even if God can predict the future, as best the odds are 50/50 that he will provide believers with a comfortable eternal life and not send them to hell. If a lying deceiving Devil is reasonably possible, they so is a lying, deceiving God. If God is a liar and a deceiver, he could easily deceive you. It would be easy for him to heal people, predict the future, and raise people from the dead in order to deceive them.

Which answer was that?

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii: In this reply, I've gathered the Tyre stuff at the beginning of this post, and eliminated unnecssessary repetition on several issues.
He claims to predict future events: specifically, future "acts of God". Therefore he is as much of a "prophet" as Ezekiel was. And it's rather amusing that you are now attempting an "argument from Britannica" after rejecting Britannica's unequivocal support for the "critical view" of Daniel...
Has ANYONE who was actually around at that time ever claimed that Ezekiel was NOT simply ranting about Tyre, invoking the "wrath of God" much as Robertson does nowadays?

Has ANYONE who was actually around at that time ever claimed that the Tyre prophecy was a genuine supernatural prediction, a Delphic-style prophecy?
I note that you have STILL not provided a single example. I think I know the reason why. Are you referring to verses ripped out of context by Christian apologists?
If a particular verse was not intended by its author to be a reference to the past, but "somehow" ended up in English as a past-tense reference: that would be a mistranslation. Translators aren't robots, they don't follow inflexible mechanical rules: they use the English language to explain, as clearly and accurately as possible, the meaning of the Hebrew phrases they read.
..From Egypt:
...Another failed prophecy.
You have never "shown" that the prophecy succeeded. Indeed, it failed in almost every detail.
My statement stands: there IS only one indication that the prophecy was written prior to the event (its failure). To refute this, you would have to provide ANOTHER indication, which you haven't done.
So, Ezekiel's contemporaries regarded the Book of Ezekiel as a "book of prophecy"? And your evidence for this is...?

It would obviously be circular to claim that Ezekeiek's utterances must be "prophetic" because the book is a "book of prophecy" because Ezekiel's utterances therein are "prophetic"...

You seem to be attempting an ad populum fallacy: "lots of Ezekiel's contemporaries thought that the Tyre prophecy was successful, therefore it was". However, you lack the actual populum. Congratulations, you seem to have invented a new fallacy! 5,000 invisible pixies on my shoulders (all of them expert Biblical scholars) disagree with you: why are they wrong?
Nope, you still haven't addressed the "trickster God" issue. Do YOU have any Bible verses which indicate any OTHER walls? No, I didn't think so. To your credit, if stonewalling were a virtue, you would be a god.
...And yet your response skips great chunks of what I posted here. Why is that?
Why did you snip the relevant part of my response?
You snipped them. Why?
Yes, it does.
Yes, it did. Tyre remained an independent city-state after Nebby's siege.
...And neither did I. So my point stands.
Again, you miss the point entirely.

The past tense indicates when the BOOK was composed. And that's the only temporal indicator we have.
A now-familiar evasion technique. We're still waiting.
Nope, not an ad-hominem. They are "unreasonable" because they don't use reason on this issue.
As you have admitted that the island fortress DID have defensive walls, you have just refuted yourself: the relevant Biblical verses are those which talk of walls being breached. The problem is that YOU have not presented any verses which support your "flattened outhouse" theory (or whatever it is). And you have STILL not addressed the "trickster God" problem! If Nebby HAD breached the walls of the citadel, I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate to claim that THOSE were the walls referred to. The reason for your twisting is obvious.
Nebby controlled an army of "many nations". This is not disputed. Now, if you wish to add OTHER nations NOT in Nebby's multinational army: you need to recognize the fact that the Bible doesn't specifically mention them, or mention who would be commanding them. Unless you're suggesting that God would personally lead them, like Sauron led the Orcs when Isildur cut off the One Ring?
Since when does 163 follow immediately after 160?

Why don't you attempt to straighten yourself out by posting your argument (if you still have one) on THIS thread? It is, after all, relevant to the Tyre prophecy.
Nope, it goes to the heart of your claim. The prophecy doesn't name a single "person" (mortal or divine) who actually did permanently destroy Tyre.
Do you seriously imagine that I'd have a problem finding Christians who consider the Tyre prophecy to be a failure?

I could do a google search if you like (I've done it before). But how many articles would it take to convince you?


And now, the other stuff, starting with "day-age apologetics":
It clears up any remaining ambiguity about the usage of "yowm". Multi-million-year "epochs" aren't delimited by mornings and evenings: days are.
No, you did not. You posted a series of assertions: apparently, any source is "mistaken" if it disgrees with YOU. You have certainly not refuted the point I was actually making.
So, the Bible says that humans evolved from (other) apes? The Bible denies a wordwide Flood?

Apparently not! Therefore the Bible contradicts science.
The "reason" is their emotional committment to their faith (and, yes, I note that you again typed "Christians" when you meant "inerrantists"). They have presented no actual reasons.

We are still waiting for YOUR criteria, bfniii: YOUR means of determining that the Bible is "trustworthy, accurate and dependable". So far, this has been just an a priori assumption. Do you really have nothing better than that?
Are you actually naive enough to believe that most Christians are inerrantists?

You've heard of Catholics, I hope? Anglicans? Episcopalians? Methodists? Quakers?

How about individuals: Augustine? Origen?
...And yet you can't (or won't) provide this support.

Here's the problem, bfniii: you have provided various fanciful "explanations" for SOME of the Bible's apparent problems. But you have never provided any reason to believe that your "explanations" are what the author intended: there is no reason to believe that they are the CORRECT explanations.
And I answered you.

But you've apparently failed to provide ANY reason so far, other than a rather vague argumentum ad populum attempt.
You want me to provide some of their "statements of faith"?

I could, if you like. But how about seeing some of the evidence on which inerrancy-belief is allegedly based (and the criteria which an inerrantist would use to assess evidence, other than "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it", or your own "Argumentum Ad Pseudo-Populum").
You seem to have a problem distinguishing a "scholar" from an "apologist". If you think a Christian bookstore is the place to go for a representative, unbiased sample of Biblical scholarship: your confusion is worse than I thought.
...Who are somewhat lacking in critical-thinking ability, yes.
1. More context-snipping. Which question?

2. No, because according to inerrantists, things which contradict the Bible "didn't happen", and historical events and persons are denied, modified or invented as necessary.

3. We are STILL waiting for YOU to provide specific examples. MY position is that there ARE no examples of "supernatural knowledge" or "divine inspiration" that can BE provided (because none exist). And, yes, your ongoing evasion and stonewalling is indeed getting old.
Still waiting...
If a single prophecy DID make multiple claims that WERE all demonstrably successful: yes, that would make the overall prophecy more impressive.

What a pity you can't provide one.
And yet, over and over again, the apologetic is the version that requires extra unwarranted assumptions and/or ignoring a very obvious meaning.
You have failed to demonstrate that I have ever misinterpreted any Biblical prophecy.
...Which you have been given. But you still haven't explained the criteria which an inerrantist would use to convince HIMSELF, let alone a SKEPTIC. Only YOU can provide that.
If you will NEVER admit that ANY claim can be established beyond reasonable doubt, you must live your life in a fog of uncertainty.

My claims regarding science are the established consensus among scientists, and such claims have been very thoroughly tested. Non-scientific historical claims, by their nature, are less amenable to testing: nevertheless, a somewhat more tentative consensus can be reached. Whereas the only criteron YOU will apply is "if it contradicts the Bible, it cannot be correct".
I do indeed have such knowledge. I am very familiar with creationist claims. They have no scientific merit whatsoever, and creationism has been scientifically falsified: that is precisely WHY the scientific establisment rejects creationism.
The poll mentioned in the article.

...So you dismissed the article as "vague" without even reading it?
...Why not? It's a perfectly straightforward question. You claimed that a "true Christian" must abide by something that Paul wrote. Why?
Have you forgotten that we were talking about belief in an Earthly resurrection?
...Why not?

Please answer the question.
...And you are mistaken, as I pointed out. Some 2,000 Anglican clergymen (out of 10,000) doubt the Resurrection. So, will you continue to evade this question, or will you answer it?
There is no Bibical "misunderstanding" in post #425 (not from me, anyhow).
Anyone visiting that thread can plainly see what really happened there (if they have the patience).

...And, in order to keep this post down to a manageable size, I will henceforth try to avoid responding to irrelevant issues already extensively discussed on that thread.


You weren't aware of this? How many quotes would convince you?
It appears to be the totality. You have presented nothing more.


Now, moving on to Hebrew polytheism (and the "miracles of the Egyptian priests" was merely a part of that larger issue):
If you won't do the research and would prefer to remain ignnorant of this, I doubt if much progress is possible. It's a subject that comes up quite frequently around here (see this thread for an example). The Bible itself is only of limited use here, because it was compiled by monotheists, but it still contains some indications of the old polytheism. I suggest you research the Ugaritic texts for more.
Incorrect on both counts. Inerrantists do what you describe, but they don't believe the Bible is true because of this tendency: they have a pre-existing committment to this belief, which dictates that they MUST do this.

The skeptic has no such committment. Speptics follow where the evidence leads. They may form a view based on OTHER evidence already examined, but that's about it.
As there are no examples of extra-Biblical confirmation of a NON-mundane claim, this is hardly an "excuse".
We use pretty much the same criteria that a Christian historian would use when evaluating claims not related to his religion. Why is this inappropriate?

Do you believe that Tiresias was a true prophet, or that Vespasian raised the dead, as ancient historians claim?
And the Emperor believes he has similar evidence, yes. And he's satisfied with it.
Suitable criteria for prophecy-fulfilment have been discussed several times.
Nice double standard there. You assert without evidence that God wasn't the one who told them the world was flat, then you assert without evidence that God eventually corrected this erroneous worldview.

God didn't correct this: observation of the real world did.
You are, as usual, wrong. According to the Bible, God did indeed instruct the Hebrews in something that is known to be false. Or are you renouncing your belief that God "inspired" Isaiah etc?
Still dodging the Firmament verses, I see. But you're still missing the point: that dreams and visions "sent by God" contained erroneous information.
The Great Firmament Dodge continues...
Nope, it is NOT "common sense", and I do NOT "know it". The Bible does indeed purport to be a "science book" when it makes (erroneous) statements regarding the "creation", the "flood", and aspects of Hebrew cosmology. You're also forgetting that "the Bible" is a compilation (one which didn't exist in Jesus' time), and such compilations have included books such as 1 Enoch (still in the Ethiopian Bible IIRC).
Six-day creation, denial of common descent, a worldwide Flood, the shape of the Earth, the sky-dome and the little lights hanging off it...
Nope. You have never found a single case where I have "misunderstood" the Bible. As usual, your definition of a "misunderstanding" is "any interpretation that I personally reject".

Jack the Bodiless

An update:
Just for fun, I tried googling the phrase "bibliographical argument". I was expecting the usual deluge of apologetic BS (from people apparently unable to comprehend the fact that those who could write could also read).

Somewhat to my surprise, I got only 16 hits, none of which were relevant. I even followed google's suggestion of "bibliographic argument" as an alternative, and got even fewer hits (and, again, none relevant).

So, the argument "wouldn't even exist" if what I'm saying is true.

And, gosh, it apparently doesn't...

Doug Shaver

That is rather different from what you said, but I'll take it as a clarification.

You were the one who offered its title as evidence of authorial intent.

I can find hundreds of religious books in any decent booktore. If evangelical Christians were peddling the Bible as just one more of them, that would be one thing. But they do not. They claim that it is unique in certain ways. Their claim is not consistent with certain of the Bible's assertions regarding certain matters on which science has something to say.

What we know is that many Christians believe that it was so intended. Their belief, however, is grounded on a pack of assumptions for which there is much contrary evidence.

What's to discuss? What Ezekiel said would happen did not happen. Inerrantists who try to argue otherwise make themselves look ridiculous.

I would first have to convinced, by evidence independent of any book, that there is a God who could have inspired somebody to write something.

Then I would need to see the author's original manuscript, or at least be satisfied that it exists someplace where I could see it if I had the means to get to wherever it was.

That still doesn't answer my question.

I asked whether God wants me to believe that everything written in the Bible is the truth. Whether I believe that or not is not something I can decide like deciding what to eat for supper. If I am confronted with sufficient evidence, I will believe whether I want to or not. Absent sufficient evidence, I cannot believe even if I want to.

I was offered no alternatives about how my brain would function. It works the way it works. I was conceived with a certain set of genes not of my choosing. I grew up in an environment not of my choosing. Those genes and that environment together made me a critical thinker.

According to my dictionaries (I have several and just checked three of them), desire is implied by intent, not opposed to it.

Still not answering my question.