Sauron

It is false for several reasons, that being merely one of them.

No. It is not. The mainland was merely the suburb. The real power, the center of money, influence and strength was the island city. What military point, economic sense, or personal glory would there be in defeating only the suburbs?

For that matter, what prophetic purpose would it serve?

Moreover, the prophecy speaks of "slaying your daughters in the field". That is a reference to the mainland colony. But the point of view of that comment is important: it is Ezekiel speaking as if to the mother city; that is, the island city. The prophesy was directed against the island, with the additional comment that the mainland colonies (daughters in the field) would be wiped out.

You have apparently discovered in your research that the island city never fell, and are merely trying to rescue the prophecy from the junk heap.

The prophecy talks about destruction of the walls of Tyre. Do you realize that you need to show that he mainland suburbs had any walls at all? I mean, in order for your creative interpretation to stand?

Basically, it sounds like you need to review this thread. Nineteen pages of creative rescue attempts by fundamentalists, shot down in flames:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...93#post2308393

bfniii

and just exactly what would be proof to you that these actually exist?



you're missing the point. any specific example can be said to have been redacted by christians when they came into power. therefore, your request is pointless. therefore, you haven't provided a legitimate example of what would be proof to you.



no, it doesn't. the bible doesn't give a specific date for the flood and any date you attempt to shoe-horn on to the passage is speculation.



how can you claim to have researched the issue when such a simple idea escapes your understanding? at the risk of being repetitive; the egyptian priests knew in advance how to make a snake look like a staff. when the hebrews performed the stunt, all the egyptian preists had to do was reciprocate. when the hebrews performed the other stunts, the egyptian preists merely needed knowledge to help them recreate the trick, as with the staff. you are also, still, assuming that they did so immediately afterward. i have asked you where any such chronological indication comes from. you have yet to provide any biblical support for that assumption.

besides, keep in mind that the egyptians were only able to recreate 3 of the 11 tricks. they tried and failed with the lice. also, the boils prevented them from attempting to recreate that one.



whether the author believed that or not is irrelevant to the point. i cited a source that provides information to the contrary of the point you are making. you didn't incorporate that into the discussion. therefore, your position lacks information.



i am well aware of your attempt to date the flood. your position is not without peer. this is another example of you passing off something as certain when, in actuality, it is debatable.



also debatable. some scholars maintain that the abundance of flood stories point to the fact that there must have been one.



hurling the elephant. how about some specifics?



you had an answer? all you did was say that christians failed to show that the bible was authoritative. i asked you how someone would determine such a thing and you didn't answer the question as i pointed out.



i will be more than happy to address any examples that you provide of how someone would determine if the bible is authoritative.



untrue. there are books written on the subject of problems with islam doctrine that have nothing to do with childhood indoctrination.



also untrue. i know for a fact that there are people who have converted from islam to christianity.



of course you wouldn't see it. just like i never cite credible sources (even though i can prove i cite brittanica, et al) or i bluff about having sources (although you can't show one example of such a bluff)

a difficulty with the critical view is that the end of the sacrificial system that you cite does not equate to "to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin , to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy" in daniel 9:24.

that's just one. btw, this is yet another example of me pointing out something specific and you making vague, demonstrably false, statements.



i pointed out the specific post number. it's not my fault that you didn't spot it until i had to basically put my finger on it.

you didn't answer the question.



1. you didn't point out ANY specific posts despite the fact that you claim they exist.

2. i addressed your interpretation of hebrew history in the other thread so your accusation is false.



still no specifics.

how would you know if "the readers" have decided? have polled each and every person who has ever read either thread? of course you haven't. this is another neo-jacksim; general, vague statements that you either don't or can't support with specifics.



i already provided support that greek culture, specifically musical culture, was in the region at an earlier date. where is your support that that can't possibly be the case? where is your reply to my support?



i asked you a question and you didn't answer it, which is quite common. i'll ask again: where is the evidence that they appeared later as opposed to earlier?



what are you talking about? go back and read the daniel thread. i never said i didn't know of any problems with the traditional position. and yes, some were discussed. and yes, i countered them. if you feel like i didn't, point out some specifics.



you don't even know what they are so how can you say there aren't any. i already provided one to spin (because he couldn't himself) and i countered it.



on what basis do you claim that daniel is the one mentioned in the Aqht Text? just because the two names seemed to be spelled the same? i hope you have something more than that.



ok, fine.

112. completely implied. that verse in no way, shape or form mentions a flat earth. all it says is that God can see all inhabitants which would be completely unremarkable for an omnipresent God.

133. ridiculous. "the four corners" is obviously a figure of speech. the verse doesn't even say flat earth in any way. if you claim that it isn't a figure of speech for this passage, then you have to include any document that has ever made the same euphemism as advocating flat-earth, no matter how inconspicuous or when it was written.

146. total misrepresentation. the verse doesn't say God "looks". it says God "sits". also, circle of earth obviously refers to the horizon, not any flatness of the earth.

158. ibid, 133.

162. wow. the author might want to check out verse 26. it's a dream! daniel is interpreting a dream of belshazzar. this isn't the bible professing a flat earth. this and this alone should completely disqualify the SAB from ever being used again. it is a pathetic amalgum of misinterpretations. let's see if that insult gets edited.

163. it's bad enough the author made such an egregious error once. but twice is laughable. great source, jack. what a joke. tell the author to check out verse 5.

179. ibid, 133.

199. ibid, 133.

233. pitiful. God is not bound by the natural laws of our existence. every eye could indeed see Him if He were omnipresent.

238. ibid, 162.

and you complain about my biblical interpretation.



but neither you, nor the SAB, have so far shown that the bible disagrees with the natural order of things. i just completely discredited the SAB. do you have anything to add that differs from what the SAB says?



is it false merely because you say it's "wishful thinking", or do you actually have a real, bona fide case to make?



until you figure out that:
i have already pointed out one and i am prepared to discuss others.



yeah, waiting on you to get one of your cronies to actually explain to you where in post #21 i addressed one of them. obviously, you aren't capable of doing so on your own.



pat robertson isn't anywhere close to a prophet. look up the definiton in brittanica.

i've got news for you, there aren't any prophets like ezekiel anymore. it's called the new convenant.



that's not what i asked for. you gave me a definition that relates to modern hebrew or modern english. i asked about biblical hebrew. hint: biblical hebrew doesn't really have "tense" as we know it today.



so what? what does that prove? this isn't the only prophecy written in the past tense.



i've read through the 4 chapters multiple times. like the tyre prophecy, i can't find the part where nebuchadnezzar is going to "conquer" egypt in the sense that you try to make it out to be.



thread? you are making a debatable statement and passing it off as certain. so far, you haven't provided any support that it was written after except for bad reasoning.



as i said, this is excluded middle. it could have been written prior and still have been successful. just because it was written before, doesn't mean it necessarily had to fail. besides, nebuchadnezzar did precisely what ezekiel/God said he would do.



first, you don't respond to any of my analysis. are you unable to? second, christians, and jews i guess, believe the prophecy was fulfilled. it's not the christian's fault that you are trying to twist the words of the chapter to suit your needs.



i have supported them. i realize you don't like the answers, but that's beside the point.

i asked, several times now, what would be proof of fulfilled biblical prophecies and you won't answer the question. are you afraid to open your beliefs to critique? johnny skeptic wasn't afraid.

you didn't state how someone would go about proving a prophecy was merely a good guess.

bfniii

wrong. you haven't seen me type the word faith one time in this thread. our discussion is centering around this outcome:

j.s. asks question

bfniii replies (possibly in the form of a question to establish frame of reference)

j.s. repeats orginal question

bfniii tries again to get j.s. to answer question

j.s. might answer a question

bfniii replies to j.s. position

j.s. repeats original question again

rinse and repeat

in other words, our discussion is moving at a snail's pace because of your repetitive tactics.


i have told you this multiple times: if you want to be evangelized, go to church. they'll be glad to tell you all about their beliefs.

it would help greatly if you would post actual objections so that we can analyze them instead of these non-committal, repetitive questions.


isn't that what this forum is founded on, biblical criticism?

i don't understand the way skeptics act. you claim the bible is full of primary assertions. if that's the case, why are you hiding behind this flimsy excuse that christians "prove" the bible? you should be all to willing to demolish those alleged primary assertions. *listening for sauron*


if miracles are unfalsifiable, as i have been saying all along, then how do people know they are miracles? why do people believe in them?



that's an interesting observation. the way i see it, as outlined above, we're getting much of nowhere because you keep repeating answered questions.

bfniii

but i have asked you a follow up question which is how would anyone know whether those people were right or wrong? what method are we going to use to determine the veracity of the claim? this is where our discussions have been breaking down. i can't get you to provide a reasonable, unfalsifiable method.



this is biblical criticism, not islam criticism. we're disucussion bible prophecy. that's the subject.



this is not a court of law. this is an open discussion. anyone is free to claim what they like or believe what they like. since this forum is titled biblical criticisms, let's hear them. why is it so difficult to get skeptics to quit hiding behind these excuses to get to the criticisms?



i did answer the question. i told you that likelihood is irrelevant. then i listed the reasons why.



this furthers my point about your non-committal position. if you don't come up with actual scholarship that shows something one way or the other, why are we wasting our time? you have taken the skeptical position, suspiciously so for an agnostic, so put your biblical criticisms on the table.



because who is to guarantee he didn't have a heart attack one minute after ezekiel first made the prohecy? there is no guarantee. that's why i said likelihood is irrelevant. the tyre prophecy is specific enough that it merits notoriety.



i'll quote the same ones you used because they don't support your point as i showed earlier.



what's that got to do with nebuchadnezzar destroying the mainland?



the island, not the mainland



thus ending the nation of tyre as ezekiel predicted.



the mainland was gone at this point, as ezekiel predicted.



the island destroyed. the mainland was gone already as pointed out next.......



thus corroborating the fact that the mainland was destroyed.



irrelevant. the nation of tyre was gone already. alexander just rubbed salt into the wound.



the nation of tyre has not been rebuilt, thus vindicating the prophecy.

apparently fishnets are still spread over the rocks even today.



already obviated by the refutation of point #1



a complete contrivance for which the author provides no biblical support.



incorrect. God's prescience is not predetermination. they are two totally different things.



another unsupported assumption



wrong. there's no circularity to it. the biblical position is that a prophet gets inspiration from God, prophecies and the prophecy is allegedly fulfilled at some point.



what difference does it make when it is fulfilled? none whatsoever.



uhh. the meaning is in the fulfillment, not in any contemporaneous social context. to further underscore this point, sometimes prophecies are true in more than one sense. in other words, they can be true for multiple generations.



what a load. this conclusion does not at all follow from the premises.



this is a pathetically lame analysis for this prophecy made by multiple skeptics. ezekiel making this prophecy has nothing to do with any "failure" of the previous one. first, the previous one didn't fail. second, the assurance made by God that nebuchadnezzar would plunder egypt was due to the fact that he had carried out his will in the tyre siege.



what is this garbage about nebuchadnezzar not getting anything from tyre?



i beg your pardon. on the contrary, history is not silent on the issue. nebuchadnezzar attacked egypt with the help of amasis. look it up in brittanica. this person doesn't know their history.



untrue.



what is more amazing is this person's wildly imaginative spin on this denoument.



proof? hardly. it's actually a bunch of unsupported assumption and contrived subjectivity based on misconception and incorrect history.

bfniii

for reasons stated all over this thread.

Sauron

Hm. Without reading bfniii's posts in this thread, let me hazard a prediction. I'm guessing that what Sparrow said about bfniii earlier on a different thread, is probably still going on in this current thread:

And that what I stipulated earlier has still not happened:

Am I right?

If not -- and on the off-chance that he actually returned to the discussion as a meaningful participant - can someone point me to the post?

Johnny Skeptic

I don't understand what you mean. What does specifics have to do with the issues of dating, whether the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version, and what indicates that God told Ezekiel about the future events. Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception. Even the great kings Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander (or Alexander's sucessors), each with a large empire, were themselves conquered, so there was nothing at all surprising about the mainland settlement of Tyre eventually being conquered. In fact, we know from history that the chances that it would eventually be conquered were a virtual certainty.

bfniii

it does? where?



there are multiple sources that corroborate the idea. that's not the point. the point is the method. where did these sources get the idea that it was written prior? i wish i had a nickle for every time that question went unanswered.



do you know of any differences in between what we have today and any ancient manuscript copies?



here's one:

http://www.lebanon.com/tourism/tyre.htm

"the residents of the mainland city abandoned it for the safety of the island."

"But the conqueror (alexander) used the debris of the abandoned mainland city to build a causeway and once within reach of the city walls, Alexander used his siege engines to batter and finally breach the fortifications."

where do you suppose that debris came from? furthermore, i know of no sources, including the one you supplied, that contradict this belief.



not exactly. appealing to the majority means there is a contingent that believes otherwise. that isn't the case here. can you name a source that contradicts the belief that nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland? the closest i have seen are sources that are merely silent on the issue.



the fact that the points which favor a skeptical stance are either flawed or unconvincing.



so you can't provide any convincing objection. that's all you had to say. why did you even start this thread?



anytime. i'm already trying to cover that ground with you here regarding miracles or prophecies. if you will just answer the question what would be proof to you (perferably with something that's not impossible or unfalsifiable) and where people got the original idea that the prophecy was genuine.



i'm already trying, but you have some questions to answer first.



is this supposed to prove that God doesn't have supernatural powers or that there isn't a God?



to you. but that is a subjective determination.



you wouldn't know that it is supernatural. all you would know is that it is something beyond our current level of understanding.

you're missing the point i have been trying to make all along. let's say for the sake of argument that God did indeed show up and did a card trick for you. how would you prove to anyone that it was indeed supernatural?



i have answered this question in post #369.



this response underscores your confusion because it doesn't address the primary issue. if someone did believe it was a miracle, whether now or in biblical times, how would it be disproven?



the first thing we need to address is what are all the choices. what other than faith could such make such an occurrence believable or truly miraculous?



ugh. you are basing your skepticism on the fact that ezekiel could have learned about the invasion through ordinary means. if you can't provide support for that claim, then it is impotent. next objection please.



not that i have done that.



i defy you to show one example of such an instance.



and that is a strawman. i have tried to reason with you through these issues, but you keep repeating your original questions instead of moving along.



what are our choices? i have been trying all along to examine each one and using a process of elimination.



a lot more evidence is what i was looking for. you still sound skeptical. i asked you what would be convincing. what would be proof to you?



this is curious. since we know of Jesus from the bible and the bible lists means of knowing Him, why can't we use that method?



are you completely unable to provide any means of identifying what would be proof to you that God created the universe? have you examined the telelogical argument or the cosmological argument?



the same legitimacy that, to a lesser degree, gives parents the right to choose for their children.



i'm positive that there are people who would disagree by saying that someone learned how to use stem cells to regenerate the limb. that just doesn't seem very convincing.


apparently, He already has.



an interesting question but, ultimately, irrelevant. what difference does it make what "level" He chose? the end result is He provided propitiation. the question remains that, in the age of grace, why doesn't God restore missing limbs. why stop there? why is your idea of missing limbs sufficient?



not really. read the bible. it's in there.



there is NO proof that He is impartial to our suffering. if you think there is, state it.



1. you are defending yourself by attacking someone else which is a logical fallacy. just answer the question. have you noticed how you repeat answered questions?

2. i don't recall being confused about anything in any of these forums. if you disagree, provide an example

3. answering a question with a question is only a sin on this website. it's called creating a frame of reference, or satisfying the law of identity, and socrates was great at it.

4. once the law of identity has been satisfied (in other words, we're speaking the same language) then i will be more than happy to answer any questions or points directed at me.



this is tantamount to being evangelized. if you want to know specifically, do the research yourself. it suffices to say that the bible outlines them. therefore, your question has been answered.



yes, i realize it is a monumental task for skeptics to justify their beliefs.



this is a vague, unfounded assertion. if you want to support this statement, then please show specific examples and explain how they are inadequate.



i answered this question for you in post #279



entirely false. if that were true, there would never be a manipulative, opportunistic person. the motivation behind the volition is everything. so your next question should be how can that be detected. well, it would take a being capable of doing such.



false. it is built on the belief that someone is innocent until proven guilty. it is built on the premise that everyone deserves a fair trial by their peers. there are many other beliefs that our legal system is built on.

Johnny Skeptic

Corroborative sources are definitely part of the point. Most any fundamentalist Christian scholar or layman will tell you that. Christian authors, and skeptic authors as well, typically have extensive bibliographies in their books.

Which sources are you talking about? I am not aware of any source that has accurate criteria for dating the Tyre prophecy. Are you? I am also not aware of any sources that can accurately determine whether or not God told Ezekiel about the future events. Are you? Even if the prophecy did predate the events, what about it indicates to you that it was divinely inspired?

Better stated, do you know of any similarities between what we have today and the ORIGINAL documents? Why do you assume that the ancient manuscript copies are the same as the original documents? How old are the ancient manuscript copies? I am willing to agree that we cannot reasonably determine the truth one way or the other. What about you?

The following is from my previous post, but either you didn’t read it, or you conveniently avoided replying to it:

I look forward to reading your evidence that “The Tyre prophecy is specific enough that it merits notoriety.� Are you actually saying that if there were a similar prophecy in another religious book, you would accept it as being divinely inspired? Do you expect anyone to believe that the fact that the prophecy appears in the Bible does not have anything whatsoever to do with your support for it? Surely you believe that the important fundamental claims that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind solely because "the Bible says so." Those claims are by no means apologetic claims. It is completely impossible to verify any of them except by faith and you know it. We skeptics do not have any doubt whatsoever that regarding the Tyre prophecy you are trying to pass faith off as apologetics and history. I can assure you that such attempts will fail.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Why are you still pretending that I have not answered this question?
Why are you not reading my posts?

In particular: why are you addressing my posts one at a time (rather than trying to keep up with the discussion) and failing to look ahead and see whether I have answered your question in another post?

Here is what I said in post #378:
If this answer is not sufficient: why not explain your problem with it, rather than pretending it does not exist?
No, you have NOT supported your beliefs. You have not even ATTEMPTED to support your beliefs. You have provided NO actual evidence that Christianity is TRUE: you merely try to deflect arguments AGAINST it.

And I have already pointed out that I don't NEED to "prove" that a prophecy wasn't "merely a good guess". You are AGAIN forgetting where the burden of proof lies. It is up to YOU to provide prophecies that have plainly been fulfilled, to the satisfaction of any reasonable person: the sort of standard that YOU would consider sufficient if we were talking about (for instance) Islamic prophecies in the Koran. I think you know that you cannot do this, which is why you're stalling on the issue of "who decides what is reasonable".

Why don't you provide your BEST prophecy? If you think there are many to choose from, then pick one that YOU consider to be difficult to refute (though preferably on the appropriate thread: Inerrantists: please demonstrate that ANY part of the Bible is "divinely inspired").
And there are books written on the subject of problems with CHRISTIAN doctrine, and there are people who have converted from Christianity to Islam.

So, you still have no reason to be a Christian rather than a Muslim, other than childhood indoctrination. And there are plenty of other religions out there, some of which make NO falsifiable claims and hence CANNOT be "disproved" (like deism, for example: probably Wicca and Hinduism too).
Are we back to talking about the Tyre prophecy now?

SOME Christians (and probably Jews) believe that the prophecy was fulfilled. OTHER Christians and Jews accept that the prophecy was NOT fulfilled. And you cannot provide a single instance of where I have "twisted the words": my reading of the prophecy is perfectly straightforward, and many Christians agree. YOU are the one who must twist the words: so that Nebby can "breach the walls and pull down the towers", so that references to physical destruction "don't refer to the physical city", so that the political establishment was "destroyed" by somebody (as the American states were "destroyed" by the United States of America), and so forth.

You have certainly presented no case for "supernatural knowledge" or "divine inspiration" here! There is no support for your assertions and interpretations.

On the miracles of the Egyptian priests: you are continuing to make arguments that were refuted on the "Biblical Errors" thread (e.g. the absurdity of the suggestion that the Egyptian priests would carry stiffened snakes around in perpetual readiness for the "staves to snakes" competition, the lack of any Biblical support for the notion that they had to go and fetch their own snakes, the inability to invoke volcanic effects on cue by non-magical means, and so forth). And you are STILL failing to understand the historical context (the Hebrew belief in many gods).

On the Flood: you are STILL refusing to debate issues that you claim to be "debatable" (probably because you know you'd lose such a debate). The thread Alternative Biblical dates for the Flood? still awaits you.

I will address the Daniel issues on the appropriate thread.

On the overall issue of Biblical inerrancy: you keep claiming that "Christians" have evidence which satisfies them. But this is not the case. Inerrancy isn't a feature OF the Bible: it is a minority religious belief ABOUT the Bible. It is the belief that the Bible is entirely "the inspired Word of God", and therefore shoud be inerrant. This claim has nothing to do with "evidence".

...Unless you count 2 Timothy 3:16 as evidence ("all scripture is God-breathed..."). There are several problems with this "evidence":

1. It is obviously circular: "the Bible is true because the Bible says so".

2. "Scripture" refers to what was already accepted as "Holy writ" when 2 Timothy was written: the Old Testament, not the New (and, hence, not 2 Timothy either).

3. The translation is disputed: it's also interpreted as "all scripture that is God-breathed...", implying that some scripture is NOT God-breathed.

4. Paul himself is a somewhat dubious source for "Holy writ": a man who never met Jesus and doesn't generally attribute his religious teachings to Jesus (he cites the Old Testament and "personal revelation"), but nevertheless invented a lot of Christian theology wholesale. Many Christians reject "Paulianity", and many people (including Christians) believe that he suffered from a mental disorder.

5. 2 Timothy is considered by scholars (on the basis of textual analysis) to be pseudigraphical: one of several "Pauline" epistles not actually written by Paul, but attributed to him to imbue them with authority.

So, the "evidence" is that the Bible is inerrant because an anonymous author possibly says so, in an ambiguous document falsely attributed to a madman who never knew Jesus.