Jack the Bodiless

...Incidentally, why are you continuing your rant against the SAB?

The Hebrews DID believe the Earth was flat, and covered by a solid dome. We know this from their writings. Do you deny this?

The Hebrews wrote the Bible. Do you deny this?

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that this is the background setting for the events in the Bible. Why is this UNreasonable?

...And, sure enough, every relevant verse in the Bible makes sense in this context, and nothing in the Bible contradicts this context. Do you deny this?
..."Obviously"? This is "obvious" to who?

Obviously, this refers to the Hebrew flat-Earth cosmology. Obviously, this is another missed opportunity for the author to demonstrate knowledge of a spherical Earth. Obviously, the tent metaphor is appropriate for the Hebrew sky-dome (a tent-like structure erected over a flat patch of ground). Obviously, yours is a rant without substance.
Yes, it's a dream. And, obviously, the setting of the dream is the flat-Earth worldview of the time. You have not actually found ANY "misinterpretations" in the SAB. So how is it "disqualified"?
...How? If he was omnipresent and transparent, he would be invisible. If he was omnipresent and opaque, everyone would be blind. If he was omnipresent and "in all things" (pantheism), nobody would be able to recognize him.
Yes: it's not Biblical. You repeatedly ignore context, and claim "misinterpretation" of anything that disagrees with YOUR personal interpretation. Who made YOU God? Did YOU write the Bible?

Johnny Skeptic

Bfniii says that “the Tyre prophecy is specific enough that it deserves notoriety.� I disagree for the following reasons:

EZE 26:3 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.

That’s specific? This is better than television.

EZE 26:5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

The verse obviously refers to the island settlement because it says “in the midst of the sea.� What is at all unusual about people speading fishing nets on islands where they live? Regarding “a spoil to the nations,� oceanographers will tell us that historically, it has not at all been unusual for small islands or islets to become partially or completely submerged in water.

EZE 26:7 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.

There is nothing at all unusual at all about that, folks. Nebuchadnezzar was a contemporary of Ezekiel’s, Babylon was in close proximity to Tyre, Tyre was rich, and Nebuchadnezzar had a proven penchant for conquest. While those factors did not guarantee that he would attack Tyre, the factors do indicate that there was nothing at all unusual about Nebuchadnezzar attacking Tyre. Conquerors are known for attempting to conquer, are they not?

EZE 26:11 With the hoofs of his (Nebuchadnezzar’s) horses shall he tread down ALL (emphasis mine) thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

I am not aware of ANY credible historical evidence that agrees with that.

EZE 26:14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

This is one of Christians’ favorite verses, and it is an utter fraud. Regarding “like the top of a rock,� that is not nearly specific enough to correlate with what was left of the settlement after Alexander used existing rocks and the debris from the mainland settlement to build his bridge to the island settlement. The NIV says “I will make you a bare rock…….� The NASB also says “I will make you a bare rock.� A bare rock can mean anything from completely bare to varying degrees of partially bare. We don’t really have any idea at all what Ezekiel meant, what the mainland settlement looked like after Alexander completed his bridge, and how much of the original rocky ground was left. In short, no competent historian would dare to attempt to validate the Tyre prophecy by using Ezekiel 26:14.

Regarding “Tyre shall be built no more,� the Britannica 2003 Deluxe Edition says:

“By the 2nd century AD it had a sizable Christian community, and the Christian scholar Origen was buried there (c. 254). Tyre was under Muslim rule from 638 to 1124, when it fell to the Crusaders, and until the 13th century it was a principal town of the kingdom of Jerusalem. The Holy Roman emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, who died on the Third Crusade, was buried in its 12th-century cathedral. Captured and destroyed by the Muslim Mamluks in 1291, the town never recovered its former importance.

“Excavations have uncovered remains of the Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab, and Byzantine civilizations, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period lie beneath the present town. Areas of archaeological note include the ruins of a Crusader church, a street with a 2nd-centurymosaic pavement and a double colonnade of white green-veined marble, Roman baths, the ruins of a Roman-Byzantine necropolis, and the largest Roman hippodrome ever discovered. Built in the 2nd century, the hippodrome hosted chariot races with a capacity of 20,000 spectators.�

The Internet has other historical sources that corroborate the Encyclopedia Britannica. It should be obvious to anyone that Ezekiel 26:14 cannot possibly be true. If Ezekiel meant that Tyre would never be rebuilt to its former glory, he goofed on at least two counts. First of all, many ancient cities have never been rebuilt to their former glory. Second of all, many ancient cities have never been rebuilt at all.

Jack the Bodiless

...Oops, there were a few issues I missed in my earlier reply. Mostly somewhat off-topic, but as I prefer to respond to questions:
This is pretty simple stuff, bfniii. Try using a concordance to see how often "yowm" means "day". And note the fact that each Genesis "day" has a morning and an evening.
I've got news for you, bfniii: there is no "new covenant" in Judaism (the religion of Ezekiel and his contemporaries). You are lost again. Robertson is equivalent to an Old Testament prophet: NOT a Delphic (or similar) prophet. What we'd now call a "fire-and-brimstone preacher". We were discussing what was expected of such people. You basically agreed with me that their "predictions of the future" consisted of rants regarding God's impending wrath.
That's a neat little contradiction you have there. Hebrew doesn't have a "past tense", but other prophecies are written in this nonexistent tense.

I am well aware that ancient Hebrew doesn't have the same range of tenses as English (no pluperfect tense IIRC). But I asked you to clarify whether your position is that all modern editions of the Bible are incorrect. Apparently your answer is "yes". So why are all Bibles translated by incompetents, bfniii?
Ezekiel promises financial reward (from Egypt) for Nebby as compensation for his failure to get such a reward from Tyre. There are only two ways of getting that: conquest, or exacting tribute. Nebby managed neither.
...Except that he didn't. But you're still missing the point: that "it could have been written prior" is insufficient.
1. You have failed to discredit the SAB (as already explained).

2. I have already pointed out that the Genesis creation account is NOT false "because the SAB says so", but because SCIENCE says so.

...And the reason I addressed this one last is that it leads on to a fundamental contradiction in your worldview. Earlier you claimed that the reason you chose to believe the Bible is because it's "trustworthy, accurate and dependable". But you have repeatedly failed to explain how you would DETERMINE that the Bible is "trustworthy, accurate and dependable". Indeed, whenever the Bible contradicts scientific findings or historical sources, you assert (generally without a shred of evidence) that THOSE sources are wrong.

So you have NO means of determining that the Bible actually IS "trustworthy, accurate and dependable", and your claim was apparently a sham: you were merely reciting dogma there.

Apparently this doesn't bother you. It would certainly bother ME, if I were in your position. I guess that's the fundamental difference between us. Many of us (including myself) WERE Christians once: but we came to realize (in various ways) that the claims of Christianity are empty ones. We asked ourselves the questions you CANNOT bring yourself to ask. And foremost among them is "...why believe?".

bfniii

johnny, i have answered these questions for you multiple times now. what is the purpose in you continually asking me this? i have patiently waited for skeptics to present their case against the tyre prophecy in this thread and the biblical errors thread and i have addressed each and every point that i am aware of. my case is clear in my responses to each one of these points. this repetitive questioning is only wasting time.

you originally claimed to have a simply invalidation, but when it was clear that it wasn't so simple, you redacted your original claim and took up a less contentious position. if you want to continue to hold a non-committal position, fine. step aside so i can respond to jack unimpeded. otherwise, answer the question of what would be proof to you that the prophecy was written prior to the event and was divinely inspired in terms that are not unfalsifiable or impossible. then show your support that the version we have today is any different than any other previous version.



i'm not here to discuss other religions.



my approach to answering this question has not wavered. christians believe that the entire passage was divinely inspired. you tell me what would be proof to you that it was so in terms that aren't impossible or unfalsifiable.



because i haven't seen one shred of evidence to the contrary. i am open to any evidence anyone has.



but all i am asking you, or anyone else for that matter, to do is state your objections to the prophecy. so far, your one or two attempts have either been impossible or unfalsifiable prerequisites.



and i have answered multiple times that they have proven it reasonably to themselves. what would be proof to you?



then why are you even here? if you don't have a case to make, why are you posting instead of just lurking? your presence seems pointless.



i have answered every question you have asked me, no matter how pointed. i can't understand why you act like i'm being evasive.



i don't recall having trouble dealing with any of your arguments (mostly because you are now not making any). i just wish that you would answer questions instead of repeating questions that i have answered.



i have asked you these questions before. the book of ezekiel was written down as a book of prophecy. there are no other sources that contradict this that i know of. that being the case, where did people from antiquity get the idea that ezekiel was a prophet and that his prophecies were fulfilled? what is the implication of the lack of sources from antiquity that cast doubt on these ideas?



we can start by you answering the question where people from antiquity, or any consequent time, got the idea that ezekiel was a prophet and that his prophecies came true.



but i know of no source that contradicts this idea. do you?



irrelevant. the first step we can take is to compare the version we have today with any existing manuscripts. are there any differences that you know of?



you are incorrect. the notion that it was written down prior to the events has absolutely nothing to do with worldview. it has to do with the idea that it was or wasn't. what we need to do is analyze what gave anybody the idea of when it was composed.



can you even name what verifications could possibly exist for this, or any, prophecy? the reason why i don't think you can is because i have asked you that very question and your responses were either impossible or unfalsifiable.



some people believe there is sufficient evidence to make an accurate assessment. that is why i am asking you, patiently, what would be proof to you.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: I once told you that God should show up and explain some of his actions and allowances. You said that if he did show up, I woudn't be able to identify him. I agree with you, but your problem is that following your own same line of reasoning, you wouldn't be able to identify Jesus if he returned to earth. Even though I couldn't identify God if he showed up and demonstrated that he had abilities far beyond those of humans, at least we would have good evidence that somebody in the universe has supernatural powers and cared enough to visit us. You don't really care who eventually shows up as long as he provides you with eternal comfort.

Jack the Bodiless

No, this is not what Christians believe.

This is what inerrantists believe.

Why are you still confused on this issue?
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to begin by supporting your claim that Ezekiel's contemporaries DID believe that Ezekiel's rant against Tyre was a "prophecy" that "came true"? (it doesn't matter what any later persons thought, as they weren't in a position to know).

Even if Ezekiel WAS regarded by his contemporaries as a "prophet" (in the Delphic sense) on some issues, THIS incident reads just like a typical Robertson-style rant, not a prediction. Nebby is poised to attack Tyre, so Ezekiel does his "Robertson rides the hurricane" schtick.

Has ANYONE who was actually around at that time ever claimed otherwise?

Johnny Skeptic

But why?

How utterly absurd. Following bfniii's same line of reasoning, a man claims that he saw a pig sprout wings and fly. Bfniii questions the man's claim. The man tells him "you tell me what would be proof to you that it was so in terms that aren't impossible or unfalsifiable." Obviously, bfniii would be at a complete loss to provide the proof, even though he asks skeptics to provide what he cannot provide. The claim is most certainly no more preposterous than a talking donkey, a claim that bfniii probably believes even though he knows that it is completely non-verifable, along with for instance 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.

Regarding the issue of whether or not the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version, would bfniii tell me "You tell me what would be proof to you that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version in terms that aren't impossible or unfalsifiable"? No, because he knows that obtaining such proof would be impossible. In other words, another one of bfniii's arguments just flew right out of the window.

Since bfniii has stated that the Tyre prophecy is detailed enough to stand on its own merit without being associated with other prophecies, sooner or later, I predict that he will be forced to reluctantly address and defend specific aspects of the prophecy. I am pretty sure that the major battle will be over Ezekiel 26:4, which says "And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock." the NIV says "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock." Few historians would dare to make a major defense of the prophecy by referring solely to Ezekiel 26:4. A bare rock is much too vague too be of any value. No one knows what Ezekiel meant, and what the mainland settlement looked like after Alexander completed his land bridge to the island settlement. A further complicating factor for bfniii is that the mainland settlement was built on rocky ground. It is plausible that Alexander finished his bridge without having to use all of the ruins of the mainland settlement and all of the available rocks, meaning that the settlement would not have literally been a bare rock. In addition, some of the rocky ground might have been much more difficult to excavate than neighboring areas that were easier to excavate. Yet another one of bfniii's probable main arguments just flew right out of the window.

bfniii

in case you have forgotten, this is a biblical criticism forum. not a "specific reasons why the bible is true" forum. besides, i've answered every point directed at me that i know of.



by what reasoning? is it that way just because you say it is? on the contrary, christians find the internal cohesion of the disparate books to be one of the strong points of the bible.



first, unambiguous is relative. who gets to decide what is and isn't unambiguous? second, christians claim this has indeed happened. what more could you want?



and how would you prove it wasn't just a good guess or good reasoning, a la democritus?



you don't know what i do and don't take seriously. allah has nothing to do with this discussion.



that's certainly not always true. i know you think it is. not all of the conclusions drawn by skeptics are immune from debate or critique.



more of the same indeed. the flood isn't any more "hidden" than pontius pilate or belshazzar were until extra-biblical evidence was found for their existence. besides, i have said before (and you would know this if you studied the issue), there are people who have theories about the biblical flood and they believe they have evidence to back up their claims. once again, you are making debatable claims and passing them off as certain. in order for you to be accurate in stating that the issue is settled, you would have to be able to debunk every theory in existence and prove that no one is even bothering to research the issue anymore.



interesting source. it fits your m.o. perfectly, vague. the article claims a "furious debate which has raged" but provides no support for such a subjective claim.

the issue can come under as much scrutiny as anyone wants it to. that doesn't mean there is a debate.

"Many Christians also prefer a less literal interpretation. They argue that the disciples who claimed to have seen Jesus after his death, were merely talking about his spirit living on." where is the support for this claim? who are these "many" christians? where is the substantiation for their claims?

in regards to the point of the article, i refer anyone to romans 10:9. it doesn't matter what title a person has or how many of them there are, the christian ideal is represented in that verse and anything that deviates from it is not truly christian. that should be obvious.



because any such disagreement is irrelevant. the issue has already been settled in the verse i cited.



let's get this on record. you agree that God did personally destroy tyre because you agree that saying that He didn't is mere semantics. i knew you could be reasonable.



what has this response got to do with the fact that you completely misunderstood the passages you tried to cull together?



more vague, impotent garbage. no specifics.



this response outlines your confusion on the issue.

1. not all prophecies in the bible are written in future, or even present, tense.

2. biblical hebrew verbs don't have tense in the same sense that ours do today. are you aware of how biblical hebrew verbs are conjugated?

bfniii

then why are they even listed? the reason is because ezekiel is prophecying some of the particulars.



what's artificial about it?



flawed analogy. to list some of those particulars would not be incorrect. incomplete, maybe.



i responded to this in post #347



but it's sovereignty had already been lost, as predicted.

bfniii

sauron presented some criteria. as interesting as they were, they were less than conclusive.

it would seem to me that one prerequisite for determining if something were a prophecy would be if it came from a prophet.



are you referring to the tyre prophecy specifically? if so, what about it is false?