Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Yes, so why dont you educate us Mr. Spin?

Originally Posted by spin

"{U}s"? Multiple personality now, sugarhitman?

You had some opportunity to learn something about history regarding Tyre and you failed. You had some opportunity to learn something about history regarding the context of Daniel and you failed. You've had opportunities and you didn't use them. I'm not opting for three times proves it. I'll give you the same advice I gave arnoldo (who refused the advice): go to a good library and get some scholarly literature -- in your case on Isaiah.


spin

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

It is the same crap they say about all the prophets in which they have no proof. They are able to do these things because of the simple fact noone knows for a certainty what took place in ancient history (which enables them to plant doubts). The arguements that prophecies are written after are based on human reasoning which is not evidence. Spin and others keep bringing up the "experts" but even the experts are often wrong.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

And what do the experts say about Israel...

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

...and the events taking place in the mid east which are following the Biblical script?

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

That it is self-fulfilling (or there is a conspiracy to bring about the fulfillment of bible prophecy) which is just....stupid.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

These are the experts folks whose scholarly arguments are based on....disbelief....which is not evidence...only an evidence of rejection.

Originally Posted by spin

As you won't think about anything the people here say (and you've made that patently obvious), the next best thing that people can do is point you to neutral scholars in the field and you refuse to look at them because you know before having read them that "even the experts are often wrong". What's left are people who say what you want to hear. That means the question "why dont you educate us Mr. Spin?" is merely rhetorical, as you don't want an answer, because you don't want to learn anything.


You don't know because you refuse to read them. But obviously, you'd reject them because they won't say what you want to hear.


I guarantee that you haven't looked at one of the sites by Jews who are against Zionism.


And that's just your indoctrination. It's what you learned from the religionists who raped your sweet nubile little mind. You've shown no independence of thought for you to justify any views you've stated and you have thus far proven yourself incapable of processing evidence. Is it too much to ask that you go and open a book rather than spout dogma?

As you refuse to read what they say, you are only speaking in ignorance. Scholarly arguments are based on evidence, arguments that are published before the scholarly world and therefore they are liable to the whole scholarly community. This means that if you say anything that you can't support someone is guaranteed to shoot you down. If you spout rubbish in such a community you will become a laughing stock. But you wouldn't know because books are too heavy for you. You'd prefer to rely on predigested froth from apologetic web sites.

Just think of that once nubile little mind of yours and the effects of christian infibulation. (And Somali women who have been infibulated advocate the same for their little girls.)

Open a book. It's not too late, is it?


spin

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him;and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut. I will go before you, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron."

"And I will give you the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that you may know that I, the Lord, which call you by your name, am the God of Israel."

"For Jacob (Israel) My servent's sake, and Israel My elect, I have even call you by your name: I have surnamed you, though you have not known Me."

"I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is NO God beside Me: I girded you, though you have not known Me." Isaiah 45


This prophecy is just one of many which proves that God.....EXIST.

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

“The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be ‘given’ Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as ‘wages’ for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an ‘utter waste and a desolation’ from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that ‘neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations’ (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be ‘the lowliest of kingdoms’ (v: 15). It would never ‘exalt itself above the nations’ and would not ‘rule over the nations anymore’ (v:15).

“Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the ‘lowliest of kingdoms.’ No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

“The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to ‘set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt’ and ‘to prophesy against him’ and to say, ‘Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt’ (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to ‘Pharaoh king of Egypt’ in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be ‘brought in to destroy the land’ and to ‘fill the land with the slain’ (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

“Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this ‘explanation’ is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be ‘someday.’ That type of ‘logic’ may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

“The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This ‘explanation’ may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually ‘figurative,’ they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only ‘figures’ or ‘symbols’ of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.”

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter. No God who wanted people to believe that he can predict the future would refuse to make indisputable predictions, and needlessly create confusion by making disputable predictions. An example of an indisputable prediction would be a prediction when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year. If the Bible contained lots of predictions like that, there would be no need to debate whether or not at least one being exists who is able to predict the future.

Months ago, I asked you why God broke his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre. You said that you would be willing to discuss that issue soon, but you broke your promise. I started a thread on that issue, and you conveniently refused to make any posts in that thread, as did all other Christians. That is because that issue is very embarrassing for Christians.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would at least one more Jew have accepted Jesus? Please answer the question yes or no. If you wish to elaborate further, that is fine, but please start with a yes or no answer.

You are arnoldo are the most evasive Christians that I have ever come across. You both frequently refuse to directly reply to my arguments because you do not want to embarrass yourselves. I do not blame you, but the undecided crowd interpret evasiveness as weakness, and they are essentially the only crowd who you have a chance to influence. I assume that you are already aware that you will probably not be able to convince any skeptic at this forum to become a Christian.

If you continue to refuse to directly reply to my arguments, that is fine because I will continue to repost them, and most of the undecided crowd will be influenced by them. I am content to win debates by default.

No reasonable motives regarding why God needlessly makes disputable prophecies when he could easily make indisputable prophecies = no God of the Bible.

Every time that you start a new thread on Bible prophecy, I will post these same arguments. That means that you are wasting your time starting new threads on Bible prophecy since my arguments adequately refute all Bible prophecies.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

How do you know that I don't read books?

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Anyways everyone is brainwashed by something.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Because knoweledge about various things are passed down from previous generations.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

You believe what you believe because someone else told you and vice versa....

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

...but it is better to be brainwashed by truth....then falsehoods.

Originally Posted by spin

Does this mean sugarhitman is once again unaware of christian scholarship? Couldn't be? Never heard of Second (Deutero-) and Third (Trito-) Isaiah? Naa. That's probably some stuff from a book.


spin

Originally Posted by spin

I wasn't talking about just any books, sugarhitman, but ones that have the material to provoke you to think.


It's true that we are the products of our environments, for example, had you been born in Iran you'd probably have become a Shi'a muslim before you had any choice and stayed that way unless something dramatic shook your foundations.

One doesn't have to be bound by their cultural shackles though, but it requires us to go beyond, to leave the bounds of those shackles to experience outside them.


The most essential knowledge that doesn't seem to be passed on is what is necessary for learning. If it were, you would be less dictated to by the past.


I believe what I believe (the little that I believe) because I have looked outside the box. That can't be passed down. You've got to do it yourself. (That's why I've said to you "open a book.")

Without a perspective outside, you wouldn't know truth or falsehood if it bit you. You have to leave in order to come home and then that coming home will be a new experience.


spin

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So Spin tell us do what you believe in, Evolution? Do you hold to Atheism? There is no such thing as "looking outside the box" every belief system is from inside the box....the world. And everyone believes in one of these inside beliefs.