Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Did Abraham believe that God was going to give him the land of Canaan as an everlasting convenant?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Your "good behavior" argument does not work. First of all, I suspect that that argument was invented when, contrary Abraham's expectations, the Jews were kicked out of Palestine, in which case the "good behavior" argument was invented AFTER THE FACT went it became obvious that God had no intention of giving Abraham's group the land of Canaan. It is quite embarrassing to you that here we are 4,000 years later, and Jews still do not occupy nearly all of the land of Canaan, and an everlasting convenant cannot begin until the Jews occupy all of the land of Canaan. Predictions that the Jews would be scattered were made AFTER the Jews had been kicked out of Palestine, and therefore were not predictions at all.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Anyway, a loving, moral God would never have punished Jewish babies for their parents' disobedience.

Originally Posted by arnoldo

There is no argument that Israel is a nation in existence today and that all nations on earth are concerned about what happens in Israel as well as the Middle East, exactly as the prophets foretold.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

But what did Abraham believe about God's promise to give him and his descendants all of the land of Palestine as as everlasting convenant?

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Well, for one thing the word "everlasting" may be a mistranslation to begin with. In any event Abraham took God's promise by faith not by sight.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Anyway, a loving, moral God would never have punished Jewish babies for their parents' disobedience.

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Maybe you think a loving God wouldn't send his only Son to die for the sins of mankind either?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But what did Abraham take by faith regarding God's promise to give him and his descendants all of the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession? Genesis 17:8 refers to things that Abraham believed would happen in this life, not in the next life. It requires that Jews occupy all of the land of Canaan, and as an everlasting covenant. The partition of Palestine failed on both counts.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Your so-called prediction that many nations would be interested in what happens with Israel is easily explained by the fact that the Middle East has the biggest oil reserves in the world. If Jews and Palestians had been contesting the ownership of land in a remote desert in Australia that did not have any natural resources, you can bet that most nations would not care about that.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

First of all, a loving God would have no need of having his Son tortured and killed. A simple heartfelt "I am sorry" from humans would be sufficient.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Second of all, there is no way that God sent his only Son to die for the sins of mankind because it would not make any sense for a loving God to save a man who has a wife four children who desperately need him and turn right around and kill him with a hurricane. Any rational man knows that there are not any fair, worthy, and just things that a loving God would not be able to accomplish with killing people and innocent animals with hurricanes.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

In addition, any rational man knows that a loving God would have punished innocent Jewish babies for their parents' disobidience.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Why did God break his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why would Ezekiel predict that "a king of kings" (Nebuchadnezzar) would invade Tyre, go down its streets, and tear down its towers, and fail to defeat Tyre? No rational person would predict that a king of kings would invade a kingdom and fail to conquer the kingdom. It is obvious that the false prophet Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre, and that when Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre, the "many nations" part of the prophecy was added, as well as God's failed promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But what did Abraham take by faith regarding God's promise to give him and his descendants all of the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession? Genesis 17:8 refers to things that Abraham believed would happen in this life, not in the next life. It requires that Jews occupy all of the land of Canaan, and as an everlasting covenant. The partition of Palestine failed on both counts.

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Abraham took many things by faith, he left his homeland in Ur, believed God he would have a child even though he and his wife were old, obeyed God to sacrifice his son Issac, etc. According to history the Jews have in some way shape or form been a part of that land since Abraham dwelt there. And now the actual State of Israel is back in that "promised land."

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Your so-called prediction that many nations would be interested in what happens with Israel is easily explained by the fact that the Middle East has the biggest oil reserves in the world. If Jews and Palestians had been contesting the ownership of land in a remote desert in Australia that did not have any natural resources, you can bet that most nations would not care about that.

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Regardless of oil, three of the world's major religions ( Judaism, Islam and Christianity) have their roots in the middle east, so what happens their affects many people throughout the world.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Why did God break his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre?

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Do you have historical proof of this?

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.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why would Ezekiel predict that "a king of kings" (Nebuchadnezzar) would invade Tyre, go down its streets, and tear down its towers, and fail to defeat Tyre? No rational person would predict that a king of kings would invade a kingdom and fail to conquer the kingdom. It is obvious that the false prophet Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre, and that when Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre, the "many nations" part of the prophecy was added, as well as God's failed promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre.

Originally Posted by arnoldo

How do you know this "a king of kings" is Nebuchadnezar?