bfniii

actually, i did touch on that subject in this thread.



yeah, spin was unable to competently discuss the subject. ask spin about the three major views on daniel. *crickets chirping*



no, i asked the almighty spin to merely discuss it. he couldn't (or wouldn't).



it wasn't the only purpose, but it was the main one.



not that that indicates that it isn't a prophecy. now you're dictating what tense prophets had to write in? where did that rule come from?



i've already discussed this with you. the only thing that failed is your interpretation of ezekiel 26



God allegedly granted prophets their prescience. what would be proof to you?



a vague, impotent accusation. do you have some specifics?

Jack the Bodiless

...In which you were conveniently unable to state the "problems". That's why you wanted Spin to do it for you.
You specifically asked him to discuss the "shortcomings in the critical position" (those are your words). But there is nothing to discuss, because there ARE no shortcomings in the critical position.

...What's that? You think there ARE shortcomings in the critical position? And these are...?
No, it wasn't.
Good grief, <inflammatory remark deleted>. You don't know what "past tense" means. So now you're probably the only person in the world who rejects the simple fact that the end of the book refers to events that had already happened when it was written.

Do you apply this standard to ANY other written work? Newspapapers must be a source of constant amazement to you. All those "prophecies" of world events, written in the past tense as if they had already happened!
No, you have AVOIDED discussing the failure of the prophecy against Egypt (which is in Ezekiel 29, NOT Ezekiel 26). You have also failed to find any "failure" in my interpretation of Ezekiel 26. But we have covered this already.
...WHAT "prescience"? A fulfilled prophecy would be "proof": a demonstration that they DID have "prescience". Something specific, unusual, not easily guessed, definitely written before the event, not subject to artificial manipulation by those trying to "make it come true", and verifiably fulfilled.
Of course not, that's the POINT! There ARE no "specifics"! There ARE no indications of "supernatural knowledge" or "divine inspiration"!

THESE are the claims that are "vague" and "impotent"!

Jack the Bodiless

Indeed. So now you understand why we are unimpressed by the failure of Christians to support their beliefs?
Young-Earthism, special creation, the Noachian Flood, Biblical inerrancy etc. All of these are false beliefs embraced by some Christians but not by others. Some Christians also disbelieve in the resurrection of Jesus, which others consider to be the most important event in Christianity.

...But this is getting WAY off-topic.

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding this thread, I have already listed my criticisms of the Tyre prophecy on a number of occasions, and you know it. Here they are again in revised form:

Even if the prophecy was written before the events, Ezekiel could easily have learned about Nebuchadnezzar's planned invasion by ordinary means. The invasion was a major undertaking. It would have taken months to plan, and hundreds, if not thousands of people would have known about it. Due to Nebuchadnezzar's great power, his proven penchant for conquest, the riches of Tyre, and Babylon's close proximity to Tyre, it would have been surprising to many people who were alive at that time if he had not attacked Tyre.

Regarding the plausibility, if not probability of later revisions, 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." Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar "a king of kings," and he said that Nebuchadnezzar would go down "all" of the streets of the mainland settlement, and yet 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." In my opinion, 26:3 does not compare favorably with 26:7-12. It is my position that it is plasusible, or reasonably possible, that when it eventually became obvious that Nebuchadnezzar was not going to defeat the mainland settlement, Ezekiel (or someone esle) tried to save face by adding 26:3.

Is it your position that the Tyre prophecy can stand upon its own merit, or that it is credible only by associating it with other Scriptures that you believe are easier to defend? I submit that most of your arguments in various threads are merely faith disguised as apologetics. You probably subscribe to the absurd notion that people do not have to shelve their intellects in order to become Christians, but that is most certainly not true. There is not any tangible evidence whatsoever that the God of the Bible created the universe, that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus never sinned, that Jesus' shed blood remitted the sins of mankind, and that the Bible writers always spoke for God and never for themselves.

You have said that the only real evidence is personal experience, but you have repeatedly refused to discuss your personal experiences. There are hundreds of articles at the Internet on the tricky topic of cause and correlation. Christians and the followers of many other religions are notorious for attempting to correlate God actions with good things that happen to them. If the God of the Bible exists, he would never act at random, and yet the distribution of good things and bad things seem to occur at random. What is your opinion regarding this matter?

I am willing to agree that there is insufficient evidence to make properly informed conclusions one way or the other. How about you?

So, you wanted me to criticize the Bible, and I did. How about some other Bible topics that you are interested in? If I deem them to be important, I will be happy to criticize them too.

I noticed that you were discussing the book of Daniel with Jack the Bodiless. Did you read my thread that is titled 'It is time to put the book of Daniel and Josh McDowell in their proper places'? If not, you should read it. I citied an article at the Secular Web that conclusively proved that McDowell's own sources discredited him. McDowell's own sources stated that the book of Daniel most likely had multiple authors, and that it most likely was written over a span of centuries.

Do you ever proselytize non-Christians? If so, what do you tell them? If you do not wish to discuss this issue in this forum, please tell me what some of your favorite books are by Christian scholars that best express why you became a Christian.

bfniii

i've actually read the entire chapter and i'm having trouble finding the part where nebuchadnezzar is supposed to the ultimate downfall of tyre. perhaps you could point it out for me.



the prophecy isn't concerned with the physical city.

Apikorus

As I said, see 26:7ff.

Ah, then what is its concern? All the stuff about horses, chariots, swords, broken walls, stones, timber, spoils of riches, etc. sure sounds like it is talking about physical stuff. Maybe I am hampered because I read in the original Hebrew and you read with special "Jesus glasses."

bfniii

here we go again. yes, someone is specifically named in verses 3, 4, 19, 20.



no, specifically named. i just quoted the verses.



sure, if you misinterpret the prophecy.



yup.



until you make a convincing case.

bfniii

not that he was supposed to

Apikorus

Who was supposed to destroy Tyre?

Johnny Skeptic

It does not make any difference whatsoever who was supposed to ultimately conquer Tyre unless you can first reasonably prove that the prophecy was written before events, which of course you have never done. I am having trouble finding credible evidence that the prophecy was written before the events, and that it was not revised in later years. Perhaps you could point it out for me.

Your have said that you believe that the prophecy was divinely inspired, a position that you have never adequately justified, but it is not my position that the prophecy was not divinely inspired. Therefore, your position is much more assertive than mine is. I told you in my previous post why I am suspicious that the prophecy was altered. Please reply to my previous post.