Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 02-12-2008, 12:55 PM

Just to spell this out (yet again) for the slow-of-thinking:

EVEN IF we assume that Ezekiel was referring entirely to his own future: the prophecy FAILS.

EVEN IF we assume that "they" includes Alexander: the prophecy FAILS.

EVEN IF we assume that "they" includes others in OUR future: the prophecy FAILS.

EVEN IF we assume that the mainland was part of the city of Tyre: the prophecy FAILS.

EVEN IF we assume that Nebby's 13-year siege took place on the mainland (

): the prophecy FAILS.

Both arnoldo and sugarhitman have failed to refute the numerous fatal flaws which prove this. Therefore they have lost. The rest is desperate evasion/denial/obfuscation.

Toto · 02-12-2008, 12:56 PM

Our rules do not prohibit stupid or insincere arguments. We rely on the interplay of posters here to get to the truth.

All the moderators can do is close pointless threads, or merge them together.

This thread may be due for closure?

Sheshonq · 02-12-2008, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

‘Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up < double think: this does not mean future tense, it means I have brought up nations (past tense) to fight tyre>

At this point, you're simply <edit>.

Not only was this never Farrell Till's point, but nobody around here has based an argument on that specious claim, either. And that mistake has been pointed out to you at least three times already.

Quote:

many nations <double think: this does not mean many nations, it only means Nebby willl attack Tyre> against you, as the sea brings up its waves.

Another <edit>.

This also has been explained several times. "Many nations" is the same thing as the Babylonian army, since it was composed of elements from all over the Babylonian empire. You may not agree with that, but you are lying when you deliberately mis-state my position on it.

sugarhitman · 02-12-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The Masoretic text is the standard Hebrew OT. The LXX is the greek version translated from Hebrew. There are books in LXX that have been added to or subtracted. In Daniel it is added too, Jeremiah is shorter, and Ezekiel contradicts itself in the LXX. Kings James was right to advoid this book when writing the OT. Nice try but that aint gone work. :wave:

Somewhat off-topic, but... in fact, "King James" was wrong to ignore the LXX, as the later discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls proved (for instance, the original Hebrew Jeremiah in the DSS was closer to the LXX than the Masoretic).

And what about Daniel? And the other errors? The LXX has added on to Daniel (which is enough to show Tampering and disregard it) And it causes Zek to contradict himself. The Jews use the Masoretic OT and not the LXX for obvious reasons. It is a corrupt text. Like I said nice try. (As I recall isn't the LXX the reason critics has attacked the Book of Daniel because of those Greek words and some song? Now you will use it to bolster your argument? Very nice) :wave:

Sheshonq · 02-12-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Our rules do not prohibit stupid or insincere arguments.

However, they do prohibit deliberate behavior designed only to elicit a response. It's called trolling. If afdave and other similar posters can be banned for such behavior, then what is the problem here?

Quote:

This thread may be due for closure?

The problem isn't the thread. The problem is the lack of moderator differentiation between (a) innocent stupidity and (b) deliberate baiting and intentional misrepresentation of poster's comments.

sugarhitman · 02-12-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Their arguments makes great stories....but thats it.

Our arguments are facts which you can't refute...which is why you still haven't provided evidence to your claim that Nebuchadnezzar had no naval force and/or no way to reach Tyre on the island

You also have run like a scared rabbit from explaining why a siege of the mainland colonies would have lasted for 13 years.

Running like a rabbit......too bad that I'm hunting rabbits.....:rolling:

Well now not so fast....There is one source that says Neby did not have a navy and that is Ezekeil....which is more than you have. :wave:

Sheshonq · 02-12-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Our arguments are facts which you can't refute...which is why you still haven't provided evidence to your claim that Nebuchadnezzar had no naval force and/or no way to reach Tyre on the island

You also have run like a scared rabbit from explaining why a siege of the mainland colonies would have lasted for 13 years.

Running like a rabbit......too bad that I'm hunting rabbits.....:rolling:

Well now not so fast....There is one source that says Neby did not have a navy and that is Ezekeil..

Where does Ezekiel say that?

Quote:

..which is more than you have. :wave:

You're the one with the claim about no navy. I don't have to prove anything.

Toto · 02-12-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Our rules do not prohibit stupid or insincere arguments.

However, they do prohibit deliberate behavior designed only to elicit a response. It's called <...>. If afdave and other similar posters can be banned for such behavior, then what is the problem here?

Quote:

This thread may be due for closure?

The problem isn't the thread. The problem is the lack of moderator differentiation between (a) innocent stupidity and (b) deliberate baiting and intentional misrepresentation of poster's comments.

First of all, please do not discuss moderation in thread.

Secondly, use the report post function if you think that a post crosses the line into baiting.

ETA - moderators are not here to micromanage the discussion.

sugarhitman · 02-12-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Just to spell this out (yet again) for the slow-of-thinking:

EVEN IF we assume that Ezekiel was referring entirely to his own future: the prophecy FAILS.

EVEN IF we assume that "they" includes Alexander: the prophecy FAILS.

EVEN IF we assume that "they" includes others in OUR future: the prophecy FAILS.

EVEN IF we assume that the mainland was part of the city of Tyre: the prophecy FAILS.

EVEN IF we assume that Nebby's 13-year siege took place on the mainland (

): the prophecy FAILS.

Both arnoldo and sugarhitman have failed to refute the numerous fatal flaws which prove this. Therefore they have lost. The rest is desperate evasion/denial/obfuscation.

But Jack what about the last part of ch 26 when God says that Tyre would be buried under the sea. Ch 27 says In the day that Tyre is ruined it will be buried in the sea. And not at the hands of a nation. ZeK listed land base weapons, the mainland city was layed in the water it was the one destroyed by the nations. Do this appear as two judgements to you or one? Or is it a contradiction? Or do all these things happen at one time?

Minimalist · 02-12-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Ch 27 says In the day that Tyre is ruined it will be buried in the sea.

Um....Tyre is still above water.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2008, 12:55 PM	#121
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Just to spell this out (yet again) for the slow-of-thinking: EVEN IF we assume that Ezekiel was referring entirely to his own future: the prophecy FAILS. EVEN IF we assume that "they" includes Alexander: the prophecy FAILS. EVEN IF we assume that "they" includes others in OUR future: the prophecy FAILS. EVEN IF we assume that the mainland was part of the city of Tyre: the prophecy FAILS. EVEN IF we assume that Nebby's 13-year siege took place on the mainland ( ): the prophecy FAILS. Both arnoldo and sugarhitman have failed to refute the numerous fatal flaws which prove this. Therefore they have lost. The rest is desperate evasion/denial/obfuscation.

02-12-2008, 12:56 PM	#122
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Our rules do not prohibit stupid or insincere arguments. We rely on the interplay of posters here to get to the truth. All the moderators can do is close pointless threads, or merge them together. This thread may be due for closure?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.