The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

[DOC]

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...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086319#post8086319

 

[joobz]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086319#post8086319

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086392#post8086392
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086422#post8086422
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086423#post8086423
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086464#post8086464
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086670#post8086670
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086839#post8086839
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8089212#post8089212
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8089315#post8089315
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8089503#post8089503
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8089534#post8089534

 

[DOC]

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

Read Ezekiel a couple verses earlier in 26:3 -- the "many nations" who would attack Tyre.

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

Then why doesn't he use the word "they" to denote the army when he says

"He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword". Nebu. is not the one ravaging with the sword, his army is.

or when he says

"He will slay with the sword thy daughters in the field" Once again the army is doing the slaying.

Why not continue using He to denote all this. The fact that he changes to "they" all of the sudden could easily refer to the "many nations" he talks about a few verses earlier in 26:3 especially when you consider the fact he used the word "they" to refer to the many nations in verse 26:4

Eze 26:3 "Therefore, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am your enemy, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the waves of the sea crashing against your shoreline.
Eze 26:4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and tear down its towers. I will scrape away its soil and make it a bare rock!

Because of Verse 26:3,4 you simply can't conclusively say he was referring to Nebuchadnezzar. If you feel differently then so be it.

 

[Akhenaten]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086319#post8086319

That mess isn't an answer to anything at all, much less the point raised by X.

 

[Akhenaten]

Read Ezekiel a couple verses earlier in 26:3 -- the "many nations" who would attack Tyre.



Then why doesn't he use the word "they" to denote the army when he says

"He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword". Nebu. is not the one ravaging with the sword, his army is.

or when he says

"He will slay with the sword thy daughters in the field" Once again the army is doing the slaying.

Why not continue using He to denote all this. The fact that he changes to "they" all of the sudden could easily refer to the "many nations" he talks about a few verses earlier in 26:3.

Because of Verse 26:3 you simply can't conclusively say he was referring to Nebuchadnezzar. If you feel differently then so be it.

This is probably the most desperate and childish argument I have ever seen made by anyone, anywhere.

 

[rcfieldz]

How soon...

The morning after...

 

[carlitos]

This is probably the most desperate and childish argument I have ever seen made by anyone, anywhere.

Indeed. Maybe "they" means Adam and Eve, since they were also named in the bible before this passage.

 

[joobz]

Then why doesn't he use the word "they" to denote the army ...

Which "he" are you referring to?
Stephen King?
President Obama?
Harry Potter?


By, YOU, I mean DOC.
Just to clear things up.

 

[Lucian]

Read Ezekiel a couple verses earlier in 26:3 -- the "many nations" who would attack Tyre.



Then why doesn't he use the word "they" to denote the army when he says

"He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword". Nebu. is not the one ravaging with the sword, his army is.

or when he says

"He will slay with the sword thy daughters in the field" Once again the army is doing the slaying.

Why not continue using He to denote all this. The fact that he changes to "they" all of the sudden could easily refer to the "many nations" he talks about a few verses earlier in 26:3 (eta) especially when you consider the fact he used the word "they" to refer to the many nations in verse 26:4

Eze 26:3 "Therefore, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am your enemy, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the waves of the sea crashing against your shoreline.
Eze 26:4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and tear down its towers. I will scrape away its soil and make it a bare rock!

Because of Verse 26:3,4 you simply can't conclusively say he was referring to Nebuchadnezzar. If you feel differently then so be it.

So, you're saying that Ezekiel is an incomprehensible mess badly in need of an editor who understood how pronouns worked?

 

[X]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086392#post8086392
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086422#post8086422
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086423#post8086423
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086464#post8086464
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086670#post8086670
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8086839#post8086839
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8089212#post8089212
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8089315#post8089315
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8089503#post8089503
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8089534#post8089534

Thank you. Saved me the trouble.

That mess isn't an answer to anything at all, much less the point raised by X.

Indeed. But as DOC is wont to say, his "posts are out there for all to see" and they "speak for themselves".

("they" being DOC's posts. Just to prevent any confusion...)

 

[joobz]

Thank you. Saved me the trouble.

By "Me" I assume you mean X and not Campbell's chicken soup.
Correct?

Note that in the above sentence:
I = Joobz
and
You = X

This is simply to help DOC follow the discussion.

 

[TimCallahan]

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?

Again, the specific reason for God's supposed anger against Tyre, according to Eek. 26:2 is that they rejoiced when the Chaldeans destroyed Jerusalem. It would not be valid for any generation but the ones living in the time period of the Chaldean empire.

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

This is getting absurd. Had Nebuchadnezzar conquered Tyre, he would have taken spoil in the process. So, Ezekiel 29 does indeed say he didn't conquer the city.

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.

This is one of the usual pathetic defenses raised by fundamentalist apologists. We are supposed to accept that Ezek. 26:7 - 11 refers to Nebuchadnezzar (or, rather, Nebuchadrezzar) since he is expressly named in this passage, but are supposed to think that v. 12 suddenly refers to another event. Let's put the verse in context, bearing in mind that the "he" mentioned is Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek. 26:11 - 12):

¹²With the hooves of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword; and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. ¹¹They will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of our merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that verse 12 does not refer to the same destruction as the verses before it.

As to the statement in verse 3, "I . . . will bring many nations against you, as the sea brings up waves," this is hardly prophetic. Any city in the Levant could expect many nations to com against it. Consider Jerusalem:

1) Shoshenk (called Shishak in 1 Kings), first pharaoh of the Libyan Dynasty, ca. 900 BCE besieged Jerusalem, had to be bought off with gold stripped from the temple (I Kgs. 14:25).

2) Sennacherib, emperor of Assyria 701 BCE besieged Jerusalem 701 BCE, until Hezekiah paid him tribute

3) Nebuchadrezzar destroyed Jerusalem, 587 BCE.

4) Antiochus Epiphanes took Jerusalem 167 BCE.

5) The Roman army under Pompey captured Jerusalem 59 BCE.

6) It revolted and was reconquered by Mark Antony in 37 BCE

7) It revolted and was destroyed by the Romans under Vespasian in CE 70

8 and beyond) It was eventually rebuilt and successively conquered by the Umayyad Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Seljuk Turks, the Crusaders, Saladin, the Ottoman Turks and, finally, by the English in World War I. Wikipedia says of Jerusalem:

During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.

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.

In spite of your time being limited, yo do manage to respond when it suits you.

 

[Mojo]

Again, the specific reason for God's supposed anger against Tyre, according to Eek. 26:2 is that they rejoiced when the Chaldeans destroyed Jerusalem. It would not be valid for any generation but the ones living in the time period of the Chaldean empire.

You are forgetting that DOC's God is a spectacularly unpleasant entity who punishes people for things that are nothing to do with them, for example by sending tsunamis, hurricanes, or earthquakes.* All that matters is that someone gets punished.

*DOC has created an entire thread to celebrate this disgusting behaviour.

 

[welshdean]

DOC, do you realise how ridiculous your comments sound. Your constant denial of the obvious, incessant twisting of texts, poor understanding of grammar and school-yard semantic games to establish some successes in obvious failed prophecy is pitiful.

 

[Mashuna]

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.

Perhaps if you didn't create so many innaccuracies and false claims, you'd have more time.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Again, the specific reason for God's supposed anger against Tyre, according to Eek. 26:2 is that they rejoiced when the Chaldeans destroyed Jerusalem. It would not be valid for any generation but the ones living in the time period of the Chaldean empire.

This is getting absurd. Had Nebuchadnezzar conquered Tyre, he would have taken spoil in the process. So, Ezekiel 29 does indeed say he didn't conquer the city.

This is one of the usual pathetic defenses raised by fundamentalist apologists. We are supposed to accept that Ezek. 26:7 - 11 refers to Nebuchadnezzar (or, rather, Nebuchadrezzar) since he is expressly named in this passage, but are supposed to think that v. 12 suddenly refers to another event. Let's put the verse in context, bearing in mind that the "he" mentioned is Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek. 26:11 - 12):

¹²With the hooves of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword; and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. ¹¹They will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of our merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that verse 12 does not refer to the same destruction as the verses before it.

As to the statement in verse 3, "I . . . will bring many nations against you, as the sea brings up waves," this is hardly prophetic. Any city in the Levant could expect many nations to com against it. Consider Jerusalem:

1) Shoshenk (called Shishak in 1 Kings), first pharaoh of the Libyan Dynasty, ca. 900 BCE besieged Jerusalem, had to be bought off with gold stripped from the temple (I Kgs. 14:25).

2) Sennacherib, emperor of Assyria 701 BCE besieged Jerusalem 701 BCE, until Hezekiah paid him tribute

3) Nebuchadrezzar destroyed Jerusalem, 587 BCE.

4) Antiochus Epiphanes took Jerusalem 167 BCE.

5) The Roman army under Pompey captured Jerusalem 59 BCE.

6) It revolted and was reconquered by Mark Antony in 37 BCE

7) It revolted and was destroyed by the Romans under Vespasian in CE 70

8 and beyond) It was eventually rebuilt and successively conquered by the Umayyad Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Seljuk Turks, the Crusaders, Saladin, the Ottoman Turks and, finally, by the English in World War I. Wikipedia says of Jerusalem:

During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.

In spite of your time being limited, yo do manage to respond when it suits you.

Tim, besides your knowledge, I admire your optimism and persistence.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

 

[welshdean]

Tim, besides your knowledge, I admire your optimism and persistence.

If I may be so bold my Queen and ask, who do you mean by 'your' in the above post? Do you mean Alexander the Great?

I only ask 'cause enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Akhenaten]

If I may be so bold my Queen and ask, who do you mean by 'your' in the above post? Do you mean Alexander the Great?

I only ask 'cause enquiring minds want to know.

Do you mean "I" as in the perpendicular pronoun or "I" as in Elizabeth I.

This post is very confusing.

 

[joobz]

Do you mean "I" as in the perpendicular pronoun or "I" as in Elizabeth I.

This post is very confusing.

When you say you, do you mean you or do you mean ewe? Or perhaps you mean a chair?

Pronouns? How do they work?