Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bfniii · 06-16-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

bfniii's only response to this is to claim there is no reason to trust the story

you're suffering from the same problem jack is; an inability to accurately recreate my position. since you seem to have a short memory, i will repeat it. tyre did not pull itself up by it's own bootstraps, regardless of whether tyrians returned or not. the alleged rescue acknowledges that tyrians were no longer in control of their hegemony. any tyrians that returned did so only because alexander or his successors allowed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

- but in reality, there is no reason whatsoever to discount it; certainly no reason that he has been able to give.

actually, i have. it appears the QCR was not the most reliable historian. i am not saying he is wrong on this account. what i am saying is that the people here who invoke his account have done nothing to show it is trustworthy other than it's convenience to their position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

He merely needs to discount it - and badly.

wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

He has no response for it,

wrong again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

and he knows that this particular detail destroys his claim that the original Tyrians were all destroyed.

not quite.

bfniii · 06-16-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Right. All it says is that Jonah said, "You will be destroyed." The city's destruction is what he said -- without any qualifications, disclaimers, stipulations, reservations, ifs, ands, or buts -- was going to happen, and it did not happen.

What was prophesied did not happen. That makes it a false prophecy. I don't care why it did not happen. I don't care how much better the actual outcome was than the predicted outcome would have been. If a prophet says X will happen and X does not happen, then the prophet is wrong.

the proponent of the aforementioned position would respond that many prophecies were given with an understood "unless you repent". this is certainly the case with the main focus of biblical prophets, the sin of israel and judah. if they had repented, would it have been just for God to send them into exile? since it appears that ninevah repented, would purpose would have been served to punish them for very things they repented of?

manwithdream - i have seen this response regarding ezekiel 26 but i didn't delve into it because it involves morality, as you can see from my response here. it didn't seem germane to the thread, but you present a reasonable possibility.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-16-2006, 09:02 AM

Message to bfniii: Please reply to my brief post #669. Unless we can be reasonably certain that the prophecy has not been altered, none of the other issues that you are debating make any difference. This is exactly one of the same approaches that you would use if some writings from another religion claimed to be prophetic. You would ask for evidence that the current version of the prophecy was the same as the original, and you would complain if you didn't get it.

bfniii · 06-16-2006, 09:06 AM

this is really getting off topic, but:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

If one changes oneself either in a state of mind or by their actions then either (a) they will become better or (b) they will become worse with respect to their original state of being.

how do you imagine that God was changed in the case of tyre or ninevah? He wasn't. as far as we know, His purpose for the prophecy was fulfilled succinctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

However there are numerous phrases in the Bible depicting their God altering either his state of mind or his course of action at any given time (see Jer 32:29 God changing from calmness to anger; Ex 32:9-14 "And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.")

1. God can appear to change His mind, but that has absolutely nothing to do with His character.
2. stating that God can't change His mind means you are referring to a God who is less than omnipotent. therefore, we are talking about different god.

i just saw that don created a new thread. sorry about that. the moderators can port my response to that thread if they wish.

bfniii · 06-16-2006, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Bullshit.

great response. a real credit to these forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

He simply could have said: If you don't repent, I'll do this, but if you do repent, I'll do that.

could have or must have? you seem to imply the latter. if so, make your case so that it is the only possible one that can be true.

bfniii · 06-16-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

There is no rule of logic or law that says that all claims are true unless proven untrue.

i have not said otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If you assume that the prophecy has not been altered, then please tell us why.

as of now, i know of no reason to believe it has been altered. do you know of one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since God has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without ever having heard the Gospel message, why in the world would he be interested in preserving the Bible without revisions? Surely an unaltered Bible is not any better than no Bible at all as far as those hundreds of mililions of people were concerned.

this is a red herring (and off-topic). the bible states that the law of God is written upon the hearts of every man. it is known intuitively by everyone. coupled with the idea of predetermination, it is unlikely that anyone dies without hearing some form of the gospel.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-16-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If you assume that the prophecy has not been altered, then please tell us why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

As of now, I know of no reason to believe it has been altered. Do you know of one?

As of now, I know of no reason to believe it has not been altered. Do you know of one? Please do not refer to truth by association with other Scriptures. I once asked you if the Tyre prophecy could stand on its own merit without you referring to other Scriptures, and you said that it could.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since God has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without ever having heard the Gospel message, why in the world would he be interested in preserving the Bible without revisions? Surely an unaltered Bible is not any better than no Bible at all as far as those hundreds of millions of people were concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

This is a red herring (and off-topic). The Bible states that the law of God is written upon the hearts of every man. It is known intuitively by everyone. Coupled with the idea of predetermination, it is unlikely that anyone dies without hearing some form of the gospel.

Do you have any idea at all precisely how this occurs, or are you just guessing? There are not any credible confirmations for any of that from logic, reason, or history. You are taking a Bible writer's word for it without any personal confirmation from God. Are you an inerrantist? All that you have stated is idle speculation and guesswork. If the Bible is known intuitively by everyone, why do you bother to tell anyone about it? If the Bible is good for some people, then it is good for all people, but obviously, God doesn’t care about that.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

Will you agree with me that similar appearances by Jesus today would produce similar results, or in other words that some skeptics and undecided people would become Christians who were not previously convinced? Various historical figures have gained large followings based upon much less evidence. A couple of good examples are Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce.

dongiovanni1976x · 06-16-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic: If you mention that Tyre was never rebuilt to its former glory, I will tell you that it is quite common for cities and kingdom to not be rebuilt to their former glory.

Bfniii: got any statistics to back that up with?

Noah: Sure. Lots in fact. Rome for starters. Remember the empire over which it presided? Rome was sacked and vandalized and destroyed a number of times. Today Rome is just another capital city in a country that really has little bearing on world events.

Bfniii: if you study the history of rome, you know that the demise of the empire did not occur in a short time frame but over a long period of time. this does not appear to be the case with tyre. it appears from history that people fled the mainland during nebuchadnezzar's campaign for the island citadel. then alexander finished them off. at that point, the people of tyre were either killed or dispersed to such a degree that the collective ceased to exist but in a very short time period. in this way, rome is not analogous. rome was attacked multiple times, but there was not a time when all of the romans were killed or dispersed completely.

DonG: Alaric sacked Rome in 410 and it limped on another 66 years but it was pretty much finished by then. You are acting as if the 250 years between Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander was a drop in the bucket.

Bfniii: the seeds of rome's demise had been laid long before alaric came along. besides, even after alaric's attack, rome was run by romans and continued to hold significant international power for some time afterwards. furthermore, rome was besieged several times after the visigoths. i just don't see rome as analogous.

DonG: Tell me what “seeds” were sown by Nebuchadnezzar? Tyre wealth was intact, its religious and administrative centers were untouched and it continued to flourished for centuries. It’s downfall was abrupt and devastating and completely brought about by Alexander. But even Alexander did not completely destroy the city as it flourished for over 1500 years until 1291 CE.
Rome by contrast had a very lengthy “fall” if it is acceptable to call it such. Hadrian limiting the empire to fix boundaries limited the impetus for glory and conquest but was seen as necessary to combat the overextension of empire, Caracalla’s extension of the citizenship brought in quick tax revenue but added to the flood of uneducated, unskilled large groups who put pressure on Rome for land on the western and southern side of the Rhine and Danube. The barrack emperors who succeeded him drained the economy and Diocletian’s economic reforms only exacerbated the problem by price fixing which caused increased trade that went unregulated- further diminishing the tax base with which to defend the over extended empire. After the disaster of Adrianople recruiting soldiers to defend the borders became increasingly difficult as some “Romans” found allying with the Visigoths or Ostrogoths more beneficial than living under the oppressive taxation and conscriptions of the Roman empire. But after Adrianople the sacking of Roma in 410 had a profound affect on the psychology of the Romans. The Eternal City, had never been taken in almost 1000 years. This event was more symbolic than anything else and yes, Rome had many “problems” before this event, but in the mind of Roman and barbarian alike, this event shattered the concept of the invincible Roman empire. For this reason I used it analogously.
Bfniii: i was making the point that tyre and rome weren't analogous. therefore, tyre didn't have to have had seeds of demise planted over long periods of time.

To sum up: Johnny Skeptic mentioned that it is insignificant for a kingdom or city to lose its former glory…you called him on that and asked for examples…Noah answered your call and provided Rome. You thought that Rome was not analogous because it took a long time whereas Tyre was sudden and abrupt. I came along because it was not sudden and abrupt. The prophecy, as you would have it took 250 YEARS to be completed! That is why I said,

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

You (Bfniii) are acting as if the 250 years between Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander was a drop in the bucket

I said this because you said,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bfniii

if you study the history of rome, you know that the demise of the empire did not occur in a short time frame but over a long period of time. this does not appear to be the case with tyre. it appears from history that people fled the mainland during nebuchadnezzar's campaign for the island citadel. then alexander finished them off.

Rome was being argued as analogous by Johnny and noah simply because it LOST its former glory, it was being argued as analogous by ME because it took about 250 years for it to decline and you have been arguing that Alexander was the one who completed the prophecy of pre-585 BCE in the year 332 BCE. That is a very long time, much longer than you imply by making it so seamless in saying that “then Alexander came and finished them off”. The fact that you use Alexander in the prophecy makes it INSIGNIFICANT because it is common for kingdoms and cities to lose former glory, especially over the course of 250 years! And this is exactly what Johnny and Noah were trying to point out to you- not to mention it makes the prophecy unspecific since it never specifies Alexander at all ANYWHERE in the whole thing.

If you use Alexander in the prophecy, then Ezekiel's predictions become INSIGNIFICANT and UNSPECIFIC regardless of how you twist the meaning and words of the prophecy about Tyre being destroyed and never being rebuilt or found again.

Quote:

Dong: Bfniii, we both agree that Alexander the Great was never specified in the prophecy.
Bfniii: maybe not by name but there is more than one way to refer to someone.

You are right, Alexander the Great is never specified in Ezekiel’s prophecy.

Quote:

DonG: And I assume we agree, that if something is not specified then it is unspecific. Therefore if you want to use Alexander in support of your argument then you must acknowledge that Ezekiel’s prophecy is not incredibly specific and detailed, but rather unspecific.
Bfniii: there are several aspects of the prophecy that are specific including the fact that alexander can be part of the many nations that attack tyre.
DonG: By this logic so could Farvaix III, commander of the the Aguinor Union from Alpha Centauri. IT is so utterly vague ANYONE could be. WOW! How specific!
And the “details” you are referring to “horses trampling on streets,” “plundering riches,” “destroying houses,” “breaking down walls,” are completely common to cities being sacked.
Bfniii: just above you stated that alexander could not have been part of the prophecy because he wasn't referred to and here you are saying he could have. which is it?

I am arguing from YOUR perspective Bfniii. By that I mean that IF we assume Alexander is a part of this prophecy, even though he never mentioned, then we would obviously be able to include ANYONE FROM ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME- this then includes Commander Farvaix III. It just so happens that Alexander beat Commander Farvaix to the punch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bfniii

besides, if "they" are predicted to do something and someone comes along who fits right in to that scheme, then it would be reasonable to include that person in the "they".

Name someone who could NOT fit into that scheme. It is SOOOOOOOOO FREAKING vague that it encompasses ANYONE at ANYTIME from ANYWHERE PERIOD. WOW! How Specific!

If you use Alexander in the prophecy, then Ezekiel's predictions becomes INSIGNIFICANT and UNSPECIFIC regardless of how you twist the meaning and words of the prophecy about Tyre being destroyed and never being rebuilt or found again.

Sauron · 06-16-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

bfniii's only response to this is to claim there is no reason to trust the story

you're suffering from the same problem jack is; an inability to accurately recreate my position.

No, the position is recreated correctly. It's merely that you didn't realize the predicament that your position creates. And yoiu most certainly did make the statement I indicated.

Quote:

since you seem to have a short memory, i will repeat it.

My memory is fine; your integrity is in disrepair, however.

Quote:

tyre did not pull itself up by it's own bootstraps, regardless of whether tyrians returned or not.

1. You haven't shown that to be the case at all.

2. When a city rebuilds itself, that is the definition of "pulling oneself up by its bootstraps."

3. Your diversion about "pulling itself up by its bootstraps" is orthagonal to the prophecy anyhow. If Tyre is rebuilt under any set of circumstances then the prophecy is invalidated. The fact that it was Tyrians doing the rebuilding only adds icing to the cake.

Quote:

the alleged rescue acknowledges that tyrians were no longer in control of their hegemony.

1. Your attempt to introduce doubt by using the word "alleged" s transparently desperate. As I indicated above -- and as you tried to deny -- you need for this record of the rescue to be wrong, but you have no basis to reject it. So you handwave.

2. I'm not sure anyone agrees with your claim about "no longer in controlf of their hegemony", but it doesn't matter anyhow. The question of hegemony does not satisfy the details of the prophecy. The prophecy requires far more than a loss of nominal rulership`The prophecy said that there would be no city or power at Tyre. Yet there was.

Quote:

any tyrians that returned did so only because alexander or his successors allowed it.

1. Proof by assumption? Please; you ought to know better. You need to demonstrate Alexander or his successors were in a position to stop it before you can claim that it happened with their consent.

2. Your point is irrelevant anyhow, since the prophecy was far more specific; see above.

Quote:

but in reality, there is no reason whatsoever to discount it; certainly no reason that he has been able to give.

actually, i have. it appears the QCR was not the most reliable historian.

Yes, you've stated it, but no proof has been offered. How convenient for you; you toss aspersions at a key record that contradicts your crackpot idea.

Quote:

i am not saying he is wrong on this account. what i am saying is that the people here who invoke his account have done nothing to show it is trustworthy other than it's convenience to their position.

There is no need for anyone here to do so, since no one has brought any justification to doubt the story.

Quote:

He merely needs to discount it - and badly.

wrong.

Sadly, I am still correct.

Quote:

He has no response for it,

wrong again.

No, I'm still right here. Of course, you can prove me wrong by showing actual reasons to discount the story. But you won't.

Quote:

and he knows that this particular detail destroys his claim that the original Tyrians were all destroyed.

not quite.

I'm afraid it's so. Those Tyrians provide 15,000 reasons why your original claim is wrong. Which is why you are straining so mightily and trying to introduce doubt about the record.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-16-2006, 02:28 PM

Message to bfniii: Please reply to my post #677.

06-16-2006, 09:02 AM	#673
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	A simple invalidation of the Tyre prophecy Message to bfniii: Please reply to my brief post #669. Unless we can be reasonably certain that the prophecy has not been altered, none of the other issues that you are debating make any difference. This is exactly one of the same approaches that you would use if some writings from another religion claimed to be prophetic. You would ask for evidence that the current version of the prophecy was the same as the original, and you would complain if you didn't get it.

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

06-16-2006, 02:28 PM	#680
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to bfniii: Please reply to my post #677.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.