Another bible prophecy nearing fulfillment (Isaiah, myth, Mason, gospels)

[Gplex]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Outside of your empty rhetoric, care to explain to us what you are even talking about?

Watch the video I just posted, you will see EXACTLY what I am talking about, when you switch from subject to subject trying to avoid your obvious flaws in your argument.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Already told what "many nations" is referring to.

I have already explained what this means. Can you give me chapter and verse that states that "many nations" doesn't refer to an army made up of many nations...as was the case in those days?

...and you have completely ignored the questions put to you in my post.

1. Who are the serious archaeologists/historians that say there was a 40 year period when Egypt was so desolate (since the time of this so called prophecy) that neither man nor beast could be found there?

2. Can you give me one, just one record of any surrounding civilisation that records that for 40 years, nobody was home in Egypt, any of her trading partners for example?

3. What do you believe? Has it happened or not?

4. The city of Tyre proper was on the island. That much is obvious because we know that Alexander had to build a causeway out into the sea to reach it. If Tyre was on the mainland, why did he have to build a causeway?

Also, address the thing I have posting such as....

"For thus says the Lord GOD: I will bring against Tyre from the north King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, king of kings, together with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great and powerful army. Your daughter-towns in the country he shall put to the sword. He shall set up a siege wall against you, cast up a ramp against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. He shall direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls and break down your towers with his axes. His horses shall be so many that their dust shall cover you. At the noise of cavalry, wheels, and chariots your very walls shall shake, when he enters your gates like those entering a breached city. With the hoofs of his horses he shall trample all your streets. He shall put your people to the sword, and your strong pillars shall fall to the ground."

Now old horse, clearly it is Nebby who is to do those things NOT Alexander. Tyre proper was on the island as shown by verses 4-5 predicting that Tyre would become "a bare rock ... in the midst of the sea". These verses clearly indicate that Ezekiel understood "Tyre" to mean the island (in the midst of the sea). So when he predicts that Nebuchadnezzar would rampage through all of Tyre's streets, he must mean on the island."

I asked you to give me chapter and verse that would show us, (THAT THE MANY NATIONS) must require only Nebuchandnezzar to be the leader of those (MANY NATIONS).

You showed me nothing to confirm your belief. And it's obvious, you cannot show us chapter or verse that would confirm your (PERSONAL ASSUMPTION).

The city of Tyre existed both on the Island, and the mainland. And that was during (the time of Nebuchandnezzar). History teaches you that much. The Island City existed by itself during the time of Alexander the Great. And in fact, Alexander used the ruins of the mainland city to build a land bridge to the Island city. The mainland city was destroyed by Nebuchandnezzar. And Alexander the Great was part of the many nations that would finally destroy Tyre, yet this was many years later. Alexander fulfilled the prophecy. Clearly Nebuchandnezzar alone would not accomplish this. That's just an unfounded assumption believed by you. And that assumption comes from ignoring the first part of the prophecy, and then incorrectly assuming that many nations can only mean Nebuchandnezzar.

The (CITY OF TYRE CONSISTED OF A MAINLAND METROPOLIS) and a (SMALL ISLAND) that stood about a half mile off shore.

The Destruction of Tyre:

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Gplex

Watch the video I just posted, you will see EXACTLY what I am talking about, when you switch from subject to subject trying to avoid your obvious flaws in your argument.

Yeah, that's pretty much about nothing. The fact is the Bible gives many details of it's prophecies. And most often I believe those details are ignored by you, or others. And then I am attacked by those who make these vague, or general statements that cannot be questioned. And of course you do that, because accusations that cannot be considered are the best way to attack someone. Of course for me, that only reveals the weakness of your position, and your beliefs.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Sure...but when was the 40 years of being so desolate that neither man nor beast would set foot in it?

Sorry, you're quite right. There wasn't one. Not even in the instability of the breakdown of the Old kingdom. There is absolutely no evidence that any such thing happened. Archaeology gives no indication that anything other than continuing living, farming, rising of the nile, building tombs and having parties with corn beer.

Campbell may say that absense of evidence is not evidence of absence, or in this case, absence of the absence, but that is simply saying that. because there is no evidence for something having occurred (apart from Bible text -so what) then it definitely DID happen, which is illogical, irrational, back - to front thinking, wrong, foolish and pretty typical of Campbell43

[Gplex]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Yeah, that's pretty much about nothing. The fact is the Bible gives many details of it's prophecies. And most often I believe those details are ignored by you, or others. And then I am attacked by those who make these vague, or general statements that cannot be questioned. And of course you do that, because accusations that cannot be considered are the best way to attack someone. Of course for me, that only reveals the weakness of your position, and your beliefs.

lol, I don't know if you did it on purpose or just can't see it, but you did EXACTLY what the parody did in the video...

[ChristyGrl]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Oh BTW: my own conclusion, on the basis of your now-proven infallible credibility?

Prophecy-Schmophecy.

You and I are in perfect agreement...to take a man made book written after the fact and call it prophecy...is well...you know where I'm going with that don't ya?

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

I asked you to give me chapter and verse that would show us, (THAT THE MANY NATIONS) must require only Nebuchandnezzar to be the leader of those (MANY NATIONS)

And nor can you show that "many nations" doesn't mean the typical army that Nebby would have had, made up of many amalgamated conquered nations as was the norm then. Armies were were made up of ethnic compositions of early empires. Empires like Babylonia formed from the conquest and annexation of surrounding tribes and nations, so when an area was assimilated into an adjoining kingdom, the soldiers of the conquered nations served the greater empire. In such cases, defeated armies swore allegiance to their conquerors, so the armies of a king like Nebuchadnezzar were actually armies of "many nations." So when the armies of Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus or Alexander attacked a city or territory, it wasn't just the aggression of a single nation but of many nations.

You can even find such scenarios in your Bible. In 2 Chronicles 20:1-4...

"It happened after this that the people of Moab with the people of Ammon, and others with them besides the Ammonites, came to battle against Jehoshaphat."

So you see that in the above verse we have an army of 'many nations'.

Ezekiel himself clearly used this same scenario at times. In the allegory of the two sisters (Oholah and Oholibah), he warned Judah that Yahweh would send against it the Babylonians, Chaldeans, Pekod, Shoa, and Koa, and all the Assyrians. The "many-nations" scenario was a commonplace hyperbolic device that biblical prophets used in their denunciations of those who were enemies of Israel and Judah.

And....

"Yahweh sent against him bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites to destroy Judah" (2 Kings 24:1-3), but the last two chapters of this book make it very clear that it was Nebuchadnezzar's army that destroyed Judah and took the people captive to Babylon, but in a real sense it was actually a conquest of "many nations," because Nebuchadnezzar's armies were comprised of more than just Babylonians.

The city of Tyre existed both on the Island, and the mainland. And that was during (the time of Nebuchandnezzar). History teaches you that much.

What history actually teaches is that Tyre was an island fortress with a mainland suburb call Ushu. Ushu was what Nebby destroyed not Tyre. If you bothered to read the link I gave you....

Tyre - LoveToKnow 1911

...you would see that.

The mainland city was destroyed by Nebuchandnezzar.

There was no mainland "city". Ushu was a residential suburb.

And that assumption comes from ignoring the first part of the prophecy, and then incorrectly assuming that many nations can only mean Nebuchandnezzar.

Nope! That assumption comes from the fact that the prophecy said it would be Nebby...which you clearly keep ignoring.

The (CITY OF TYRE CONSISTED OF A MAINLAND METROPOLIS) and a (SMALL ISLAND) that stood about a half mile off shore.

The Destruction of Tyre:

Sorry, not interested in Bible apologist sites. I'd rather believe this....

"TYRE (Phoen. and Hebr. ="rock," Assyr. Surru, Egypt. Dara, Early Lat. Sarra), the most famous city of Phoenicia. It is now represented by the petty town of Sur (about 5,000 inhabitants), built round the harbour at the north end of a peninsula, which till the time of Alexander's siege was an island, without water or vegetation."
Tyre - LoveToKnow 1911



Also, still awaiting answers re Egypt:

1. Who are the serious archaeologists/historians that say there was a 40 year period when Egypt was so desolate (since the time of this so called prophecy) that neither man nor beast could be found there?

2. Can you give me one, just one record of any surrounding civilisation that records that for 40 years, nobody was home in Egypt, any of her trading partners for example?

3. What do you believe? Has it happened or not?

And......

4. "Tyre proper was on the island as shown by verses 4-5 predicting that Tyre would become "a bare rock ... in the midst of the sea". These verses clearly indicate that Ezekiel understood "Tyre" to mean the island (in the midst of the sea).

[ptsum]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Of course people who believe the way you do have no knowledge of God, no experience with Him, nor do they understand His Book. And that is why the Bible tells us that the natural man would not understand the things of the spirit.

I understand enough to know that your sacred book is a book of lies and contradictions and that your God is a figment of your imagination and that your prophecies are nothing but delusional fantasies.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by ptsum

I understand enough to know that your sacred book is a book of lies and contradictions and that your God is a figment of your imagination and that your prophecies are nothing but delusional fantasies.

Let's be fair--which is itself an outlandishly unrealistic goal. The Bible is a collection of morality lessons, explanations of natural phenomena to a non-technological society, and actual history all mixed together. The problem is that we've got people today running around and using the Bible as if it was some sort of guide to predict the future. And as such, the problem is with those people, not the book itself.

[ptsum]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

Let's be fair--which is itself an outlandishly unrealistic goal. The Bible is a collection of morality lessons, explanations of natural phenomena to a non-technological society, and actual history all mixed together. The problem is that we've got people today running around and using the Bible as if it was some sort of guide to predict the future. And as such, the problem is with those people, not the book itself.

You know Fred you're right, I should be fair about it. It's a book that should never have come into existence, were it not for a pagan Emperor who was trying to keep peace in his empire and with his mother and trying to keep the different Christian beliefs from trying to kill off one another, the Council of Nicaea would have never happen and very possibly the so-called sacred book would've never come into existence, now I think that's being fair about it.