The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

[TimCallahan]

Had he won such a devastating victory, he would have said as much, rather than merely proclaiming that he attacked Egypt.

Also, again, there should have been archaeological evidence of such widespread destruction as Ezekiel predicts, but it there is no such evidence. Specifically Ezekiel 30 says, Gd would destroy the idols of Memphis and that there would no longer be a prince in Egypt (v.13). Yet there is no destruction in Memphis at this archaeological stratum, and Amasis remained pharaoh in to the time of Cambyses, son of Cyrus the Great. That's well after the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Verses 14 through 18 list the cities that will be devastated in Nebuchadnezzar's invasion, besides Memphis. They include Pathros, Zoan, On, Pi-besheth, Tehaphenhes and Thebes.

I should note that, of the cities listed above most are in the Nile delta, with the exceptions of Memphis, which was located a bit further south than the delta, and Thebes, which was in Upper Egypt. Had there been evidence of devastation in Thebes at this time in history, that would be emphatic evidence in favor of Ezekiel's prophecy. That there is no such devastation there is strongly disconfirming evidence.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Specially for Elizabeth I.

I think we should of known this was going to happen...

Thanks, but I'm still worrying about how Nebuchadrezzar or Bob or whoever it was kept his army "in tack."

 

[Christian Klippel]

... evidence ...

There's your problem. Godbotherers have the ability to ignore anything and everything that is evidence, even the oh-so-slightest, which would show their nonsense to be wrong. That ability is so strong in them that it basically overrides every other brain function, like logical thinking or thinking coherently.

The only thing they can do once that ability kicks in is to lie, lie and lie more.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[ddt]

And the above is some evidence that Nebuchadnezzar did indeed invade Egypt as prophecised. We just don't know how much devastation he actually did to Egypt. We know Nebu. totally destroyed the first Jewish temple. He sounds like a guy who can do some serious damage to a place whether he chooses to stay or not.

Did you actually read the very text you quoted? Here it is again:

Amasis was able to defeat an invasion of Egypt by the Babylonians under Nebuchadrezzar II; henceforth, the Babylonians experienced sufficient difficulties controlling their empire that they were forced to abandon future attacks against Amasis.

Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Egypt was repulsed and then he had trouble clinging on to the rest of his conquests. Sounds more like Mussolini's invasion of Greece - only Nebuchadnezzar didn't have a big brother like Nazi Germany to help him out (you're fond of Hitler comparisons, aren't you?). After all, the Chaldeans and the Egyptians were the great powers of their day.

 

[joobz]

Didn't pakeha or someone else originally bring that in?

I know I brought in the Nebu page, that is the Amasis page.

And the above is some evidence that Nebuchadnezzar did indeed invade Egypt as prophecised.

The prophecy wasn't that he would invade but that he would have the lands. That he would take it and take it's spoils.
trying to claim that simply "entering Egypt" fullfills the prophecy would be like saying getting to second base fulfills getting married.

 

[amb]

God knows what he is going to do, he is going to punish evil. If he chooses to punish the Egyptians, that is not violating any persons free will, they are getting what their free will sinful actions deserve.

He could be using fulfilled prophecies to give us enough evidence to justify faith in Him. There is faith and there is blind faith. Christianity is not a religion of "blind faith" because there is considerable historical evidence as well as prophetic evidence for it.

There is ? Besides the gospels, can you please point out in which history book of the century that xtianity was born in specifies a certain Jesus of Nazareth?
There were up to 100 first century historians who wrote extensively about that period of time, and none mention a Jesus Christ.

 

[Helen]

DOC, even if we, for some strange reason, agreed with you that we can't know, it still wouldn't be much of a fullfilled prophecy, would it?

"Yes, well, it might of happened. A bit. Not quite, but you know, a little, just enough so that it didn't leave any marks in recorded history. Or Nebuchadrezzar might of just gone 'Nah, don't want it now. I want my armies in tack.'"

As prophecies go, that one really isn't very convincing.

 

[DOC]

There are no fulfilled bible prophecies.

This converted Jewish Brooklyn attorney would disagree with you.

Jay Sekulow: How a Jewish Lawyer from Brooklyn Came to Believe in Jesus
by Jay Sekulow

...Glenn suggested I read Isaiah 53. My mind was boggled by the description of the "suffering servant" who sounded so much like Jesus. I had to be misreading the text. I realized with relief that I was reading from a "King James" Bible, and after all, that's a "Christian" translation. So the first thing I said to Glenn after I read it was "Okay, now give me a real Bible." I grabbed the Jewish text, but the description seemed just as clear. Even though this caught my attention, I wasn't too worried. It still sounded like Jesus in the "Jewish Bible," but there had to be a logical explanation.
I began to research the passage and I started to look for rabbinic interpretations. That's when I began to worry. If I read the passage once, I'm sure I read it 500 times. I looked for as many traditional Jewish interpretations as I could find. A number of them, especially the earlier ones, described the text as a messianic prophecy. Other interpretations claimed the suffering servant was Isaiah himself, or even the nation of Israel, but those explanations were an embarrassment to me. The details in the text obviously don't add up to the prophet Isaiah or the nation of Israel...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380590/posts

 

[Leumas]

The prophecy wasn't that he would invade but that he would have the lands. That he would take it and take it's spoils.
trying to claim that simply "entering Egypt" fullfills the prophecy would be like saying getting to second base fulfills getting married.

Besides.....why couldn't this omniscient god have just said..."he will invade but then he will change his mind as DOC is going to claim 2500 years later."


Seriously..... the mind boggling casuistics are PAINFUL to watch..... pitifully pathetic sycophantism.

 

[Leumas]

This converted Jewish Brooklyn attorney would disagree with you.

Jay Sekulow: How a Jewish Lawyer from Brooklyn Came to Believe in Jesus
by Jay Sekulow

A new admission to the mental asylum does not nullify the madness of the current patients.

 

[Rincewind]

:d

a new admission to the mental asylum does not nullify the madness of the previous patients.

 

[Akhenaten]

There are no fulfilled bible prophecies.

This converted Jewish Brooklyn attorney would disagree with you.

<snip>

So would Tomás de Torquemada, David Koresh and Benny the Rat.

So bloody what?

 

[Brainache]

This converted Jewish Brooklyn attorney would disagree with you.

Jay Sekulow: How a Jewish Lawyer from Brooklyn Came to Believe in Jesus
by Jay Sekulow

...Glenn suggested I read Isaiah 53. My mind was boggled by the description of the "suffering servant" who sounded so much like Jesus. I had to be misreading the text. I realized with relief that I was reading from a "King James" Bible, and after all, that's a "Christian" translation. So the first thing I said to Glenn after I read it was "Okay, now give me a real Bible." I grabbed the Jewish text, but the description seemed just as clear. Even though this caught my attention, I wasn't too worried. It still sounded like Jesus in the "Jewish Bible," but there had to be a logical explanation.
I began to research the passage and I started to look for rabbinic interpretations. That's when I began to worry. If I read the passage once, I'm sure I read it 500 times. I looked for as many traditional Jewish interpretations as I could find. A number of them, especially the earlier ones, described the text as a messianic prophecy. Other interpretations claimed the suffering servant was Isaiah himself, or even the nation of Israel, but those explanations were an embarrassment to me. The details in the text obviously don't add up to the prophet Isaiah or the nation of Israel...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380590/posts

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the gospel stories of Jesus matched old testament prophecies, given that the gospel stories of Jesus were based on OT prophecies. It's like being surprised that Star Trek Fanfic has some guy called Captain Kirk in it. What are the odds?

 

[Akhenaten]

Nebuchadnezzar did not proclaim a great victory, as he certainly would have had he conquered or even devastatingly invaded Egypt.

How do you know he didn't proclaim victory . . .

Mainly because people like yourself, despite a fanatical desire to provide evidence for such a victory, or even a proclamation of one, are completely unable to do so.

. . . or that he devasted Egypt?

Because it's still there. Just like Babylon isn't.

You should say we have no evidence of him proclaiming a victory or that he devastated Egypt.

We have no evidence of him proclaiming a victory or that he devastated Egypt.

Just because there is no evidence of something doesn't meant it didn't happen.

This observation doesn't give one carte blanche to simply assert that anything lacking evidence has some likelihood of having happened.

To refer back to my own earlier example, a lack of evidence for Napoleon never having invaded Zealand does not in any way count as evidence for a proposition that he did. You appear, tragically, to be trying to use what I might present as a reductio ad ridiculum as a serious argument.

I know it's been explained to you hundreds of times in dozens of threads already, but still, once more for luck:

One who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.

- Alex Michalos (Principles of Logic. p 370)

We have no signature of Julius Caesar, that doesn't mean he never signed his name to anything.

It probably does, actually.

You appear to have confused your inane argument that lack of a Julius Cæsar signature = no Julius Cæsar with the even more inane tautology that lack of a Julius Cæsar signature = no Julius Cæsar signature.

You're making great leaps backwards, DOC.

The Assyrians and Chaldeans were very self-congratulatory in their monuments. All we have from Nebuchadnezzar is a statement that he attacked Egypt...

So then I assume you retract this statement you made earlier:

"...Nebuchadreazzar's attack on Egypt was met at the border. He did not invade or devastate Egypt as Ezekiel predicted he would..."

You assume lots of things, DOC, and almost every one of them is wrong. At least you're consistent.

It's quite reasonable to assume that Nebuchadnezzar's attack was repelled at the border since we can find no evidence of him anywhere on the Egyptian side of that border.

Or have you discovered some?

 

[amb]

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the gospel stories of Jesus matched old testament prophecies, given that the gospel stories of Jesus were based on OT prophecies. It's like being surprised that Star Trek Fanfic has some guy called Captain Kirk in it. What are the odds?

The O/T is the foundation stone for the N/T. Without the O/T there would never have been a N/T. [happy birthday by the way]

 

[Akhenaten]

The O/T is the foundation stone for the N/T. Without the O/T there would never have been a N/T.

You don't say.

How long did it take you to arrive at this breakthrough?

 

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by pakeha

''...From DOC's own wiki source:
Amasis was able to defeat an invasion of Egypt by the Babylonians under Nebuchadrezzar II; henceforth, the Babylonians experienced sufficient difficulties controlling their empire that they were forced to abandon future attacks against Amasis.[10]''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amasis_II

Doc is always quoting sources that debunk him. That's why he's Doc.

Didn't pakeha or someone else originally bring that in?

I know I brought in the Nebu page, that is the Amasis page.

Meh. It makes little difference who quoted which source. Neither of them describes Nebuchadnezzer conquering Egypt.

And the above is some evidence that Nebuchadnezzar did indeed invade Egypt as prophecised.

DOC, it quite clearly says:

Amasis was able to defeat an invasion of Egypt by the Babylonians under Nebuchadrezzar II.​

Claiming that this is evidence of any kind that the Babylonians did invade Egypt is utterly ridiculous. It's too obviously wrong to even be called a lie.

We just don't know how much devastation he actually did to Egypt.

Then on what basis are you claiming that it was more than zero?

We know Nebu. totally destroyed the first Jewish temple. He sounds like a guy who can do some serious damage to a place whether he chooses to stay or not.

We know that Napoleon captured Moscow. He must have invaded New Zealand.

 

[Leumas]

We know that Napoleon captured Moscow. He must have invaded New Zealand.

Now that is the kind of illogic that DOC would be able to wrap his head around.... it is the kind of illogic used throughout the New Testament and the Bible.

 

[Akhenaten]

Now that is the kind of illogic that DOC would be able to wrap his head around.... it is the kind if illogic used throughout the New Testament.

Reductio ad MEDICUS

 

[Leumas]

Reductio ad MEDICUS

A veritable nut house....