Johnny Skeptic

So far so good, but in your previous post you said:

That is where you have a problem. I have never claimed that the texts were false, although I have stated why I think that they are suspicious. I told bfniii several times that my current position is that it is equally plausible that the prophecy predated the events and that it postdated the events. However, few fundamentalist Christians will make such a concession.

It has never been my intention to try to falsify the prophecy, but it has been my intention to state that it is suspicious. It is impossible to falsify the prophecy. As far as I know, there is no way that I know of to find out the truth one way or the other.

I still stand by my argument that until Christians accurately date the Tyre prophecy, it is game, set, and match to the skeptics. Of course, the issue of dating is just one of many problems for Christians.

Apikorus

OK, Johnny. Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions based on your misuse of the term "invalidation" in the thread title. At any rate, there's little point to continuing this argument.

CJD

My, Apikorus, I hadn't realized you were posting. Good to read you. Incidentally, there's hardly ever a point …

Johnny Skeptic

Very good. Now we can move on to other issues. I will try to be more careful of my choice of words in the future.

What do you mean by "there's hardly ever a point......."? If you mean that there's hardly ever a point in my posts, get ready for a squabble.

This is off-topic, but may I ask why you believe that God has the right to impose his standards on humans? If you wish to answer my question in a private message or start a new thread, that would be fine.

bfniii

response to post #187

speaking of relevant, your response here doesn't even address what i was referring to. this has nothing to do with claims. this has to do with information. if you haven't heard of it, you should do more study.

i am not here with a claim. i am telling you the bible says x. you disagree with the bible. i am asking you to state why. this is a forum called biblical criticism, not what bfniii believes. the etiquette of the forum is not that christians lay out an argument as to why or how the bible is true. of course, you know this but it seems like you don't want to subject your beliefs to criticism. i will be glad to test the veracity of the bible against criticisms as i have done with spin or jack the bodiless or johnny skeptic. if you don't have criticisms to advance or you just want to continue posturing about how you shouldn't have to state your criticisms, then why bother posting?



i showed that you are unaware of the idea that greek culture was in the region which makes it possible the loan words indicate earlier authorship.



no, it doesn't. it merely means that you seem unfamiliar with information that suggests it's possible daniel could have been composed earlier.



you sure haven't stated any information in regards to greek culture being in the region at the time. are you unaware of it or do you just not have a response for it?



you sure don't. but if your knowledge on the issue is lacking or you have no commentary on it, then why are you relevant?



no, it is not. i am merely relaying information.



patience, grasshopper. all in good time. right now we are still addressing the fact you are either unaware of it or have nothing to add.



you have not shown any instance of me lying. all you have done is shown a lack of knowledge on the issue. that's not a case of me lying.



yes you have. you have said that you don't have to provide both sides of the debate and you have asked me to provide the information regarding greek culture. there are two examples of your admission.



not yet, i haven't.



and i responded that this attitude makes you irrelevant. it's called bias.



i will repeat, my statement on the issue addresses the criticism. therefore, i have already provided both sides.



hmm. i feel fairly certain you are unable to quantify this remark. perhaps you could provide a petition signed by everyone who's ever read this thread that supports your assertion.



more impotent generalities. no specifics.



i was unaware that i failed to answer any question asked of me by anyone. perhaps you could be specific for a change and show an example.



oh really? then perhaps you could impress us all with your "familiarity" of the specifics that greek culture was in the area at the time? since you are familiar with it, you should be able to snuff out that idea easily. *grabbing popcorn*



whatever, mr. denial.



another shining example of your double standard. you make the statement "Greek instrument are used as evidence of late authorship". then i ask you to be more specific, "specifically, which instrument(s) are indicative of late authorship?" then you tell me "go ahead and list your instruments here". this is the second time i have pointed out the fact that you state that whoever makes a claim bears the burden of proving it, but when you make a claim, you don't prove it.

the answer to your question, POPTART, is all of them. it is possible that they were ALL around because it is possible greek culture was there at the time.



do i have to prove it because you are incapable of doing the research and disproving it yourself? i have already shown that i am aware of the idea so it's reasonable that i didn't just make it up out of thin air. now, if i can find the information, why can't you?

btw, you made the claim that the reverse is true. should you be required to back it up? are you incapable of doing so?



you did not clearly point out anything. you surely didn't show that i "mis-classified" (whatever that means) anything. if you think you did, you should easily be able to reproduce it. in fact, you were the one that tried to misuse techniques to spot forgeries as i clearly pointed out in that exchange. after i pointed that out, you quietly dropped the issue.



here you are doing it again. you are trying to incorrectly use certain biblical analysis techniques to detect tampering. what you are suggesting is helpful for certain things (i listed them earlier) but not what you are trying to do here. those techniques you refer to are not conclusive in the case of tampering. what is conclusive is if there are two copies that significantly differ from each other. if that situation exists, then there would be a problem.



the proper question to ask is "do you know of any two copies of the text that differ significantly"?



i would like to point out the equanimity of the first post i made regarding this issue:



that sure looks to me like i'm representing both sides. additionally, it is quite clear i am not making a claim here. i am using it as an example.

furthermore, you never even addressed the original point that i made which was the special pleading.



i can't fathom how you are incapable of seeing this is a claim. i asked you multiple times to support the fact that you claim there is evidence of tampering. so far, no support. more hypocrisy.



i have not assumed anything about ezekiel. why are you blatantly misrepresenting my position? you originally stated that it is possible that ezekiel has been tampered with because other books of the bible have been. i want to know two things; what is the evidence that other books have been tampered with and do you know of two copies that differ significantly?

BTW, you did blatantly refuse to bear the burden of your claim. i can quote you on it. more hypocrisy.



i remember how i showed your analogy was flawed. therefore, you haven't shown that i "got" the definition wrong. it is clearly a case of appeal to probability, which is a logical fallacy. ezekiel is not necessarily tampered with because you allege that other books of the bible are. the probability of ezekiel being tampered with is affected absolutely none by any alleged tampering in other books of the bible.



i did no such thing. perhaps you could quote it so i can clear up this confusion



so you are speaking for them now? well, it's a pity they don't participate.



no it did not and this is more misrepresentation as i showed in the next comment.


and originally



i have said, and i quote "you are not obligated to do anything". now that sure doesn't sound like the statement you are accusing me of making. regardless of whatever "editing" i did, you are misrepresenting what i have said. there are more quotes just like the one i just provided that show i am impartial to what you do or don't post. my original post regarding daniel, provided above, stated both sides of the debate. you then jumped in to take one of the sides but have yet to address the idea that greek culture may have existed in that region at that time. if you don't have anything to add, then you aren't relevant to the discussion. you claim that the instruments are evidence of later authorship. are we just supposed to take you at your word? can you not back up what you claim?



i think anyone would expect them to anticipate, and attempt to address, any points they might make. "the defense is going to say such and such. you should respond thusly".



i did? where?



it is? where?



yes i have. i have shown that there is the idea that greek culture was present. you are either unaware of this idea or you have nothing to add.



i will be glad to at the appropriate time.



i have not denied that i quote you, but "editing" to the extent of changing context is not something i recall doing and i will ask you to quote it so that i can clear it up. the example you provided already has been addressed. in fact, it was you who tried to make my comments imply something they didn't.



i did? where? i remember stating "opens the possibility" which is obviously different than what you claim i admit to.



i don't think you have to do anything. that's why i have said from the beginning you don't. what i am asking is why are you relevant if you take one position, but don't address information that opposes that view. BTW, your flawed idea of burden of proof dictates that you prove the instruments weren't known in the region until later. are we just supposed to take you at your word?



i am not arguing for either position yet. i am merely trying to address objections to the bible. i pointed this out when i quoted my original post. the reason why you should is because otherwise, you are irrelevant.



i am the one between the two of us who presented the fact that greek culture may have indeed been there. you have yet to even address the idea. all you have done is hilariously state your knowledge doesn't have any gaps.



which i did and i quoted myself as having done such. i am not saying any person must do anything. i am saying that an argument is less conclusive if it can't address it's opposition. why do you continually misrepresent what i state?



i did? perhaps you could quote where i did that.



i think the appropriate place for us to start is the work done by edwin yamauchi.

Amaleq13

Folks, accusations of lying are considered inflammatory and against the rules. Please make an effort to avoid making such comments and address the truth or reliability of the offered claims.

Your cooperation is very much appreciated,


Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

bfniii

why do you expect the same thing now as back then?



He has.



what about His current explanation do you reject?



that's not true. He is apparently inconsistent to some people.



nope.

Jack the Bodiless

...Huh? There is no forum rule to that effect, and Christians ARE frequently requested to justify their beliefs. Their ongoing inability to do so is itself evidence of the Bible's falsehood: it is a well-established principle of debate that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and no such evidence exists. Many Christians try to claim otherwise, and such claims regularly fuel debates on this forum.

Furthermore, this specific thread is one in which Christians are being challenged to assume the burden of proof regarding the dating of a Biblical "prophecy". You COULD have simply admitted that you can't do so. Instead, we see your usual antics.
I placed you on "ignore" for several weeks because of your REFUSAL to do this.
EVEN IF Greek culture was present in the region (an idea for which you have provided NO evidence), this would NOT indicate earlier authorship. It would merely invalidate one specific argument AGAINST earlier authorship.

You made a specific claim: that the Greek musical instruments were EVIDENCE of early authorship. You were wrong, you misremembered, you blundered, you goofed: at best, you parrotted another who made the same mistake. Please stop pretending that there is "scholarship" which supports your error, which we are "unaware" of because we haven't "done enough research".

It has been obvious for a long time that you are bluffing. You are fooling nobody here. And it's a tactic I have seen you use before. Vague references to "research" (which you obviously cannot present on this forum) just won't cut it.
...You can't even list the instruments! You're continuing the bluff in the hope that WE will name them for you!

kitharis, psalterion, symphonia.

OK, now you have something to google. Good luck!

But we will not forget the fact that YOU raised this subject (repeatedly) in a misguided attempt to provide "evidence" of EARLY authorship. YOU still have the burden of proof on this issue. It will NOT be sufficient to argue that maybe those words MIGHT have been known in Nebuchadrezzar's court.

bfniii

yes, process of elimination.



of course they're different. the "when" is part of the "what". the degree to which we're certain about the parts of the "what" are different.



agreement between historians is not necessary. some historians may not care one way or the other and some will be biased for or against. some will tell you there isn't enough data on this one issue to be decisive either way. that's why i have been asking what would be proof to you. what are your doubts based on? i would like to point out that the criteria in your original post don't lead to your stated conclusion. it should be restated "i believe there isn't enough information to accurately date the prophecy. therefore, i reserve judgment on it until there is more data."



no, i did not. i cited a source that refers to the date mentioned in 26:1.



the writer was ezekiel. he wasn't biased because he was recording what he witnessed. do you believe he was lying, mistaken, a fictional character or something else?



perhaps. but we're talking about something specific, the date of composition.



the historians aren't the issue. that's what i have been trying to point out to you all along. the data regarding the subject is the most pertinent issue.



no it wouldn't. it would be a ruse. since you here admit that "There could never be absolute proof", then your request can't be fulfilled. so what now would be proof to you?



maybe He was. do we have a reason to think that?



what a pointless exercise. first, how would you prove to someone else it wasn't a good guess? second, how would you prove it wasn't just some alien with advanced technology that either directed you to that outcome or could peer into the future?



i will give them the same answers i give you. i will ask them what their doubts about the bible are based on. who knows, they may even convince me.



since the information comes from the bible, we need to know if it is trustworthy. how can we know this?



no, i think it is a legitimate question. are you unable to answer it? if person a questions the beliefs of person b, why can't person b turn around and ask the same question of person a?



you mean people are unable to answer the question?



good question. one factor would be where the source gets it's information. another factor would elements like accuracy, dependability or trustworthiness.



great for them. we're discussing the bible, not the koran.



no example is necessary. here you are agreeing with my point. we're talking about degree of believability. what would be believable to you that it was written prior?



that depends on the individual.



exactly. that's why i'm asking what your skepticism is based on.



and i have done so



which is a legitimate question. are you unable to answer it?



it's authoritative, trustworthy, accurate and dependable.



i am not willing to say that and i would like to explore your "evidence".



but the two sides of most of these debates are mutually exclusive making your position incongruous.



i respectfully decline to answer these questions in this forum because it has nothing to do with biblical criticism. i'll PM or participate in another thread where i'll be glad to answer all these questions. these questions are basically evangelism which doesn't belong here.

Johnny Skeptic

Please specify. Do you by any chance have any corroborative sources for this assertion, or are you simply stating your own personal opinion, which might in fact be biased? As far as I know anyone can write about anything anytime that they want to, and anyone can revise anything anytime that they want to. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? My current position is that it is equally plausible that the prophecy predated the events and that the prophecy did not predate the events, and that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version and that it is not the same as the original version. What is your position?

Even if the prophecy predated the events, what about it indicates to you that it was divinely inspired? Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception. Due to Nebuchadnezzar's power, his proven penchant for conquest, the riches of Tyre, and Babylon's close proximity to Tyre, it would have been unusual if he had not attacked Tyre. The invasion of Tyre would have taken months to plan, and hundreds if not thousands of people would have known about. Ezekiel might easily have learned about the invasion by ordinary means.

Unlike most skeptics, I am not disputing the "what." This thread is not about the "what", it is about the "when." What I want to know is how we can reliably determine the "when"? You are completely wrong that the "when" must necessarily be a part of the "what." Just plain old common sense should tell you that.

I will soon transfer your comments regarding the issue of the nature of God to the thread on Biblical errors. I would like to save this thread for discussing the dating of the Tyre prophecy and other issues about the prophecy.