bfniii

interesting. instead of responding to the points in the article, which i didn't think you would anyway, you try this ad hominem.



hmm. in 49:3, the servant actually brings about the restoration of israel. in that sense, the servant is mentioned apart from the nation of israel. this servant has a mission to israel. therefore, this particular servant is not israel.

God has more than one servant. therefore, the servant mentioned in 41:8 is not necessarily the same one mentioned in 53 nor did you show such a connection. yet, you triumphantly claim that it is. that's dishonest. furthermore, notice the difference in pronoun; "you" in 41, "he" in 53. the suffering servant, even when superficially referred to as israel, is actually referring to the messiah on a deeper, symbolic level. there are many such references all throughout the OT.



isaiah is one of the most often quoted OT authors. chapter 53 is a favorite of NT jews and they weren't referring to king uzziah.



if you are referring to 53:4, neither "[gn" nor "hkn" mean diseased. the holman bible says "a man of suffering who knew what sickness was".



"the book of ezekiel", post number 305. you later specify ezekiel 29.



no, he failed to fulfill the idea of messiah held by those people. however, they didn't represent everyone. furthermore, it is also well known that the jews that rejected Jesus did so mostly because they had the mistaken impression that Jesus would be a miltant messiah.



i did? where was that?



good grief. the idea of a messiah came directly from passages such as isaiah 53. otherwise, the jews wouldn't have even had such a notion.



why isn't land the firmament?



that's not what genesis says. it says from the substance of the ground, or from the earth.



that you know of.



the kjv, nlt, nkjv, nasb, rsv, asv and the vulgate are translations of the bible. they don't make a definitive statement regarding the extent of the flood. you may have a study bible with study notes but even in that case, it's not the translation itself that makes the statement, it's the scholars who added the notes. the other few sources you mention represent just one theory.



from what source do you derive the idea that the hebrews considered the entire sky visible?



that the passage was written by paul is irrelevant. the idea itself is what is true. paul didn't invent the idea. he merely restated it. guess where he got it from.



you have done no such thing. you cited a vague article that itself didn't even list any source other than another vague reference to a poll. regardless, the mistakes of some christians does not mean those mistakes are endorsed by christianity.



argument from silence.



based on what evidence?



still no support.



defending your position by attacking another. if you keep going at this rate, you'll employ every logical fallacy known to man.



now you're backpeddaling by introducing a qualifier; one you don't bother to support with any historical analysis.



sources?



you have shown no historical source that agrees with this assertion. the one that came the closest, the "biography" of alexander by Quintus Curtius Rufus, is known to contain inaccuracies. regardless, even if 15k people did somehow make it back, which isn't well supported, there is no indication that they were able to reform the sovereign nation of tyre and rebuild it of their own efforts. to the contrary, what history does seem to support is that western powers started running the area of tyre.



i sure would like it if you provided some sort of historical justification for these statements



semantics. what was tyre on that island was no more when he got through with it. he swept away the last vestiges. there may have been some buildings still standing, but the sovereign nation of tyre was done.



but the point is you have presented no historical evidence that contradicts that this might have, and probably did, happen on the mainland.



except for the ones i have been posting for the last several hundred posts. i have supported my statements with actual biblical verses where appropriate including referring to the original hebrew. anyone who is reading this can go back through my posts to see this is true.

i have asked, again and again, for you to provide the actual text that forms the basis of your arguments. whenever i make such a request, you reply with the equivalent of "because i said so".

Johnny Skeptic

Since bfniii did not reply to my previous post, here it is again:

But you haven't stated your ontological argument. Please quote your sources. If you don't quote any sources, I will assume that you do not have confidence in them. Based upon your reluctance to quote any sources, I suspect that you know very little about ontology. I don't see how ontology can prove that there is a necessary correlation between morality and the ability to convert energy into matter.

The Bible won't do. If God is evil, he would easily be able to duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible.

Just out of curiosity, what tangible benefits has God provided you that skeptics don’t get?

I have noticed that you are quite reluctant to defend the book of Daniel after you had promised to do so. I said:

Jack the Bodiless replied:

Yes, Jack, it is a familiar pattern. Just like Lee Merrill, Bfniii is notorious for debating topics at great length until he gets into trouble and doesn’t want to embarrass himself. Of course, he sometimes avoids getting into lengthy debates that he knows he will lose. A good example is his claim that personal experience is an important part of his belief system. I have asked him on a number of occasions to provide evidence that God has performed tangible miracles for him, but he has always conveniently refused to do so. Bfniii frequently uses a double standard for debating. One of his favorite debate tactics is to ask skeptics lots of questions, but when he gets asked lots of questions, he is quite selective which ones he answers.

Boro Nut

You must have special christian specs then. Us mere mortals can't spot the hominem anywhere in his ad. Am I missing something? Cognitive dysfunction for instance?

Boro Nut

Johnny Skeptic

In the NIV, Ezekiel 26:14 says “I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.” Outside of Ezekiel 26, Ezekiel uses the word “bare” eight times.

Ezekiel 13:14 I will tear down the wall you have covered with whitewash and will level it to the ground so that its foundation will be laid bare. When it falls, you will be destroyed in it; and you will know that I am the LORD.

Ezekiel 16:7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

Ezekiel 16:22 In all your detestable practices and your prostitution you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, kicking about in your blood.

Ezekiel 16:39 Then I will hand you over to your lovers, and they will tear down your mounds and destroy your lofty shrines. They will strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry and leave you naked and bare.

Ezekiel 23:29 They will deal with you in hatred and take away everything you have worked for. They will leave you naked and bare, and the shame of your prostitution will be exposed. Your lewdness and promiscuity

Ezekiel 24:7 "'For the blood she shed is in her midst: She poured it on the bare rock; she did not pour it on the ground, where the dust would cover it.

Ezekiel 24:8 To stir up wrath and take revenge I put her blood on the bare rock, so that it would not be covered.

Ezekiel 29:18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre.

In all nine cases, there is no evidence that the remains of the mainland settlement were comparable to the word “bare”as described nine times by Ezekiel.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the world “bare” as follows:

1 a : lacking a natural, usual, or appropriate covering b (1): lacking clothing (2): obsolete: BAREHEADED c : UNARMED

2: open to view: EXPOSED

3 a: unfurnished or scantily supplied b: DESTITUTE <bare of ALL [emphasis mine] safeguards>

4 a: having NOTHING [emphasis mine] left over or added <the bare necessities of life> b: MERE <a bare two hours away> c :devoid of amplification or adornment

5 obsolete : WORTHLESS
- bare•ness noun

synonyms BARE, NAKED, NUDE, BALD, BARREN mean deprived of naturally or conventionally appropriate covering. BARE implies the removal of what is additional, superfluous, ornamental, or dispensable <an apartment with bare walls>. NAKED suggests absence of protective or ornamental covering but may imply a state of nature, of destitution, or of defenselessness <poor half-naked children>. NUDE applies especially to the unclothed human figure <a nude model posing for art students>. BALD implies actual or seeming absence of natural covering and may suggest a conspicuous bareness <a bald mountain peak>. BARREN often suggests aridity or impoverishment or sterility <barren plains>.

There is no evidence that the remains of the mainland settlement qualified as being “bare of all safeguards,” or “having nothing left over or added.” At any rate, on various occasions the mainland settlement was partially rebuilt.

In the KJV, Ezekiel 26:3 says “Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.”

I find the verse to be quite suspicious. Consider the following:

In the KJV, Ezekiel 26:7-12 say “For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.
With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.”

The verses do not indicate what credible historical records tell us. Consider the following:

Britannica 2003 Deluxe Edition

“…….in 585–573 it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II. Between 538 and 332 it was ruled by the Achaemenian kings of Persia. In this period it lost its hegemony in Phoenicia but continued to flourish.”

Wikipedia, which Bfniii has quoted before regarding the prophet Ezekiel, says:

“It was often attacked by Egypt, besieged by Shalmaneser III, who was assisted by the Phoenicians of the mainland, for five years, and by Nebuchadnezzar (586–573 BC) for thirteen years, apparently without success, although a compromise peace was made in which Tyre paid tribute to the Babylonians.”

I don’t see any good reasons to rule out a reasonable possibility that the “many nations” part of the prophecy was added “after” it became apparent that the king who Ezekiel referred to as a “king of kings,” reference Ezekiel 26:7, failed to conquer the mainland settlement.

Incredibly, by the time that God and his human proxies, including “a king of kings,” finally got even with Tyre when Alexander conquered the island settlement, the Tyrians who were alive when the prophecy was supposedly made had been dead for centuries. This stands at stark contrast with the supposed immediate destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, with the supposed short time that it took God to kill all of the evil people with a global flood, and the supposed immediate murders that God perpetrated against the firstborn males (babies included) in Egypt.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../983front.html

The Prophecy Farce, by Farrell Till

What about all of the prophecy fulfillments? Biblicists almost always ask this question when their belief in biblical inerrancy is challenged. No doubt those who ask the question sincerely believe that prophecy fulfillment is irrefutable proof that the Bible was divinely inspired, but in reality the question reflects a naive view of the Bible for which no credible evidence exists. The "evidence" most often cited by prophecy-fulfillment proponents will usually fall into two categories: (1) Unverifiable claims by biased biblical writers that certain events fulfilled certain prophecies. (2) "Fulfillments" of prophecies that were probably written after the fact. Anyone can successfully refute prophecy-fulfillment assertions by simply demanding clear evidence when confronted with either category of claims. In other words, if a biblicist cites a New Testament claim that such and such event fulfilled such and such prophecy, simply insist on seeing reliable nonbiblical corroboration that the alleged fulfillment event actually happened. Herod's massacre of the children in Bethlehem would be an example of an uncorroborated event. The massacre allegedly fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy (Matt. 2:18), but no one has ever found an extrabiblical source that corroborates the lone biblical reference to this event. If corroborating evidence of a fulfillment event should exist, then demand evidence that the "prophecy" of this event was undeniably written before the event. In the debate over Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy, which resumes in this issue of TSR (pp. 4-11), the demand for clear, undeniable evidence that this prophecy was made before the fact has proven to be an insurmountable hurdle for Dr. Price, who has yet to produce extrabiblical corroboration of the prophecy.

Another--and even more effective-- counterargument to use against those who claim that prophecy fulfillment proves the inspiration of the Bible requires sufficient knowledge of the Bible to show that many Old Testament prophecies obviously failed. Anyone who is willing to put the time into learning just a few of those failures will have no problems rebutting the prophecy-fulfillment claims of any biblicists he/she may encounter. The prophetic tirades of Isaiah (13-23) and Ezekiel (24-32) against the nations surrounding Israel provide a treasure house of unfulfilled prophecies. Ezekiel, for example, prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Egypt and leave it utterly desolate for a period of 40 years, during which no foot of man or beast would pass through it (chapter 20), but history recorded no such desolation of Egypt during or after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

Ezekiel also prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, which would never again be rebuilt (26:7-14, but Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre failed to take the city, and Tyre still exists today. A curious thing about this prophecy against Tyre is that Isaiah also predicted that Tyre would be destroyed, but, whereas Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would be permanently destroyed and "nevermore have any being," Isaiah prophesied that it would be made desolate only for a period of 70 years. A comparison of these two prophecies is an easy way to show the silliness of claiming that prophecy fulfillment proves the inspiration of the Bible.

As noted in my exchanges with Matthew Hogan on Ezekiel's tirade against Tyre (September/October 1997; November/December 1997), Ezekiel clearly predicted that Tyre would be destroyed, become a bare rock and a place for spreading nets, and would be built no more forever (26:7-14, 21; 27:28; 28:19). As Ezekiel did, Isaiah in his prophecies of destruction against the nations around Israel also predicted the overthrow of Tyre. In 23:1, he said, "The burden of Tyre. Howl, you ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Kittim it is revealed to them." The prophecy continued in typical fashion through the chapter, predicting waste and devastation, but beginning in verse 13, Isaiah indicated that the destruction of Tyre would be only temporary, not permanent:

“Look at the land of the Chaldeans! This is the people; it was not Assyria. They destined Tyre for wild animals. They erected their siege towers, they tore down her palaces, they made her a ruin. Wail, O ships of Tarshish, for your fortress is destroyed. From that day Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, the lifetime of one king. At the end of seventy years, it will happen to Tyre as in the song about the prostitute: Take a harp, go about the city, you forgotten prostitute! Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that you may be remembered. At the end of seventy years, Yahweh will visit Tyre, and she will return to her trade, and will prostitute herself with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth. Her merchandise and her wages will be dedicated to Yahweh; her profits will not be stored or hoarded, but her merchandise will supply abundant food and fine clothing for those who live in the presence of Yahweh.”

So Ezekiel predicted a permanent destruction of Tyre that would last forever, but Isaiah predicted just a temporary destruction that would last only 70 years or the estimated lifetime of one king. The fact is that neither prophecy was ever fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre forever, and it was never made desolate for a period of 70 years. Even when Alexander the Great succeeded in his campaign against Tyre in 332 B. C., the city was soon rebuilt (Wallace B. Fleming, The History of Tyre, Columbia University Press, p. 64) and has existed ever since. Matthew Hogan was objective enough in his consideration of the evidence to admit later that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre had failed ("From the Mailbag," TSR, March/ April 1997, p. 12), but regardless of whether this prophecy failed or succeeded, it was impossible for both Isaiah's and Ezekiel's prophecies against Tyre to succeed. At least one of them had to fail, and so proponents of biblical prophecy fulfillment have a problem that they must explain. If the Bible was really inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, why would he have directed one prophet to predict a temporary destruction of Tyre and then later direct another prophet to predict that Tyre would be destroyed “forever” and never be rebuilt? A likely answer is that neither prophet was divinely inspired; they both simply blustered in the exaggerated rhetoric typical of biblical prophets and, working independently, contradicted each other.

bfniii

just to make sure that post isn't the only one that summarizes the thread

of course the prophecy hasn't suffered any such setback in this thread.



all of these notions have been met with rebuttal

bfniii

right. the word bare is really referring to the city-state of tyre, as i said earlier. again, it's symbolic imagery, something that is used quite often in the bible much to the chagrin of jack. these "word-pictures" do refer to the physical destruction in a limited sense.



johnny, where are you getting the idea that nebuchadnezzar "failed to conquer the mainland settlement"?



no, i've been asking for it and you haven't provided any such data.



you said you have evidence that he didn't. if you have a case, let's hear it.



and what part of what nebuchadnezzar did do you consider to be failure?



all of that has been discussed and you have not, in any way, proven that it can't be done. i recall asking you several questions to that end, all of which remain unanswered by you.



1. what is reliable? till, predictably, doesn't go into detail as to what standard he is using.
2. why the emphasis on non-biblical corroboration? it is often lagging behind the bible as in the cases of belshazzar and pontius pilate.
3. even if non-biblical corroboration existed, it wouldn't be conclusive as in the case of the TF



why should non-biblical corroboration of this event be expected? as usual, till is using some hidden standard that he doesn't want to share.



backpeddaling already and he's not even halfway through his diatribe.



ah, so this is where you get your ideas from. i will respond to till in the same way i respond to you. what possible "evidence" could exist? again, the hidden till standard.



extra-biblical corroboration would not help one bit because if one source were found, skeptics would clamor for more. if more were found, skeptics would clamor for more, thus the sliding scale you so often employ.

clear and undeniable are subjective terms. who gets to decide what standard to use, till?

i will repeat: what is wrong with the date listed in 26:1?



i hope it is more effective because the ones he's attempted so far suck.



i know you may not realize this johnny, but that's called an argument from silence. it's never been conclusive or convincing.



till sure doesn't go into much detail here, does he?



against the nation of tyre, which was obviously fulfilled



yes, in a materialistic way. notice the language. it refers to "business". this apparently happened as the area tyre continued to by strategically important for mercantile reasons.



certainly, if you are subject to such elementary misunderstandings as this article is.



hopefully, this explanation will clear up his confusion



read any biography on ezekiel



all of them



already done here.

bfniii

queued. patience, grasshopper.



funny

Johnny Skeptic

Bfniii keeps avoiding replying to the following, so here it is again. I understand his reluctance and evasiveness.

But you haven't stated your ontological argument. Please quote your sources. If you don't quote any sources, I will assume that you do not have confidence in them. Based upon your reluctance to quote any sources, I suspect that you know very little about ontology. I don't see how ontology can prove that there is a necessary correlation between morality and the ability to convert energy into matter.

The Bible won't do. If God is evil, he would easily be able to duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible.

Just out of curiosity, what tangible benefits has God provided you that skeptics don’t get?

End of quotes

If God is evil, he could easily predict the future, so prophecy is completely irrelevant unless Christians can reasonably prove that God is good, which of course they can't. It would not be out of character for an evil, deceptive God to masquerade as a good God. 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." So, there are not any good reasons to exclude a reasonable possibility that God is evil and has transformed himself into an angel of light.

bfniii

hmm. i don't recall that being an attribute of the argument. perhaps you could elaborate.


that's not very specific. is this related to some passage in the bible?

bfniii

rewording? i was unaware that i had done that. perhaps you could point it out.