Sai

.................

semiopen

The return of Israel from Babylonia in 536 - 323 BCE was also a partial fulfillment.

There was a tiny part not fulfilled:

After a certain length of time a prophecy becomes invalid. The whole point of prophecy is that it is supposed to predict the immediate future.

Toto

No it wasn't. It was a manufactured event based on the Bible.

NoeL

Well said. It's sad that it sems to be the trend amongst YECs (and probably other conspiracy theorists, I'm not sure). You can't even begin to have a decent conversation with them because they're so damn dishonest.

I mean really IBIH, it's ok to admit when you're wrong - everyone makes mistakes, and no reasonable person expects otherwise. It's very disappointing that you can't admit to something so simple. All you have to say is "oh my bad, I misread it and thought that the river was completely dry". People have so much more respect for people that can admit fault than they do for people that continually try to weasel their way out of it - especially when they KNOW they're wrong.

Minimalist

Lots of Jews have decided NOT to go back to Israel.

Your 'god' also said the Nile would dry up, Tyre would never be rebuilt and Egypt would be de-populated.

Pretty shitty record for a so-called "god."

spin

It's always entertaining to watch christians who know nothing about the texts they try to cite package them to fulfill their own desires.

Incidentally,

1. Gog, is a known figure, Gyges, the Lydian king known in the records of Asshurbanipal as Gugu Mat-Gugu [the land of Gugu], ie Gog of Magog. Lydia was in western Anatolia and Gyges was politically active in eastern Anatolia.
2. Tubal was the ancient realm of Tabal where Anatolia met Syria.
3. Meshech was Mushki another Anatolian realm. Mita (ie Midas) was the famous king known also from Assyrian records.
4. Togarmah was Til-Garimmu the early Armenian realm in eastern Anatolia.
5. Gomer was the descriptive name of the Cimmerians with whom Gyges was at war and which ravaged much of Anatolia.

All datable to a period prior to the fall of Assyria. Gog is a well-known and powerful ruler of the period who played in the league of Egypt and Assyria. The writer of Ezekiel had come into contact with this information and re-elaborated it into a vision, which christians take to be what they insist is prophecy. What this means is that christians, ignorant of the context of the literature they are using reinterpret it for tendentious purposes. Modern American christian literalists tend to convert it into some world war scenario based on Russians and Iranians, when the original plainly had nothing to do with either, as can be seen in the limited scope of the material, originally involving only Anatolia, which is in the far north for Israel.

(I've just read the wonderfully awful War of Ezekiel 38-39. If any infidel want to see the warped mind at work, that's a good source.)


spin

IBelieveInHymn

Maybe the way I phrased it was wrong, or maybe I was being over-zealous about the prophecy because I know the entire river of Euphrates is not gone. That's not what I meant. From the pictures I have witnessed, yes the river is dried up. But when I said "dried up", "evaporated" or "gone" I didn't mean the entire river is a bed of dirt. What I meant was, I can show you photo's of people standing where the river once ran rapidly. That's where I think some of you misinterpreted my quotes... :banghead:

NoeL

There, that wasn't so hard now was it?

Sai

Well this is a bit of progress but it is like pulling teeth!

Why do you have to qualify it as "MAYBE" you phrased it wrong?? There is no maybe to it.

There isnt any maybe to it if you meant one thing and said something totally different.

And now you are back to saying "the river is dried up". wow.

And then you go back to saying that WE "misinterpreted"!

No, we did not misinterpret. We just read what you wrote.

Does Christianity teach anything about accepting personal responsibility and not trying to put your errors off on other people?

bacht

Nice Spin. I wish people like IBIH would at least look at a Jewish commentary once in a while. There's much more historical depth in an analysis like the above, and it helps us get in touch with writers like Ezekiel on their own terms.