bfniii

yes, i'm finding out that skeptics don't like to have their beliefs questioned.

bfniii

then what are your doubts based on?



the key to that question is irrefutably. christians believe they are all true. what would be proof to you?



what gives you the impression that God deliberately hurts people?

Johnny Skeptic

I have told you several times what my position is, but maybe you missed it, so here it is again. I am not aware of any way to reasonably prove or disprove that the propehcy was written before the events. If the prophecy was written before the events, I am not aware of any way to reasonably prove whether God told Ezekiel about Nebuchadnezzar's invasion plans or that Ezekiel learned about the invasion plans by ordinary means. I am not aware of any way to reasonably prove whether the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version.

I suspect that few if any people have ever become Christians solely because of the Tyre prophecy. I was a church-going, fundamentalist Christian for over 35 years, and I never heard of the Tyre prophecy until after I became a skeptic. In your opinion, can the Tyre prophecy stand on its own merit, or must it be associated with other scriptures that you believe are easier to reasonably prove in order to have merit.

Since this thread is about the Tyre prophecy, please transfer my following comments to the thread on Biblical errors and reply to them there. I would also like to know how much emphasis you put on personal spiritual/emotional and tangible experiences. We can also discuss that in the thread on Biblical errors.

If an honest, truth-seeking person starts to read the Bible for the first time, and if he doesn't have any preconceived notions one way or the other, what is the first evidence that he might find the would convince him to become a Christian.

You asked me for evidence that God hurts people, so here it is: Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?"
If a human caused a person to become blind or deaf, he would be put in prison, and with your blessing I might add. If God wishes to show up and discuss this issue, I am more than willing discuss it with him. Maybe I would find his explanation to be acceptable, but maybe I wouldn't. I prefer to make fully informed decisions, most especially if heaven and hell are actually at stake.

You grossly misjudge skeptics. Many skeptics are loving, moral people, many of whom are more loving and moral than the typical Christian. There could not possible be any reasons why they would reject a loving God if they knew that he existed. I am not aware of any skeptic who is opposed to God or an alien being available to heal all of the sick people in the world. In addition, I am not aware of any skeptic who does not approve of human oversight. Without human oversight there would be anarchy. I am not aware of any skeptic would object to divine oversight if it is fair. The point is, what makes God's enforement of rules of his own choosing any more legitimate than any other powerful being enforcing rules of his own choosing?

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Your own, for starters.

You have still not provided any reason to believe that the Bible is true, all you ever do is ask US to prove that it's false. And you have provided no explanation for your disbelief in the Koran.

This is insufficient.
It's false because the Earth is old. Learn some basic science, bfniii. And take it to the appropriate forum.
Independent creation of species: denial of common descent.
There was no recent worldwide Flood. The Bible is in error.

...Why do you believe otherwise? Why should ANYONE believe what the Bible says?
At least one of them is a bishop, bfniii (the Bishop of Durham).

What's the problem here? Why is agreement among christians necessary regarding the resurrection? If a Christian believes that Jesus died for our sins, and is now in Heaven: why is it necessary to believe that he walked the Earth for a few weeks between the resurrection and the ascension?
You are contradicting yourself. I asked you for a named person (other than Nebby) who would directly destroy Tyre. You claimed that God was that named person. But God never personally destroyed Tyre.
Somewhat off-topic here, but there were several on the "Biblical errors" thread. Two that spring to mind: God "wanted" Adam and Eve to eat the Fruit (despite specifically prohibiting them from doing so), and "they shall be put to death" supposedly means "they shall NOT be put to death" (the human-sacrifice issue in Leviticus).

More relevant to this topic: the totally un-Biblical claim that the Tyre prophecy "isn't concerned with the physical city" (which ignores all the references to physical destruction).
MORE context-snipping! But we were discussing your claim that the Tyre prophecy "isn't concerned with the physical city".

So, all of your EVIDENCE that the Tyre prophecy "isn't concerned with the physical city" consists of the following:
...Another personal fantasy asserted as fact.

Do you understand WHY this is insufficient?
Are you getting lost AGAIN?

Amazingly, you seem to be going back to questioning the notion that the "past tense" (in Ezekiel 29, written AFTER the siege of Tyre) refers to the PAST.

All languages consist of a set of rules. Abandon those, and you abandon the language. It seems that in your eagerness to disown what the Bible says, you wish to abandon the language in which it says it.

Some time ago, you claimed to be curious about why skeptics reject the Bible. But, quite apart from the obvious point that we have no reason to accept the Bible in the first place: why should WE accept what YOU have already rejected? It is abundantly clear that even YOU cannot defend what the Bible actually says on several issues: nor have you been able to provide any reason why your "re-interpretations" of the Bible should be given any credence.

mata leao

sad. no atheist posting here has been to tyre. if you actually go, you will in fact see fishermen spreading their nets on both the antiquity remnant of the mainland coastal city and the island coastal palace. Teams of archaeologists are currently excavating both the destroyed mainland part of the city and the destroyed palace on the island part. The prophecy was fulfilled literally. The omission of alexander changes nothing,m except that it helps prove that the original prophecy was made in advance. Both are bare rocks on what once was a city-state empire that rivaled the power of Great Britain at its prime, the foremost sea power in the mediterranean. The nearby town of "sur" is not tyre and it is not phoenician and it is not a city-state, it has about 15,000 people and it has no navy, not even a coast guard. How did Ezekiel know that fishermen would be spreading their nets on both parts? That would be the same as a prophet in the 1800's saying that fishermen would be spreading their nets on the ruins of buckingham palace near the Themes river.

Johnny Skeptic

What makes you think that it was a prophecy? Why couldn't Ezekiel hav learned about Nebuchadnezzar's 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. Considering Nebuchadnezzar's great power, his proven penchant for conquest, the riches of Tyre, and Babylon's close proximity to Tyre, how is at all surprising that he attacked Tyre? I mean really, Mata leao, anyone at any time during human history could have predicted the eventual overthrow of any kingdom, and the the odds are that eventually they would have been right. Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the exception, not the rule.

But you cannot realiably determine what "bare" means. Ezekiel might have meant relatively bare, or completly bare. The NIV and the NASB use the word "bare". The mainland settlement and the island settlement were built on rocky ground. Smaller pieces of rock and debris from the mainland settlement would not have been suitable for building the bridge to the island. Hence, there is no way that the mainland settlement could have been completely bare. In addition, the bridge might have been completed without the need for using all of the rocks and all of debris from the mainland settlement. In order to make a credible argument, you would need to have information regarding approximately how many cubic yards of natural rock there was in the mainland settlement, and how many cubic yards of rock that it took to build the mainland settlement. Of course, you don't have any of this necessary information.

Where do you get "both parts" from? 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." "In the midst of the sea" refers to the island settement. The mainland settlement was not in the midst of the sea. Oceanographers will tell us that historically, it has not been at all unusal for small islands and islets to become partially or completely covered with water. Fishing nets were not doubt spread on the island long before Alexander's attack.

After Nebuchadnezzar's failed attempts to conquer the mainland settlement, in spite of the fact that Ezekiel called him "a king of kings," and in spite of the fact that the prophecy said that his army would go down "all" of the streets of Tyre, which we know from historical records "did not" happen, the city was rebuilt on a number of occasions. Consider the following from http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm:

"The Romans built great important monuments in the city, including an aqueduct, a triumphal arch and the largest hippodrome in antiquity.

"Christianity figures in the history of Tyre, whose name is mentioned in the new testament. During the Byzantine era, the Archbishop of Tyre was the primate of all the bishops of Phoenicia.

"At this time the town witnessed a second golden age as can be seen from the remains of its buildings and the inscriptions in the necropolis. Taken by the Islamic armies in 634, the city offered no resistance and continued to prosper under its new rulers, exporting sugar as well as objects made of pearl and glass.

"With the decline of the Abbasid caliphate, Tyre acquired some independence under the dynasty of Banu 'Aqil, vassals of the Egyptian Fatimides. This was a time when Tyre was adorned with fountains and its bazaars were full of all kinds of merchandise, including carpets and jewerly of gold and silver.

"Thanks to Tyre's strong fortifications it was able to resist to onslaught of the Crusaders until 1124. After about 180 years of Crusader rule, the Mamlukes retook the city in 1291, then it passed on to the Ottomans at the start of the 16th century.

"With the end of the World War I Tyre was integrated into the new nation of Lebanon."

Your knowledge of ancient history is obviously grossly inadequate, mata leao.

Today, the U.S. has adopted a policy of limiting civilian casualties during times of war as much as possible, but the God of the Bible wasn't like that, and he went out of his way to kill innocent babies in Tyre and Sodom and Gomorrah, and he killed all of the first born males in Egypt.

Ezekiel 28:6-8 say "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.
They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas." We know for a fact that many Tyrians did not die over a number of centuries.

The notion of an all-powerful God and his human proxies taking centuries to get even with a bunch of puny humans is patently absurd. It is interesting to note that the conquerers were no less deserving of being defeated than were the conquerees (the Tyrians).

Since Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too, it is not a question of who can predict the future, but of who has good character. I submit that the God of the Bible does not have good character, and that at best, he is bi-polar. Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" Mata leao, if a human caused people to become blind and deaf, he would be sent to prison, and with your approval I might add.

It is interesting to note that when Alexander conquered the island settlement, the Tyrians who had been alive when Ezekiel supposedly made the prophecy had been dead for centuries.

mata leao

it cant get any simpler than this....tyre will be destroyed and fishermen will use its ruins to spread their fishnets on...... Q.E.D.

Johnny Skeptic

Fishnets were spread on Tyre before and after it was defeated. In addition, as I showed in my previous post, it experienced a second golden age and was reinhabited and rebuilt on a number of occasions. Further, historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the except. In other words, anyone could have predicted that a given kingdom would have fallen, and the odds are that that would eventually have happened. It was not at all unusual that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre, and Ezekiel could easily have learned about his invasion plans by ordinary means. In my previous post, I easily refuted your absurd argument about Tyre becoming like a bare rock. Any competent historian would laugh at you if you presented that rubbish to him. I also told you that oceanographers will tell us that historically, it has not at all been uncommon for small islands or islets to become partially or completely submerged underwater. And of course, since Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too, it is not a question of who can predict the future, but of who has good character. I submit that the God of the Bible does not have good character. Would you care to debate that issue in a new thread? I sure hope so, but I predict that you won't.

bfniii

not at first, you weren't. in post #278, you mentioned an "ongoing inability" of christians to justify their beliefs. i am asking you for specifics. name some examples of beliefs that christians have that they are unable to justify.



that's not true at all. you show some examples and i'll be glad to explain the christian position to you.



garbage. whenever a non-biblical source corroborates biblical accounts, skeptics claim it was later redacted by christian interpolation. extra-biblical support can be helpful, but it's not conclusive. therefore, your requirement is flawed. what else would be proof to you?



i'm not asking you to prove it. i'm asking you to provide a template and then christians would then have to fulfill that request. so far, the only template you have provided, extra-biblical support, is flawed. do you have any others?



not entirely



you wish. what "evidence" would that be?



what a laugh. why is it that there are other educated people who have access to the same scholarship that you do, who remain christian? i know professors at a secular university that are christian. there's no way you can make the case that they are unaware of scholarship that is objectionable to christianity. the truth is that they are unconvinced by the objections. so i am asking you, or anyone else, why should someone be convinced that the tyre prophecy wasn't fulfilled.



no it does not. i invited you to research the issue, but you declined opting instead to stick with your unfounded assertion.



oh yeah? where was that?



but you conveniently left out the part where i stated why such a discussion is interesting, but inconlusive at this point.



big whoop



you decide to play a childish game and that is my fault? besides, i still responded to the point.



no and i don't really care. you are the only person i know who has invoked it.



you still don't get it, do you? the whole thread could be avoided. i did skim the thread. it's great discussion, it's interesting speculation. but none of it disproves the biblical account, as i have stated. i am more interested in other issues, as you can plainly see.



first, i pointed out a specific source regarding the egyptian miracles (a good one at that). but you are accusing me of not "fully" debating them (whatever the heck that means). second, i am the one between the two of us who is pointing out that there is information lacking regarding the discussions of the flood. that would seem to implicate that you are the one who is not "fully" debating the issue. again, did you study the issue further? did you try to more accurately represent the christian position on the issue? no to both questions.



so you don't have an answer for the question. that's all you had to say.



why should a christianity abandon their beliefs for that? explain why it's convincing.



i am aware of that, but i'm not aware of any failure to respond to points directed at me. that's why i am asking you to point them out so i can clear them up. if i have skipped over any, i will be glad to respond.



in post #21, i touched on one. i am prepared to discuss others.

i have a question. why haven't any of spin's claque taken up the torch for him? i'm ready to continue the discussion in that thread at any time. it should be so easy to trounce me on the subject, but no one has attempted.



and what post numbers would these "explanations" appear in?



do you ever notice how i point to specific post numbers and i let readers decide for themselves whereas you make general, vague, mistakenly triumphant assertions that you don't support with specifics? just curious.



so you are unable to show that the instruments could not possibly have been there any earlier. that's all you had to say.

where is the evidence that they appeared later as opposed to earlier?



not all scholars are of that opinion. i mentioned one who thinks otherwise to sauron.



good for you. why should i agree with you?



pity. and i went to all that trouble to introduce just what you are saying you are unaware of. sauron railed on and on about the same thing and i eventually introduced just such information after i showed that he was unaware of it.



and those would be? (i don't care if you answer this question here or in the daniel thread)



and countered



as i have said all along, the critical position is not without flaws.



that's definitely debatable.



ah, the good old skeptic's annotated bible. that pantheon of biblical interpretation. let's just take the genesis entries for now. we can address the others and errancywiki later.

the author fails to show that numbers 1, 4, 15, 16, 28, 29 are impossible for an omnipotent God.

numbers 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43 don't really make a point. they just restate what the verse says.

number 2 is based on the hidden assumption that morning is dependent on light as opposed to a measure of time or that it is going to eventually be dependent on light.

number 6 is based on the hidden assumption that only astrologers benefit from the stars.

the first question in number 7 is semantics. the second question is irrelevant. it is still the brightest source of light at night.

i don't follow number 13.

number 14 operates on the hidden assumption that there can be no good purpose of suffering.

number 17 operates from the hidden assumption that the bible claims that there were the same number of species then as there are now. no such statement is made.

the second question of number 19 mistakenly tries to imply that the bible literally meant snakes would eat dust. the bible is referring to their proximity to the ground. given that, it is unreasonable to think that they never get dust in their mouth.

the author unfortunately doesn't list the verse that point number 20 is drawn from. there are no such verses.

number 21 is argument from silence.

number 20 implies that the bible doesn't allow for any time to elapse between verses 19 and 20.

the author fails to mention in number 32 that one of meanings of "arwm" is reverence. this implies that every animal on earth is capable of being subdued or destroyed by man, but the reverse is not true. in other words, man has dominion over the earth.

number 33 assumes that all bible believers use that verse to be cruel; that all christians are cruel to animals; that the bible condones it, which it doesn't.

number 34 is just plain stupid. just because rainbows existed before

humans doesn't mean that God didn't create them.

number 36 assumes that that bible verse is referring to 2400bc

number 37 mistakenly assumes that God is concerned about the tower reaching heaven.

the author is unable to prove number 38.

number 40 assumes that just because the philistines hadn't arrived in that place at the time the verse refers to, that the author can't retroactively refer to the land in that way.

educate myself indeed. jack, please tell me this isn't a source that you rely on for biblical interpretation. <ad hominem and inflammatory remark deleted>



in all your whining about this, you haven't once shown that the "snipping" changed the context of what you were saying.

i'm just playing the same game you are. in case you haven't caught on to this, you tend to make statements that are debatable, but pass them off as certain instead of just making your case and letting everyone decide for themselves what to believe.



you said the bible makes the case for YEC and only YEC. i am asking you to explain where OEC get their ideas from if not from the bible or show that the bible contradicts OEC.



secret? it's not secret. it's just secret to you (and spin).



your assessment of that thread is hilarious. this is another one of your impotent, vague charges. why don't you point out specifically what inabilities occurred there?



i have already cited the exact post where i merely touched on one such problem. there are others and i'll be glad to discuss them. i just want to make sure we're clear that you are unaware of them, as was spin. how can you consider your position on the matter thorough if your position can't even address the strengths and weaknesses of alternate views?



hmm. the one i pointed out already has yet to be "shredded" by spin or any of his claque (that includes you). what's even funnier is that you make it out like i'm the one actually doing something wrong. from the beginning of that thread i have merely stated that there are three major views and there are christians in each group. i asked spin why his view was the only true one and he was woefully unable to do so. if you disagree, then you are welcome to pick up the torch for him either here or over there.



the clip didn't change the context, jack. my statement is correct. if you disagree, make your case.



he is? that's news to me.



what in the world are you talking about? i haven't dropped anything. i stated my case regarding that issue. i'll do so again. let's start with this: what do you mean by "past tense" (in the original hebrew, or course)?



i'm reading that post and i don't see any mention of past tense. could you clarify?



even if you are correct on this point (you certainly haven't shown any support for it), that doesn't mean that the prophecy wasn't common knowledge prior to the completion of the book.



first, the prophecy as written didn't fail. if you think it did, state your reasons. second, that is flawed logic. the prophecy could possibly be successful even if written prior to the event.



first, you use the qualifier "reasonably" which makes your entire statement subjective. second, every event has a degree of uncertainty that escapes prediction. there is no way for anyone to know for certain that something would have prevented nebuchadnezzar from attacking tyre; natural disaster, attack from another nation, famine/plague, etc. third, there are degrees of specificity regarding any prophecy. because of that, prophecies don't have to be relegated to events that are "unpredictable". they merely need to be specific enough regarding any event as to make the prophecy efficacious. besides, who is going to be able to qualify events as unpredictable?



and i have responded by asking you what would be proof to you that any of the biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.

i sure would like to see you prove that an alleged prophecy was a good guess.

btw, i realize it must be a bizarre request for someone to ask that you support your beliefs.

bfniii

untrue. i have stated a case and i have even asked you what would be proof to you. so far, your responses have been either irrelevant or impossible.



you know what my position is. the traditional position is that it was written prior, so someone got the idea somehow. my question to you is why is that notion wrong. your position is non-committal so you aren't really relevant to the discussion.



which, of course, in no way guarantees he would have attacked tyre. i just mentioned several things that were out of ezekiel's control that could have prevented nebuchadnezzar doing so. these things certainly weren't unknown to people during that time.



you fail to mention that tyre was no pushover. nebuchadnezzar had to know this. it wouldn't have been anything like attacking the little sisters of the poor. you're assuming that ezekiel made the prophecy after nebuchadnezzar started planning which is certainly something you aren't able to prove.



that depends on your definition of proof. some people have all the proof they need.



johnny, what in the world are you talking about? i can cite post numbers where i have responded to your each and every point directed at me. can you name one post number prior to this one, #341, that i didn't respond to? if so, i will be glad to respond. if not, why do you even bother typing garbage like this?



i haven't gotten to it yet. i try to respond in an orderly fasion, chronologically that is, and it hasn't come up yet. it is rude for you to make false accusations or be impatient.