arnoldo

Thus since Tyre is a "disputable prophecy" the God of the Bible doesn't exist :banghead:

Sheshonq

Why do you think that is a contradiction?

Sheshonq

Tyre is a failed prophecy, not a disputable one.

arnoldo

Ok, fine. But my question is when did historians first begin to recognize it as a failed prophecy?

WVIncagold

Nope just saying god doesnt know shit if he does exist.:boohoo:

Sheshonq

Why does that matter?

arnoldo

For one thing if Tyre is such an obvious "failed prophecy" woudln't you expect there to be comments by ancient historians pointing this out? My personal belief is that it didn't begin to be spun as a "failed prophecy" until the minimalist movement began.

arnoldo

Since Porphyry was born in Tyre it would be interesting if any of his writings described a "failed Tyre prophecy". Unfortunately some idiots burned most of his writings. However, maybe some fragments of Porphyryr exists which mentions the Tyre prophecy?

Sheshonq

Not really. You assume that ancient historians were familiar with Ezekiel in the first place, or cared enough about Ezekiel's writings to comment on it.

Johnny Skeptic

Following that same line of reasoning, if the Ten Plagues in Egypt did not occur, wouldn't you expect there to be comments by ancient historians pointing this out? One obvious answer is that since the Ten Plagues in Egypt did not occur, there was no need for any historian to question such an utterly absurd false claim. Another obvious reason is that if historians took the time to dispute all false claims in all religious and secular books, they would not have any time to record true claims.

If a God exists, and wanted people to believe that he can predict the future, wouldn't you expect that he would always make indisputable prophecies instead of always making disputable prophecies?

Yes, that evidence, and lots of other evidence. It is reasonable to assume that if a God wanted to convince people to believe that he can predict the future, he would always make indisputable prophecies, not always make disputable prophecies that have needlessly caused billions of people to reject them. Why would a God want to do that?

Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would you like to claim that not even one more Jew would have accepted Jesus?

If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, would you like to claim that not even one non-Christian would become a Christian as a result?

If the universe is naturalistic, or if some other God exists who chose to mimic the ways that things would be if the universe is naturalistic, 1) all religions that have books would be spread entirely by word of mouth, which is the case 2) humans would only able to obtain food through human effort no matter what their worldview is, which is the case, 3) it would not be surprising that the percentage of women who are thiests is significantly higher than the percentage of men who are theists in every culture, which is the case, 4) it would not be surprising that the percentage of elderly people who change their worldviews is much smaller than the percentage of younger people who change their worldviews, which is the case, 5) hurricanes would kill people, animals, and plants, and destroy property as if there were not any differences between them, which is the case, 6) all tangible benefits would indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, requests, or worldview, and the only benefits that anyone could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits, which appears to be the case, 7) it would not be surprising that fossils and sediments are sorted in ways that are convenient for skeptics, and have convinced some evangelical Christian geologists that a global flood did not occur, which is the case, and 8) it would not be surprising that 50% of the genomes of chimpanzees and humans are identical, which is the case.

It is not reasonable for anyone to assume that a God who wanted to try to convince humans to believe that he exists would frequently mimic a naturalistic universe in predictable ways, or would frequently mimic some other God who chose to mimic a naturalistic universe.

Consider the following post from the GRD Forum:

Then skeptics are not to blame. If you will say that there are other reasons why skeptics are to blame, what are the reasons? If you mention other reasons, you should not have brought up the conduct of Christians.

In another thread, I said:

You replied:

That contradicts "It's the job of the church to end confusion, explain scriptures, and spread the gospel into all of the earth. I admit the church hasn't done it's job adequately."

The title of this thread is 'Why would a God only make disputable predictions?' That does not have anything to do with the church. Please answer the question. If the Bible had lots of indisputable predictions, it would be a lot easier for Christians to defend Christianity. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, surely some skeptics would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

Why would God choose to spread the Gospel message entirely through humans? Do Christians consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God? If God had invented a cure for a disease in 50 A.D., would he have told Christians to take thousands of years to give the cure to everyone in the world who had the disease?

If the God of the Bible does not exist, or if some other God exists who chose to mimic the ways that things would be if the universe is naturalistic, 1) all religions that have books would be spread entirely by word of mouth, which is the case 2) humans would only able to obtain food through human effort no matter what their worldview is, which is the case, 3) it would not be surprising that the percentage of women who are theists is significantly higher than the percentage of men who are theists in every culture, which is the case, 4) it would not be surprising that the percentage of elderly people who change their worldviews is much smaller than the percentage of younger people who change their worldviews, which is the case, 5) hurricanes would kill people, animals, and plants, and destroy property as if there were not any differences between them, which is the case, 6) all tangible benefits would indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, requests, or worldview, and the only benefits that anyone could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits, which appears to be the case, 7) it would not be surprising that fossils and sediments are sorted in ways that are convenient for skeptics, and have convinced some evangelical Christian geologists that a global flood did not occur, which is the case, and 8) it would not be surprising that 50% of the genomes of chimpanzees and humans are exact copies which is the case.

Incredibly, you would actually have people believe that a God exists who would allow what people believe to be largely determined by secular factors, some examples being parental influence, and geographical influence. Under many other circumstances, you would not have been a Christian, and you would have been just as certain of your beliefs as you are now.

So does tangible, firsthand evidence. Consider the following Scriptures:

Item 1

Matthew 4:23-25 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. 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. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

Item 2

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. (KJV)

Item 3

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. (KJV)

Item 4

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 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. (KJV)

Item 5

Acts 14:3 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. (NIV)

Item 6

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (KJV)

Item 7

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. (KJV)

Obviously, the writers of Matthew, John, Acts, and Corinthians placed great importance on tangible, firsthand evidence.

Regarding items 2, 3, and 4, Jesus' words alone were not enough to convince those people to accept him, so Jesus willingly provided them with tangible firsthand evidence.

It is suspicious that in spite of all of that tangible, firsthand evidence, Jesus criticized Thomas for wanting tangible, firsthand evidence that he has risen from the dead.

I would never be willing to accept a God who refused to provide an equal quality of evidence to everyone.

End of post

If faith pleases God, then why did you say that God used prophecy after the fact to strengthen the faith of Jews, and that the Partition of Palestine was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy? You can't have it both ways. Either faith pleases God or it doesn't. Since the vast majority of Jews have always rejected Christianity, obviously, God does not use prophecy after the fact to strengthen the faith of Jews. Ezekiel's failure to mention Alexander certain did not strengthen the faith of Jews after the fact. If anything, it weakened the faith of Jews after the fact.

What evidence do you have that it would be impossible for God to achieve fair, worthy, and just goals without killing people and animals with hurricanes, and without forcing animals to kill each other? If you wish, you can repost and answer that question in a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=230295 at the GRD Forum that is titled 'Justifying Biblegod's Atrocities?