The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

[Hokulele]

Am I the only one wondering whether DOC has employed a writing team?

Nah, he just copied and pasted from the blog he linked. Nothing original (or correct) there.

 

[dafydd]

Seconded, I was in knots laughing.

A blues from Memphis, Egypt not Memphis, Tennessee.

 

[abaddon]

A blues from Memphis, Egypt not Memphis, Tennessee.

Doesn't matter where from, it's brilliant.

 

[Leumas]

Oh Mighty One, I recorded this just for thee.

http://www.fileswap.com/dl/DiLyZWKGvZ/mummy_daddy.mp3.html

WOW.... is that your composition and singing as well as lyrics?

Amazing.... it is really good....also like the voice.

 

[dafydd]

WOW.... is that your composition and singing as well as lyrics?

Amazing.... it is really good....also like the voice.

It's me in person but the song is one of Richard Thompson's that he never recorded. I heard him singing it at a concert years ago and it made me laugh and the song stuck in my head. There's one of my songs here, if you're interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPned3bizmk&list=UU6ifWhTjmGm85Pe31oB2rmw&index=85&feature=plcp

 

[DOC]

Based on his previous habits I believe he disappears occasionally to seek advice and assistance from other god botherers; his frequent changes in style suggest this.

Nope, it's just me, the bible, my links, and a glance at the 2012 World Book.

 

[abaddon]

Nope, it's just me,

And you are wrong.

the bible,

And it is wrong.

my links,

And they are wrong.

and a glance at the 2012 World Book.

A glance? Really Doc?

 

[TimCallahan]

DOC:

One last point about Tyre is the reason God is supposedly going to destroy the city (Ezek. 26:2):

"So of man, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem, 'Aha, the gate of the peoples is broken, it has swung open to me: I shall be replenished, now that she is laid waste.' . . ."

So, God is going to destroy Tyre because the people or prince of Tyre gloated over the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course, unless this prophecy was fulfilled in the sixth century BCE, when these people were living, it's pointless. Alexander's sacking of Tyre in the 300s, about two centuries later, would hardly punish the Tyrians of Ezekiel's generation. So, did Nebuchadrezzar and his army destroy Tyre? Ezekiel says they didn't (Ezek 29:18, emphasis added):

"Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for his labor that he had performed against it.

Compare this to what Ezekiel said the Chaldeans would do to Tyre in Ezek. 26:12 (emphasis added):

They will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber they will cast into the midst of the waters.

So, even Ezekiel admits that his prophecy was a failure.

 

[Leumas]

DOC:

One last point about Tyre is the reason God is supposedly going to destroy the city (Ezek. 26:2):

"So of man, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem, 'Aha, the gate of the peoples is broken, it has swung open to me: I shall be replenished, now that she is laid waste.' . . ."

So, God is going to destroy Tyre because the people or prince of Tyre gloated over the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course, unless this prophecy was fulfilled in the sixth century BCE, when these people were living, it's pointless. Alexander's sacking of Tyre in the 300s, about two centuries later, would hardly punish the Tyrians of Ezekiel's generation. So, did Nebuchadrezzar and his army destroy Tyre? Ezekiel says they didn't (Ezek 29:18, emphasis added):

"Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for his labor that he had performed against it.

Compare this to what Ezekiel said the Chaldeans would do to Tyre in Ezek. 26:12 (emphasis added):

They will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber they will cast into the midst of the waters.

So, even Ezekiel admits that his prophecy was a failure.

Which makes more sense since the prophecy is written probably around 400 BCE long after the whole thing took place and it is not a prophecy but rather a very badly written HOAX trying to pretend to be a prophecy but failing due to limited and/or exaggerated historical records.

For instance..... imagine "Ezekiel" writing his hoax from historical records he obtained from the Persians who got them from Babylon after they conquered it.

In those records Nebuchadnezzar boasted about his war against Tyre and wrote that he did in fact take it. So "Ezekiel" go that history wrong. Also imagine now he got more tablets of history written by the Assyrians who the Persians also conquered and now these tablets say something else and "Ezekiel" incorporated this history too in his hoax.

Thus we end up with exaggerated, wrong, correct and imagined "history" being written about years later by someone pretending to be writing years earlier and prophesying the whole thing.

 

[Akhenaten]

Based on his previous habits I believe he disappears occasionally to seek advice and assistance from other god botherers; his frequent changes in style suggest this.

Nope, it's just me, the bible, my links, and a glance at the 2012 World Book.

Well, I have to admit, that does explain why it's such a poorly presented raft of gobbledygook.

 

[DOC]

DOC:

One last point about Tyre is the reason God is supposedly going to destroy the city (Ezek. 26:2):

"So of man, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem, 'Aha, the gate of the peoples is broken, it has swung open to me: I shall be replenished, now that she is laid waste.' . . ."

So, God is going to destroy Tyre because the people or prince of Tyre gloated over the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course, unless this prophecy was fulfilled in the sixth century BCE, when these people were living, it's pointless. Alexander's sacking of Tyre in the 300s, about two centuries later, would hardly punish the Tyrians of Ezekiel's generation.

So then you have evidence that the people of that generation did not have the same haughty spirit that was anti- the God of Israel?

So, did Nebuchadrezzar and his army destroy Tyre? Ezekiel says they didn't (Ezek 29:18, emphasis added):

"Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for his labor that he had performed against it.

You're seeing something that isn't there. Nowhere does he say they didn't destroy Tyre.

Compare this to what Ezekiel said the Chaldeans would do to Tyre in Ezek. 26:12 (emphasis added):

They will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber they will cast into the midst of the waters.

How do you know the "they" is referring to Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans; you don't. Again you guess and try to make that guess into a fact. In the previous 4 verses Ezekiel always uses the word "He" to describe what the Chaldeans will do. Then all the sudden Ezekiel changes to "they". This "they" could very easily be referring to the "many nations" that Ezekiel says will come against Tyre in Ezekiel 26:3.

So, even Ezekiel admits that his prophecy was a failure.

You're entitled to your opinion but again I think you're seeing something that isn't there.

(ETA) Once again this is an example of why it is important for people to do their own research because people like Tim Callahan can sound very confident with what they say but on closer examination there can be inaccuracies, or "guesses" that are claimed to be fact.

And to those people who are new to all of this my time is limited and I can't respond to every little point people make that might be inaccurate, so don't put all your faith in me that I will be able to point out all innaccuracies and false claims.

 

[Helen]

(ETA) Once again this is an example of why it is important for people to do their own research because people like Tim Callahan can sound very confident with what they say but on closer examination there can be inaccuracies, or "guesses" that are claimed to be fact.

Most of that sentence works quite well, DOC. Perhaps you should sit and think a while about which part of it you could improve?

 

[DOC]

Which makes more sense since the prophecy is written probably around 400 BCE long after the whole thing took place and it is not a prophecy but rather a very badly written HOAX trying to pretend to be a prophecy but failing due to limited and/or exaggerated historical records.

For instance..... imagine "Ezekiel" writing his hoax from historical records he obtained from the Persians who got them from Babylon after they conquered it.

In those records Nebuchadnezzar boasted about his war against Tyre and wrote that he did in fact take it. So "Ezekiel" go that history wrong. Also imagine now he got more tablets of history written by the Assyrians who the Persians also conquered and now these tablets say something else and "Ezekiel" incorporated this history too in his hoax.

Thus we end up with exaggerated, wrong, correct and imagined "history" being written about years later by someone pretending to be writing years earlier and prophesying the whole thing.

Your opinion and speculation is noted.

 

[Akhenaten]

DOC:

One last point about Tyre is the reason God is supposedly going to destroy the city (Ezek. 26:2):

"So of man, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem, 'Aha, the gate of the peoples is broken, it has swung open to me: I shall be replenished, now that she is laid waste.' . . ."

So, God is going to destroy Tyre because the people or prince of Tyre gloated over the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course, unless this prophecy was fulfilled in the sixth century BCE, when these people were living, it's pointless. Alexander's sacking of Tyre in the 300s, about two centuries later, would hardly punish the Tyrians of Ezekiel's generation.

So then you have evidence that the people of that generation did not have the same haughty spirit that was anti- the God of Israel?

This utterly ridiculous question has nothing to do with Tim's point that the attitude of the people of Tyre towards Nebuchadnezzar would not have influenced Alexander more than 200 years later.

So, did Nebuchadrezzar and his army destroy Tyre? Ezekiel says they didn't (Ezek 29:18, emphasis added):

"Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for his labor that he had performed against it.

You're seeing something that isn't there. Nowhere does he say they didn't destroy Tyre.

And nowhere does it say that Napoleon didn't invade New Zealand.

Do you consider this to be evidence that he did?


On the other hand, if Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed Tyre how reasonable do you think it is that the event would have been unrecorded?

Compare this to what Ezekiel said the Chaldeans would do to Tyre in Ezek. 26:12 (emphasis added):

They will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber they will cast into the midst of the waters.

How do you know the "they" is referring to Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans; you don't. Again you guess and try to make that guess into a fact. In the previous 4 verses Ezekiel always uses the wore "He" to describe what the Chaldeans will do. Then all the sudden he changes to "they". This could very easily be referring to the "many nations" that Ezekiel says will come against Tyre in Ezekiel 26:3.

And which 'many nations' would those be, DOC? The Macedonians, two centuries later?

So, even Ezekiel admits that his prophecy was a failure.

You're entitled to your opinion but again I think you're seeing something that isn't there.

Of course you do, but given your constant refusal to see what's right there in front of you it matters not one whit what you think.

 

[Akhenaten]

You're opinion and speculation is noted.

He's not opinion. He's Leumas.


Can't you get anything right?

 

[DOC]

...And which 'many nations' {that Ezekiel predicted would attack Tyre and would come like waves in the sea -- Ezek. 26:3} would those be, DOC? The Macedonians, two centuries later?...

573 BC -- Nebuchadnezzar

538 BC -- Persians

370s BC -- King of Cypress

332 BC -- Alexander the Great

64 BC -- Roman Empire

300s -- Byzantine Empire

1124 -- Crusaders

1291 -- Mamluks of Egypt

 

[Akhenaten]

You obviously live nowhere near the sea. Waves are considerably more frequent than that.

In any case, predicting that there would be periodic attacks on Tyre is a no-brainer. Its location has great strategic value, which is why it was there in the first place, and any budding young empire builder would have wanted to capture it.

If Ezekiel was such a hot-shot prophesier, why didn't he include the names and dates of all the attackers that you've listed?

 

[X]

DOC:

While the absence of evidence can not normally be considered as evidence against a proposition, the absence of expected evidence can.

In this case, if Tyre were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, as prophesied in Ezekiel, it would have been recorded. Clearly and unambiguously. Instead, you have no records of any successful attack by Nebuchadnezzar. Absence of expected evidence, DOC.

 

[joobz]

How do you know the "they" is referring to Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans;

Context.
The paragraph was speaking of the Chaldeans.

For example:
If I were to say.
"DOC is a poster on this forum. He is a huge idiot."

I would be given a warning for directly insulting you.
The forum moderators wouldn't listen to any claim of, "Oh. When I said "He" i didn't mean DOC. I meant Charlie Sheen." Because the context of the statement.



In fact, if the author of the Ezekiel didn't mean the Chaldeans, that would be a sign that the book's author isn't a reliable source. Afterall, How can we rely on any of the pronouns to not mean something completely different?

 

[carlitos]

How do you know the "they" is referring to Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans; you don't. Again you guess and try to make that guess into a fact. In the previous 4 verses Ezekiel always uses the wore "He" to describe what the Chaldeans will do. Then all the sudden he changes to "they". This could very easily be referring to the "many nations" that Ezekiel says will come against Tyre in Ezekiel 26:3.

Wow. Just wow.

Context.
The paragraph was speaking of the Chaldeans.

No kidding. That's just amazingly dishonest even by DOC standards.

7 “For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.

Just who the **** else could "they" be if not Nebuchadnezzar's army?

The switch is from "he" - the guy who will direct all this to "they" - the army plundering and looting, breaking down walls, etc.

ETA - nice post on this found here on another forum.