Sven

OK, if you want to respond to these points, PM me, then I'll open a thread in Ev/Cr.

The point is: As soon as we are "allowed" to interpret one part as figurative, you no longer have a basis to call anything else definitely literal.

:huh: This would rather ne the definition of species: That no interbreeding is possible ("genetically incompatible").
The barrier creationists talk about is not between species - it's in their future development.

Please explain how these similarities lead to (just some examples, there are loads of more):
(1) same genetic code for all life
(2) same metabolic pathways for (nearly?) all life
(3) same skeleton structure for all vertebrates
(4) same way the Vitamin C gene is broken in all primates

Not at all. As soon as you allow for figurative language, on what basis do you assume other parts to be literal rather than figurative?

John A. Broussard

Finally! We're in complete agreement. "certain good can come from such suffering."

The only question that remains is why god needs to cause the suffering in order to get to the good.

Let me give you an example to ponder. I visited an institution for the retarded many years ago. One patient remains vividly in mind. It looked like about a four-year old tied to its bed. The nurse said it was actually a twenty-two year old suffering from acromegaly. For the first few month of its life it screamed in agony when not actually tranquilized. It's vocal chords gave out, but it still tried to scream. The reason it was tied down was because it had chewed some of its fingers off.

Now, your god could have prevented all that. Sure--that creature will be happy for all of eternity, but what about the twenty-two years of suffering? Do you care? Does god care? You can't do anything about it (except to say it really isn't evil), but your god could have.

NO. I insist. Your god must have enjoyed every minute of watching that suffering. The evidence? He's all-powerful and didn't do anything about it.

bfniii

1. i disagree with your interpretation. i find "tyre" to refer more to it's political establishment than a city proper. again, your literal/figurative confusion causes improper interpretation.
2. and when was ezekiel completed? when exactly did tyre fall for good? (addressing the assumption from the previous post)
3. most references to tyre are in the PAST tense. i'm having a difficult time finding it on a modern map. the last king of tyre is listed as 532BC. in what sense is tyre "still around"? are the 3k or so inhabitants in any way direct descendants of original tyre residents? it seems that tyre was pretty much not tyre when alexander came to town.
4. i would imagine the prophet, being a servant of God, would know that God isn't limited in His responses to a prophecy. we know what was written and we know that there is a certain interpretation which renders the text fulfilled. what else is there to know? (addressing the literal/figurative aspect)
5. only obvious to someone trying to obviate fulfillment. (addressing the unsupported assumption that nebuchadnezzar was to destroy tyre made by the previous post)
6. curiously, i am unable to find any reference to tyre being desolate immediately after that battle. (same as previous, except more specific)
7. i will repeat, what modern source are you using to support the assertion that there is a nation called tyre that exists? there is no more tyre. it was never the same after alexander.

there are seven.

here you make my point exactly. what tyre was doesn't exist anymore just as ezekiel said.

not like they used to. there is no more roman empire.

so the author is limited to your perception that he is not allowed to describe the impending destruction because that would confuse you as to it's literal or figurative meaning? the language can be literal and the prophecy still be true, as i have pointed out.

nice response. once again, instead of addressing my rebuttal, you just repeat your original statement. notice a pattern?

just because our justice is a mere subset of God's does not make God unjust. it just signifies our limitations.

what i find interesting is that you just state that they are mistaken without pointing out why. i also, pointed out specific words that underscore this belief which you fail to address.

even if you do cite other christians that directly refute the idea, that does nothing to refute that i showed why that interpretation developed from the text.

so who are these other christians who disagree?

funny. once again, you just state your case instead of supporting it as well. care to provide verses?

if you read on a little later, you will find that you are mistaken.

and what information in the bible are you basing this on?

what you call a curse it actually another prophecy, which ends up true.

first, the bible claims that we're all sinners and we all deserve much worse than we actually get. you are making the mistaken assumption that there are people who are born who shouldn't experience any suffering or hardship.

second, i see you type that my rebuttal doesn't make a difference. but as is your custom, you don't say why. how about addressing the verses in context as i did?

third, what is punishment? God isn't saying He's going to punish people permanently unless they continually reject Him. He made fair rules and He has played by them as i have pointed out in each case you have cited.

your own example ezekiel 18:20 is one verse that supports that metaphysical guilt is not transferrable.

i'm going to call this continual unsubstantial response pattern a "jack-ism".

please address, without a jackism, what "assembly of the Lord" means and why my two examples are insufficient.

jackism. care to comment on verses 15-17?

jackism. care to address the responses i made to your "no" list?

repetitive jackism.

jackism. care to address the fact that the bible is clear that the amalekites were guilty of mistreating the hebrews?

most christians would agree with that.

and that religion would be?

repetitive jackism. so by your interpretation, adam and eve were physically blind prior to eating of the tree of knowledge? funny. i don't remember the word "blind" prior to that. adam "saw" the animals before he named them. i really am sorry you can't see "eyes" as figurative. when your eyes are physically opened, you don't receive enlightenment. you receive sight. they "knew" they were naked as opposed to they "saw" they were naked. their disobedience is what precipitated their spiritual death.

whoa. they had gained knowledge, but there is no indication that it was god-like.

because God qualifies "like Us" with the appendage "to know good and evil". that in no way implies god-like knowledge. it merely implies a knowledge they didn't have before and a knowledge that God had. i could say that a person living in the same city as me is "like me" but that is only a very minute likeness.

you are correct. i should have said ancient history as opposed to just first century history. thank you for the correction.

not all hebrews were polytheistic.

the biblical yahweh is equated with el. wikipedia confirms this.

obviously, not all hebrews agreed with this being that the majority were monotheistic.

i disagree with this interpretation because the word in verse 9 is jehovah which is literally "the existing One". this implies that this particular god is without divine peer.

what verses would they be mentioned in?

the word "give" (nathan) has multiple meanings none of which imply child sacrifice.

what part of these verses gives you the impression they are referring to child sacrifice?

are there any examples of ritualistic human sacrifice in the bible? i agree that some hebrews did practice human sacrifice, but not under the mandates of true judaism. i agree that the one of the tenets of the OT was "an eye for an eye" but i don't recall ritualistic child sacrifice being acceptable.

i am familiar with finklestein's opus which is controversial and fringe at best. several flaws have been pointed out with his methods and conclusions.

having three distinct sections does not imply three different authors. it could imply that there were different periods of composition.

Sven

bnfiii: Do yourself a favor and work through this thread. Be sure to follow the links.

Johnny Skeptic

Goody, another chance to embarrass a Christian regarding the Tyre prophecy. Bfniii, would you like to debate it here, or should I start a new thread?

bfniii

i'll respond here as long as the moderator allows it.

sure you can. you can call any part of the bible anything you want. how reasonable the interpretation is depends on how well it can be supported. the more empiricism and ontology intersect, the more accurate. wouldn't you agree?

?? the building blocks are the same, which is to be expected. but the information is, apparently, vastly different.

this is apparently not a significant similarity considering life is so diverse. wouldn't you agree?

would we expect them to be different? you yourself pointed out that we have such similar metabolisms, environments, etc.

given that we are so genetically similar, should we expect a difference? does that inconclusively prove we came from a common ancestor?

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Baseless claim, no evidence supplied.
Never. Still no evidence that the prophecy should not be interpreted literally: as the permanent physical destruction of Tyre (which never happened).

Nor is there any evidence that a "figurative destruction" would be at the hands of Alexander rather than Nebuchaznezzar: and Tyre recovered from Alexander anyhow.
Tyre still exists, and contains more than 15,000 people IIRC. As the population was never wiped out, it's reasonable to suppose that many of the modern inhabitants are descendants of the original Tyrians.
Still no evidence. And Tyre was never abruptly "destroyed" even in a figurative sense: it gradually became less influential.
Never is it even hinted beforehand that Nebuchadnezzar would NOT be the one who would physically destroy Tyre.
Of course not, the prophecy failed!
You have STILL provided NO EVIDENCE to support your claim that Ezekiel wasn't referring to the physical destruction of the CITY of Tyre. Furthermore, Tyre RECOVERED after Alexander. If you'd bothered to read the earlier Tyre thread, you'd know that.
There are none.
He is SUPPOSED to be prophesying the outcome of the imminent attack on Tyre.

There is no reason why ANYBODY, listening to him at the time, would assume otherwise.
Again, what "rebuttal"?

Apparently it is obvious EVEN TO YOU that God is not just. That's why you imagine that "our limitations" are somehow fooling us.

Unfortunately for you, the Bible says that we DO have the ability to "know good and evil": and that's how we can know that God is evil. Hardly surprising that he didn't want us to have that ability!

On the notion that "guilt is not transferable":
I have already provided the few verses which say that people should be punished only for their own sin.

These verses contradict the core doctrine that runs throughout Christianity: that guilt IS transferable. That's supposedly the whole point of Jesus's death: that he "bore our sins".
...LATER?

At the time the curse was laid upon him, Caanan had NOT done ANYTHING to deserve it. LATER... so what? He'd been CURSED, for no reason! If I'd found myself in that position, I'd certainly be inclined to do something to deserve it!
...And what information in the bible are you basing THAT on?

I still find it amazing that Christians are so quick to invent the "Word of God" wholesale.
...Which is nonsense, of course, as many are without sin (e.g. newborn babies), UNLESS you choose to imagine that guilt is TRANSFERABLE. But here we're discussing specific punishments that are NOT deserved.
No, I have provided the context, which demonstrates that God is unfair in each case cited.
Yes, and it's a well-known Biblical contradiction, already pointed out to you. There is nothing like that in the text we were discussing.
Because they provide NO REASON why the tenth-generation descendant of a bastard should not enter the "assembly of the Lord" (however you choose to define it).

What should we call your ongoing refusal to address these points (and your bogus claims that I have not)? A "bfniii-ism"?
Bfniii-ism. Here are the verses:
I have already addressed these, by pointing out that there is NO indication that the CHILDREN (the "fruit of thy body") have been "disobedient". Yet THEY will be cursed too.

...So why are you still pretending otherwise?
Bfniii-ism. The existence of the NO list does not cancel the YES list. The whole POINT of providing both lists is to demonstrate BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS on this issue.
Repetitive bfniii-ism. You have demonstrated that you cannot resolve these problems. Nobody ever has.
Would you care to address the fact that the stated reason why the Amalekites were to be killed was NOT because THEY were guilty of mistreating the Hebrews, but because their ANCESTORS had done so?
No, they wouldn't. Only a minority believe the Bible to be 100% divinely inspired, all the rest accept that it's a compilation of many books from many different people with differing views.
Christianity hijacked Judaism, which itself contains material from older Caananite religions, Zoroastrianism, and ancient Sumerian/Babylonian myths.
Yes, their "eyes were opened" in a figurative sense. But that describes enlightenment, NOT "spiritual death". You don't "die" (even figuratively) from opening your eyes. There is NO "spiritual death" in the story: only ACTUAL death, caused by God stopping them from eating of the Tree of Life.
Yes, Genesis says this ability is godlike. They're becoming "as one of us" (the Hebrew gods).
Yes, but so what? They gained ONE godlike power, and were about to gain another. God stopped them at that point. It doesn't really matter how many other powers they may or may not have gained.
Then you seem to be erroneously claiming that fundamentalists actually study history and archaeology and their critics do not, whereas actually it tends to be the other way round.
All of them were originally polytheistic.
Later, yes. The transition from El-worship to YHWH-worship involved some replacement and some merging. The story of the Golden Calf is an example: why should the Hebrews build an idol to another god after being rescued from Egypt by YHWH? Because this was the symbol of EL, their traditional god... but Moses took a different view and didn't consider them synonymous.
The majority didn't become monotheistic until much later. It has been suggested that the influence of Persian Zoroastrianism (during the Babylonian captivity) helped drive out the remnants of polytheism.
Nobody's quite sure what YHWH's title signifies (something like "I am what I am"), or when he became known by that title.
The Egyptian priests demonstrate magical powers in Exodus 7:11, 7:22, and 8:7.
The firstborn are to be given, and the fate of all humans given is described: they cannot be redeemed and must be put to death.

Furthermore, Ezekiel confirms that they were indeed put to death in the traditional Caananite fashion (burning), and scholars know that the Hebrews were Cannanites and that's the sort of thing Cannanites did.
Child sacrifice seems to have been dropped quite early, and mostly edited out of the Bible. There is some indication that Abraham originally sacrificed Isaac before the story was edited to let Isaac live. References to the human sacrifice of adults (mostly captives) remain, of course.
It's "controversial" among fundamentalists, of course. It is, however, the consensus among Biblical scholars generally: you have a strange notion of what is "fringe". Try an encyclopaedia.

bfniii

not all good comes from suffering, therefore God is not bound by your qualification "needs". it's just another tool that God uses, another arrown in the quiver.

i have pointed out that the quantity and the quality of suffering is not relevant to the issue because we are all different. 22 years of suffering means different things to different people because we all have different thresholds of pain. what is paramount is that suffering is experienced.

most certainly. i grieve for those who are suffering.

according to the bible, He does.

it almost sounds like you are doubting that God has a morally pertinent reason for that particular, or any suffering.

1. you again assume that God is doing so for no good reason. we have no grounds on which to make such an assumption.

2. i have asked multiple times why you assume that God enjoys our suffering. for some reason you are neglecting or dodging that question.

John A. Broussard

Since you would prefer that there be no suffering, you are saying that god has a good reason for allowing it. However, you could prevent the suffering if you were all-powerful and would be able to do so without worse consequences. Therefore you are prejudging your god by saying you don't know why she/it/he does what he does, but god must have good reasons for doing what he/she/it dies.

The answer to your last question is obvious. If god is all-powerful, then god could prevent that suffering without causing worse consequences. The fact that god doesn't can only mean that god must enjoy that suffering.

Even you admit that you would have prevented the suffering of the patient I described. God could prevent it and could have done so without ill-consequences. That god did not do so indicates that she/he/it must have thoroughly enjoyed watching those twenty-two years of agony.

Now, there are several ways around this dilemma. The one answer you seem to be skirting around is "This is the best of all possible worlds."

The implication of that is that god couldn't have done anything different than what we have. The final implication is that god is impotent. God can't do anything different than what is.

Do you prefer that explanation? If not, I can give you others.

bfniii

you have corroborated that the nation of tyre does not exist anymore. therefore, my claim is not so baseless. i understand that you disagree with that interpretation. but that does nothing to make it faulty.

so the nation of tyre still exists? this contradicts your previous statement that it does not.

here we are at an impasse. you show no language in the text that says tyre will be ultimately and permanently destroyed by nebuchadnezzar, but expect me to just acquiesce to your interpretation, instead of one that actually fulfills the prophecy merely because you stonewall with jackisms.

tyre did not recover from alexander. alexander usurped tyre and then co-opted what was left of it for his purposes. at that point, the original tyre was no more. furthermore, ezekiel says that tyre will be attacked by MANY NATIONS, not just nebuchadnezzar. please explain why you feel that despite this fact, you cling to an interpretation that has nebuchadnezzar bringing tyre's ultimate demise.

which doesn't obviate the prophecy.

not that it ever had to be.

but were still unable to stop their nation's destruction.

on the contrary, after alexander got a hold of it, it continued it's commercial influence before becoming politically important as a religious seat of power. all the more reason to believe ezekiel was right. alexander finished off the tyre that ezekiel knew.

"many nations".

if there is no specific reference in ezekiel to the immediate, permanent, physical destruction caused by nebuchadnezzar, then there should be no problem with agreeing that that part of the prophecy is fulfilled. since ezekiel says no such thing, there is no reason to assume such a thing.

jackism. alexander=no more nation of tyre. there is my case. i have stated it multiple times. you have agreed that tyre doesn't exist as a nation. hence, "shall be no more, though you are sought for".

sure it did. after it was rebuilt from the ground up and populated with different people.

i'm through post #83 at this time. so far, i see nothing substantial except that there was an attempt to shoehorn nebuchadnezzar into "many nations".

king of kings=Melek (king)
nations=Gowy (nation, people)

as you can see, two totally different meanings. there is absolutely nothing in the chapter that makes the reader believe that ONLY nebuchadnezzar will do the destroying.

also, there are multiple instances of the assumption that the destruction wrought by nebuchadnezzar would be permanent even though the text doesn't support such.

another faulty assumption made is that tyre would be bare rock forever, which the text does not say.

i will continue to read the thread when i'm not working on this one.

i will rephrase. so he is not allowed to prophecy about the literal AND figurative destruction in the same chapter because it would confuse non-christians?

so what? that was before the alleged events. how is someone supposed to interpret a prophecy about an event that hasn't occurred?

this one:
what i find interesting is that you just state that they are mistaken without pointing out why. i also, pointed out specific words that underscore this belief which you fail to address.

even if you do cite other christians that directly refute the idea, that does nothing to refute that i showed why that interpretation developed from the text.

so who are these other christians who disagree?

you seem to lose track of the thread every now and then. this isn't the first time i reposted something you claim i didn't post.

are you so out of touch with my posts that you can't see how ridiculous this response is?

wow. you even state that humans have limitations compared to a supernatural creator but then don't acknowledge that you comprehend what you just stated. that being our inability to completely comprehend God's justice. you are stating that God appears to be unjust because, at times, His jurisprudence confuses us (who happen to be limited, a subset). that's like a 2 dimensional being telling a 3 dimensional being "i don't like your depth".

does that in any way imply that we are on the same level of comprehension or depth as God in terms of justice or morality? as this passage outlines (and the rest of the bible for that matter), we have a basic, cursory morality compared to God.

this all started with deut 24:16. the context of the passage is humans judging humans in OT times. God however, will allow the consequences of a person's actions to affect others. this is only temporary, earthly consequences as opposed to permanent, spiritual consequences.

wait, didn't you just say He gave us the ability to discern good and evil? here you say He didn't. which is it?

jackism. i have already addressed those verses. so instead of replying to my rebuttal, you just once again, repeat your original assumption followed by the mistaken next comment....

the propitiation of Jesus is completely different that a person being guilty for the sins of another person. we will never be capable of that kind of spiritual propitiation.

oh yeah? where is the verse that says "even though canaan was innocent"? where are the verses that say he was upright and blameless? you are making an uninformed assumption

the bible is pretty clear on the immorality of the canaanites. that would suggest that canaan was indeed less than upstanding.

funny. you make this comment right after i point out that you read something into a passage that wasn't there.

this point is addressed in my responses to john broussard.

so far we have learned that:
1. in the OT, people should not be punished for the crimes of others
2. spiritual guilt is not transferrable
3. punishments, suffering in general, are temporary and physical as opposed to permanent and spiritual. you have intimated that either the bible says something different or that you expect people not to suffer at all.
4. God does allow the consequences of a person's actions to affect another person.

jackism squared. you respond to niether of my rebuttals; the verses in context and punishment (physical vs. spiritual).

you make a point. i refute that point with an example. you agree it's an example of the refutation. then claim it's a contradiction with other verses but don't provide the verses. this must be some kind of special jackism.

jackism (not addressing the issue). the "assembly of the Lord" is relevant because if it refers to holding a religious post, the legitimacy of the post would be undermined (by OT standards) by having someone of questionable lineage occupying it.

shall i cut and paste the instances of you refusing to address certain responses? as of now i count (very roughly) 13 instances of you dodging a challenge. i didn't even count the ones where you dodged more than once. i can certainly cut and paste them if you like. i also don't count the instances where i make a point and you don't pursue it.

the reason i pointed out those verses is because the consequences of the disobedience is going to negatively affect many facets of a person's life. keep in mind that these "curses" listed are not spiritual curses, but earthly recompense as long as the disobedience continues.

your claim that i didn't respond to your tacit rebuttal is incorrect. you didn't directly address the verses and i show here how even your tacit rebuttal is faulty. concordantly, that negates your contrived "bfniii-ism".

jackism. by restating your original point, you once again fail to acknowledge that i have already rebutted your "no" list. this negates the bfniii-ism.

evasive jackism. this is really going in circles. instead of addressing my rebuttals, you here make the grandiose claim that i haven't resolved the issue. if all goes according to pattern, at this point you claim incredulously "what rebuttal?". i cut and paste. you repeat your original point. around and around we go again.

would you do us both a favor and please read back through the thread to where i responded to the point and then actually address my response instead of just repeating your original claim? are you out of arguments? i might as well just resign myself to repeating my rebuttals until you think up a substantive response.

what's the difference? there was a prophecy that God would be at war with them for generations and the amalekites lived up to their end of the bargain. apparently, the progeny were chips off the old amalek. if the bible had said that they eventually turned out to be blameless, then that would be different.

i'm fairly certain that you are unable to quantify this assertion, unless you have some way to interview every single christian on earth with a lie detector. i sure hope you don't come back with some cnn poll garbage.

hijacked? that's a good one. with what? the ark or something? whatever. christianity is the logical conclusion of judaism. read isaiah 53.

are there simliarities? yes. does that mean judaism co-opted these other religions? not at all.

sure you do. before, man did not need redemption or propitiation or even rite. once he recieved spiritual morality, that old spiritual connection was severed. then there was a new spiritual paradigm that required redemption through various means in the OT and eventually Jesus in the NT.

exactly. notice the qualifier "as"? this indicates man had gained something that God already had, not ALL of what god had. the text doesn't say "equal to" or "the same as" or "one of us".

i have used two different examples to show how the text does not imply "god-like" powers.

i implied neither. i meant to say that christian scholars study ancient history and archaeology.

curious. what source are you using? i would like to read up on it.

what source does this come from?

there is no indication that all hebrews did that nor that the bible espouses such a practice.

the calf symbol was not uncommon to several cultures. therefore, it is less than accurate to portray it solely is a jewish "el" god.

but this doesn't really make sense. the hebrews were already monotheistic, worshipping elohiym before canaan was born. even the term yahweh makes it's first appearance in genesis 3. therefore, there couldn't have been a "transistion". there was nothing to transition from.

it has been suggested by whom?

curious. the bible seems to have been sure about it all along.

btw, i did notice the sneaky jackism in that you didn't respond to my comments regarding jehovah and the "other gods".

wait. those are priests, not gods.

evasive jackism. you don't address the fact that the actual word itself has nothing to do with child sacrifice. the ones who must be put to death are not children. they are the ones who entered into a binding, sacrifical agreement with God.

some hebrews who were acting outside the mandates of judaism, did take part in this ritual. but it certainly isn't a biblical concept.

how convenient for christian debunkers. would there be any corroborating evidence of this?

there is? where would this indication be?

not that that's a problem for OT doctrine.

i have. if you do a simple internet search, you will see that there is nowhere near a consensus. there seems to be a small, vocal minority which includes thomas thompson, keith whitelam, niels lemche, and finkelstein who are the dissenters. dever accurately outlines the problem when he states "The fact is that one of the revisionists' major faults is that they ignore, cite selectively and cavalierly, misinterpret, distort, or otherwise abuse modern archaeology and the rich data that it produces". this is certainly not the first time finkelstein's faults have been pointed out. here are some names from the other side to get you started: James K. Hoffmeier, David Rohl and Kenneth Kitchen.