bfniii

the verse you cite does not state that all people will have access to first century style miracles. therefore, the conclusion that it is a lie is false based on that verse. the bible is replete with verses that show God is "longsuffering to us-ward".



what makes you think you don't have it now?

why do you require first century style miracles to know the truth? to follow that requirement to it's logical conclusion would be to afford first century style miracles to each and every person. so how many times does Jesus have to live to satisfy this requirement? once for every person who has ever lived? how many times a day does Jesus have to peform miracles for each and every person to meet your criteria for God to be loving? the reason why this conclusion is flawed is because there were people who witnessed the miracles but still didn't follow Jesus. therefore, the miracle is the most pertinent aspect of belief. it may be one component, but that component is met in the fact that God, according to christianity, still performs miracles every day. the miracle itself is no more important than the spiritual disposition of the witness.



this does nothing to preclude any potential miracles that are already happening.

your request for examples of miracles and your point that people can't agree on what constitutes a miracle are not an adequate defense of this point. the reason why is because different things are miraculous to different people. there are certain people who wouldn't believe that someone regenerating a lost limb is a miracle. they would maintain that there must be a scientific explanation. concordantly, the miracle itself is not the central issue that you are trying to make it out to be.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: I suggest that we discuss non-pertinent issues in another existing thread or in a new thread and save this thread specifically for the Tyre prophecy.

My question is how does the “many nations�? part of the prophecy help your arguments? If you will say that it doesn’t, then we can dispense with that part of the prophecy.

Why is that?

Please cite your historical evidence that the city-state resembled a bare rock, and while you are at it please define what Ezekiel meant by a bare rock.

You are correct. Ezekiel 26:5 says “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.�? Historically, many defeated cities that were destroyed were never rebuilt and could be considered spoils, some of which were destroyed by earthquakes, so what is your point?

It depends upon the quality of what you add, and the quality of what you have added is poor.

Time travel. No other standard would be sufficient.

I just gave you my standard.

What people believed is completely irrelevant. All that matters is the quality of the evidence upon which their beliefs were based. Even if the prophecy was written before the events, unless people had access to it, they couldn’t have known that it was a prophecy.

Just pick any two parts and will discuss them.

Consider the following scriptures:

Ezekiel 26:21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord God.

Ezekiel 27:36 The merchants among the people shall hiss at thee; thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt be any more.

Ezekiel 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

Those claims could also have applied to many destroyed cities or empires. In addition, the mainland settlement was partially rebuilt many times, and today, there are some buildings that were built over the old ruins.

We know that the mainland settlement was partially rebuilt on a number of occasions, but we do not know what Ezekiel meant by “shall be built no more.�? He might have meant rebuilt to its former glory. If that is what he meant, most empires were and many cities were never rebuilt to their former glory. Ezekiel might have meant perennially deserted ruins. If the latter, perennially deserted ruins are common in many parts of the world, and of course, we know that the ruins were not permanently deserted.

No is any guarantee needed for me to ask you if you find it surprising that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre?

How can we be reasonably certain whether or not the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version? When I first asked you this question, you asked me if I had any evidence that the version of the prophecy that we have today is different from the ancient manuscript copies, but that is not what I asked you. I asked you about the original version, so please answer my question.

bfniii

because it's another part of the specificity that was apparently fulfilled.



because it's another part of the specificity. however, it does not necessarily refer to an island. if an island was intended, why didn't the author use the word island? seems pretty simple.



do you know of any historical sources that contradict the belief that tyre was a vassalage after nebuchadnezzar and alexander? i don't.



it's pretty clear from chapters 26 and 27. ezekiel describes that tyre would be stripped of it's former glory.



you made a statement that seemed to imply that tyre would be destroyed by rising water. i replied that the prophecy does not state that. you said i was correct and then asked me what my point is. well, my point is the prophecy doesn't state that tyre would physically be swallowed by rising water.

are you saying that it is likely enough that tyre would be the victim of an earthquake/tsunami that would render any such prophecy unremarkable?



i didn't add anything because i didn't write the prophecy. however, any quality is a subjective measure. christians are satisfied with the quality of the prophecy and it's various components. you are certainly entitled to not be satisfied with that. if you adopt a position that is not neutral, let me know what convinced you one way or the other.

back to the point; likelihood is not a criteria that is a good determining factor in the case of the tyre prophecy.



since that is an impossibility at this time, that is not a standard. therefore, you haven't answered the question. besides, even without time travel, we know something happened.



no, you didn't. you stated something that was impossible. other people have decided one way or the other without time travel so your response is inadequate.



what people believed was based on what they considered evidence. now you are trying to tell people from that time what they did and didn't believe.



incorrect. i have already informed you that people believed that ezekiel was a prophet. they obviously got that idea from the fact that they believed he not only prophecied, but they were fulfilled. indeed, they did know that it was a prophecy.



i tell you what, since i have already done this ad nauseum in this thread and the biblical errors thread, you pick any two you like. christians believe that there isn't disagreement between ANY two parts of it.



again, the prophecy may mention specifics about any physical destruction, but the prophecy as a whole is directed at tyre, as i have demonstated.



we do know what ezekiel meant. he was referring to tyre not being rebuilt, which has been fulfilled. the prophecy may have mentioned some specifics about tyre physically, but the prophecy was aimed at the city-state.



good grief. this is why it's almost pointless to discuss the issue with you. i go to the trouble of responding to this very question with a thorough response and what do you do? repeat your original question. WHO SAW THAT ONE COMING?



no. i am absolutley positive that you can ctrl-c, ctrl-f and ctrl-v just like anyone else.



incorrect. i refer you to the ontological argument.



but the bible paints a completely different picture. you have nothing to base this conclusion on.



ctrl-c, ctrl-f and ctrl-v

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:

If you insist on this tactic of answering posts in consecutive order, with a timelag of many days (rather than trying to keep up with the current state of the discussion), why haven't you properly addressed my summary of the "Tyre prophecy" in post #421?

Your post #445 is titled "response to post #421", but you've barely touched it. Why is this?
Where is the rest of point 1, the entirety of point 2, and the entirety of point 3?

Where is the rest of point 4?

Where is the entirety of point 7, where Ezekiel's failure as a prophet is again demonstrated?

Johnny Skeptic

Unlike you, I have not stated a probable conclusion. All that I have stated is a possible conclusion. I am neutral, but you are not neutral even though you don’t have any evidence at all that God is good. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 say “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.�?

In his ‘Believer’s Bible Commentary,’ William MacDonald says “The apostle has just said that his critics in Corinth posed falsely as apostles of Christ. But he is not surprised at this when he thinks of the tactics of their master.

“Satan is commonly pictured today as a horned, evil-looking red creature with a tail. But such, of course, is far removed from the manner in which he presents himself to men.

“Others think of Satan in connection with a poor drunkard, wallowing in the gutter on Skid Row. But this too, is a false impression of what Satan is really like.

“This verse (verse 14) tells us that he masquerades as ‘an angel of light.’

“Verse 15. J. N. Darby once stated that Satan is never more satanic than when he carries a Bible.�?

Matthew 24:24 says “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.�?

If a lying, deceiving Devil is reasonably possible, then so is a lying, deceiving, supernatural God. Your mention of the ontological argument regarding the nature of God is patently absurd. No mere mortal could ever adequately assess the nature of a God. It is outlandish and preposterous for Christians to claim that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect. Regarding such a being, it takes one to know one, and you most certainly aren't one. My gracious, bfniii, we haven't even found a cure for the common cold, and we do not fully understand the workings of the simplist single cell organism, and yet Christians attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe with a degree of certainty that is utterly absurd.

Why isn’t it possible for the elect to be deceived? If God is evil, and if he is omnipotent and omnipresent, he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible. All that it takes to create things is the ability to convert energy into matter. A being with that ability can be moral, immoral, amoral, or as some skeptics have suggested, there are other possibilities. In addition, a being with the ability to convert energy into matter need not necessarily be the first being to have accomplished converting energy into matter. Given the age and the infinite size of the universe, The earth is plausibly only one out of many planets that were created by many beings.

The ability to create things has to do with physics, not morality.

Jack the Bodiless

Here's an interesting snippet from the Wikipedia entry on Daniel, which is relevant to what I've been saying about Ezekiel's status as a "prophet":
So, Daniel is NOT a "prophet" (navi) because he spoke of FUTURE events.

And Ezekiel IS a "navi" because he spoke of CURRENT events.

...Pretty much the exact opposite of how we use the word "prophet" nowadays.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: The following is an addition to my post #465:

But why do you automatically assume that the “many nations�? part of the prophecy was not added years later?

What specificity are you talking about?

I specifically mentioned the “bare rock�? part of the prophecy, not vassalage. You basically said that Tyre eventually resembled a bare rock, but we don’t know what Ezekiel meant by a bare rock. He might have meant completely bare. If such was the case, you certainly can’t produce any corroborative historical evidence. If Ezekiel meant largely destroyed and never rebuilt to its former glory, many if not the majority of ancient cities and empires would meet that qualification.

I have already agreed with you regarding that issue.

My position is still neutral.

Then what are the determining factors?

Well of course something happened, but was the prophecy written before the events, and was it ever revised?

I am not aware of any way to establish a standard by which we can reliably determine whether or not the prophecy was written before the events, and whether or not it was ever revised. How about you?

If the prophecy was written after the events, then believers would have simply accepted it by faith based upon Ezekiel’s reputation, just like many Christians do now. Please don’t bring up Ezekiel’s reputation because you said that the Tyre prophecy can stand upon its own merit.

A prophecy is by definition something that is written prior to the predicted events, but you haven’t offered any evidence at all that the predictions preceded the events.

Who said anything about disagreement between any of the parts?

Anyone who knew about the invasion plans. The invasion would have taken months to plan, and thousands of people would have know about it.

bfniii

as i have been trying to point out, that was not the only function of a biblical prophet. therefore, robertson is not a prophet.



nobody is perfect, not even brittanica. besides, it's not like i just blithely dismissed the article on daniel. i pointed out, at length, it's deficiencies.



i guess it's semantics because it's probably a little of both.



i have been trying to point out that people apparently did believe it was a prophecy since it has been preserved as a genuine prophecy made by a prophet. obviously, those people felt that that belief most closely matched reality.



funny. apologists taking the bible out of context. that's a good one. obviously, apologists feel like they are trying to unravel what skeptics have twisted.

some of the messianic prophecies are in the past tense: isaiah 9 and 53.



ok. is there a reason to think this happened?



i agree. so back to my original question; why are some prophecies written in past tense?



this doesn't answer the point that ezekiel does not say that nebuchadnezzar is going to conquer egypt in the sense that you are trying to make it out to be.



not at all. since this particular verse (remember skeptics taking verses out of context?) isn't very specific, we need other verses to further clarify the meaning. and what do you know, we have them! if you take this particular verse in the context of the others, you will see that nebuchadnezzar isn't going to conquer egypt in the sense that you seem to interpret.



another unspecific, triumphant statement which does nothing to address my posts.



incorrect. i have shown that your conclusion is based on an excluded middle. you haven't refuted it. you just repeat your original statement.



the fact that the book has been preserved as a book of prophecy would suggest that he was thought of as a prophet and that the prophecies were fulfilled. otherwise, he wouldn't have been much of a prophet.



in this case, ezekiel alledgedly prophecied events that appear to have been fulfilled. no circularity is present.



not at all. ezekiel's contemporaries are not the only people who think the prophecy was fulfilled. congratulations, you've invented a new strawman.



i have addressed the issue and supported it by the fact that there is no verse in the chapter that addresses any specific walls. that's the point. none are specified. that would imply it is referring to structures in general. you are trying to read something into the passage that doesn't exist. no matter how many times you repeat yourself, your point is still incorrect.



because it doesn't add anything to make your point any less incorrect.



if i cut something, it's because i have either already responded to it or it didn't add anything significant. if you feel like it did, provide the post number.



no it does not plainly refer only to the destruction of the island. if you were correct, you could cite every word and it would agree with your point. you can't because it doesn't.



in what sense?



i don't understand why you think what happened to tyre regarding the persian empire was voluntary. they didn't voluntarily ask nebuchadnezzar to attack them so that they could become a vassal and then eventually get absorbed into the persian empire.



no, it does not to both points. i have said before, there is a reason why some prophecies in the bible have been written and translated into the past tense.



wow. now we're really starting to see the level of bias you operate from. what is your standard of "reason"? why do you get to decide what is reasonable and what isn't? what i have been asking is for you to go through your reasoning process so that those of us who aren't you can find out where we went wrong.



but that doesn't mean that there aren't other nations who will be involved in the tyre affair. if you disagree, provide the verses that supports your point. i wonder if one day you will see that i keep asking you for specifics to support your points and you don't provide them.



that's just it. no specific nation is mentioned. many nations is not mentioned in conjunction with any one specific person or country or time period or whatever. if you disagree, provide the verse that supports your point that the many nations refers only to nebuchadnezzar's army/attack. this is yet another example of you trying to read something into the text that isn't there. you are welcome to your opinion, but your interpretation leaves room for disagreement.

it is a twist to suggest that nebuchadnezzar's army is the intended implement of destruction because there is no verse in the chapter that says so. it merely mentions nebuchadnezzar's part in the affair. the chapter does not say divinely appointed conquerors are the ultimate destruction of tyre.



the issue is already straight. as i stated, i wasn't referring to post #160 made by sauron on this thread. i cited your response, post #163, to my post #160 in the other thread.



it names God, multiple times, as being ultimately responsible for the downfall of tyre. there is some mention of specifics beyond that, but they are never mentioned in conjunction with the permanent dissolution of tyre. only God is mentioned in that vein.



in the sense that they have a beginning and an end, they can be referred to in that way. it's called metaphor.



i posted scores of clarifications on how they were incorrect. you barely even mustered a response to defend the source you brought into the discussion.



the point you were making is supported by nothing except another one of your generalities.

one fault that your point is built on is that any apparent biblical contradictions with what we know from science today must have come from God. you have yet to point out any verses that state "God says the earth is flat" or the like.

another fault is that what the hebrews were saying is still true from a sensory point of view. the perceptions they had then are still observable today using sensory observation alone. this is part of your misunderstanding of the intent. they weren't trying to make scientific statements. they were referring to what they saw in a general sense.



this is a strawman because some people believe the bible does not make a definitive statement regarding macroevolution.



again, some people believe the bible does not make a statement one way or the other, local or worldwide. it's not relevant to the narrative.
the bible wasn't intended to make a definitive statement regarding many subjects. to continually try to shoehorn such beliefs on to the bible is to misunderstand it. i'm sorry you are having trouble understanding that.



you are profoundly mistaken on this point. you are free to believe that if you wish. however, there are people of academic and scientific ilk who are familiar with objections to christianity but remain christian. if you feel like you can get this type of person to admit they are setting aside all reason in order to remain christian, go right ahead. why don't you start with someone like ravi zacharias or william lane craig.



no one here is waiting on my criteria. the christian position has already been rejected by the likes of you, et al. therefore, we need to agree on a standard by which such things can be judged. what would be proof to you? what is an acceptable standard, to you, that would show the bible, or any work, to be authoritative?



this topic is irrelevant to the thread. it leads to what the latest poll says, who conducted it, how were the questions worded, who got polled, etc. it's not worth our time. augustine and origen were inerrantists of a certain kind which brings up an even more irrelevant discussion. let's stick with the principle questions and not get distracted.



this not only isn't true, it doesn't address my statement. these are just more impotent generalities from you. no matter how many times you repeat these unspecific statements, they don't become any more true.



you provided a standard that can determine the authority of the bible? where was that?



it's not appeal to numbers. i am asking what you base your statements on and why should anyone else consider them authoritative or convincing. it's like pulling teeth to get you to answer that question.



actually, this exemplifies your confusion. the point i made was that you are mistaken in your belief that christians advocate biblical incoherency. i asked you to provide some specifics and you responded with your usual obfuscation.



funny. this is a perfect example of distraction through vague generalities from you. first, you don't even try to specifically address the beliefs of these people are that you are referring to. do you think that such an elephant-hurling statement is going to intimidate anyone here? second, you don't provide how your statement is true. you just expect that all of us accept your word at face value even though you have presented no means by which you made such a determination. third, you provide no evidence that you are in any position to be considered authoritative in matters regarding people's critical thinking ability. fourth, your response doesn't even address the point i made. if you had even attempted to muster up some backbone to support your beliefs, you would have at least asked for some specifics (although i did provide them in my response).

given all of the above, it's getting pretty pointless even responding to you. you constantly sidetrack the discussion with these ad hominem responses that do no good for anyone. you are unnecessarily lenthening the thread, possibly even by design. i can only guess that your motives for doing so are either because you feel inadequate in discussing such subjects or you have reached the end of your intellectual rope and are hoping some of your cohorts will come to your rescue. regardless, it will help the discussion move along if you desist from such elephant-hurling, ad hominem, unspecific, unsupported responses. they are wasting time and distracting from the purpose of the thread.



unambiguous is relative. who gets to decide what is and isn't unambiguous?



vague. no specifics



i see you type the word stonewalling, but you provide no examples of it. try to catch on to this: when you provide a standard (what you would consider proof of divine inspiration), then i will try to meet that criteria.



another distracting response. i have asked, and you know this, for a way for us to determine whether something was a good guess.



that is interesting coming from you. i have clearly pointed out how your biblical "interpretation" requires making up words that aren't in the text. i have asked you over and over to point out where you are getting the words from, and you don't/can't. examples would be the child sacrifice issue, the timing of the egyptian preists' responses and the walls of tyre. yours is not the most straightforward reading. i know you think it is.

i just want to point out once again that i can refer to specific mistakes that you have made while your above post requires us to just take you at your word.



you gave a standard that can determine divine inspiration? where was that?



yes i have. christians believe the bible is not only accurate, but authoritative. now, since skeptics reject that, you tell me how anyone can know whether something from antiquity is accurate or authoritative.

just to clarify, when i say accurate and authoritative i mean the original greek and hebrew. i realize and have acknowledged that there is debate regarding subsequent translations, but those are irrelevant to the point anyway.



again, waiting on your response as to a standard by which something like that can be determined.



according to you. however, your opinion is not universally accepted.



it most certainly has not. if you are referring to YEC, then you are not referring to the whole of creationism but only one subcategory of it. science does not purport to step beyond the bounds of methodological naturalism as you seem to be implying. therefore, creationism will never be falsified by science because creationism presupposes the supernatural.



for the same reason a christian abides by the writings of moses or isaiah or the gospels.



i don't think you understand my response. the point of romans 10:9 is not to solve the earthly vs spiritual resurrection debate. that verse is what deliniates christians from not.



1. there was no support provided for that number
2. they can doubt it all they want. that does nothing to change what constitutes a christian
3. i cited romans 10:9 as the deliniation



you typing this does not erase what is posted there. whenever you feel up to it, you can go back and read for yourself.



you are incorrect because you are arguing an excluded middle. some people may indeed have become inerrantists because, in their experience, the bible matches reality.



in order for your response to be correct, it would require:
1. you to be authoritative in what is mundane and what isn't
2. you to have a standard as to what extrabiblical writers should have and should not have mentioned



are you referring to christians' evaluations of other religions? if so, there is no need to bring them into the discussion. there are plenty of purely historical documents that can be evaluated. if skeptics are using the same standard as christians to evaluate the authority of historical documents, then skeptics should have no problem agreeing with christians. since this is clearly not the case, skeptics must be using some other standard.



we've already addressed in the other thread how these are not accurate analogies



but this response doesn't address my points.



and rebuffed because they were not "suitable"



that's because there is no evidence that God did tell them that.



but you can't show that God didn't give us the ability to understand what we observe anymore than you can show it was God that told the hebrews the world was flat.



ok. i showed, thorougly, that this isn't the case. if you don't want to address them, that's fine. feel free to continue making unspecific, triumphant claims. i can cite my exact post where i rebutted this claim.



if you are referring to 40:22, i have shown that you are misinterpreting the verse.



no matter how many times you repeat your generalities, it doesn't create verses that state God told anyone something that was incorrect.



ok. well then how about getting educated on that issue? it is not intended to provide a scientific or mathematical statements regarding the hebrew beliefs. such specifics that are mentioned only in the historical context of the narrative.



the specifics you cite are included to describe the result of divine actions. this does not make the bible a science book because it merely includes these specifics. you are misunderstanding the intent. the intent is purely historical and spiritual. that means, or course, that scientific statements must be made from time to time, but they are not meant to be the focus or the goal of the narrative.



i haven't forgotten that but i don't understand what your point is.



what verses would you be referring to?



which is of course how things appear to us even today. the only way we know any different is because of the technology that has been developed to show us differently.

bfniii

i must profusely apologize for the typo. i should have typed bibliological argument. again, sorry for the confusion.

Johnny Skeptic

And you have nothing to base your conclusion on that God is not an evil God who is masquerading as a good God. Unlike you, I have not stated a probable conclusion. All that I have stated is a possible conclusion. I am neutral, but you most certainly are not neutral. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 say “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.�? If it is reasonably possible that there is an evil, lying, deceptive Devil, then why isn't an evil, lying, deceptive God also reasonably possible?

Please reply to my post #467.