Biblical prophesy (tradition, Gospels, Sodom, Deuteronomy)

[DonGorgnIII]

Once upon a time, I used to stand in confidence that even if the critics of the Bible tried to discredit everything in the Bible, there was one they they could not discount - biblical prophesy. In my little dream world, Jesus was predicted and there were signs everywhere that we were in the end times just like the Bible said.

The book of Deuteronomy states that a prophet's prediction MUST always come true or else he should be stoned to death (the bible's preferred means of eliminating scum) which brings us to old Zeke (Ezekiel).

After a long 3-chapter (Ezekiel 26, 27 and 28) rant against the city of Tyre, the prophet turned his attention to Egypt. Turns out that his prophecy concerning Tyre, one which predicted that king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would turn Tyre into an eternal pile of rubble NEVER occurred. In fact, Nebuchadnezzar's attempt cost him 13 years which in the end turned out to be vain because he failed to take the island city of Tyre as predicted by Ezekiel.

Not content to stop with the Tyre prophetic debacle, Ezekiel goes on to make a bold prediction about Egypt. He predicted that God would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar because "Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it." (Ezekiel 29:8). In other words, Egypt was going to be the reward. Obviously the 13 year siege of Tyre was costly so Nebuchadnezzar turned his eyes to Egypt to replenish his losses and no doubt rebuild the morale of his tired soldiers.

Ezekiel goes to predict (Ezekiel 29:8-15):

"Surely I will bring a sword upon you and cut off from you man and beast. And the land of Egypt shall become desolate and waste; then they will know that I am the LORD, because he said, ‘The River is mine, and I have made it.’ Indeed, therefore, I am against you and against your rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from Migdol to Neither foot of man shall pass through it nor foot of beast pass through it, and it shall be uninhabited forty years. I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia. that are desolate; and among the cities that are laid waste, her cities shall be desolate forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them throughout the countries.”
‘Yet, thus says the Lord GOD: “At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered. I will bring back the captives of Egypt and cause them to return to the land of Pathros, to the land of their origin, and there they shall be a lowly kingdom. It shall be the lowliest of kingdoms; it shall never again exalt itself above the nations, for I will diminish them so that they will not rule over the nations anymore.

NONE of the underlined predictions ever came to pass. At no point in Egyptian history has that nation ever been desolate for 40 years or uninhabited. Ever this was never the case then there was never a time when there was a mass migration of Egyptians back to their land after being in exile for 40 years and there was never a time when Egypt was considered the lowliest of nations.

Do I need the spirit of God to see beyond the obvious on this one?

[Padgett2]

Well, for starters, some people don't believe that the bible is 100% true. Others will tell you that we don't really know that the writer really meant Egypt.......he meant some other country. Other will just come right out and say that it doesn't matter. Not one whit.

This particular prophesy is one that's swept under the rug when explaining how 'true' the bible is.

And in the end......what difference does this prophesy make to anyone living in the USA?

[DonGorgonIV]

Originally Posted by Padgett2

Well, for starters, some people don't believe that the bible is 100% true.

What kind of TRUE Christian are they then?

Others will tell you that we don't really know that the writer really meant Egypt.......he meant some other country.

The old "well the writer didn't mean this. He meant that" trick?

Other will just come right out and say that it doesn't matter. Not one whit.

The old "that was under the Old Covenant. I am under the New Covenant " trick, the one that implies a New Testament Christian does not have to concern himself with anything found in the Old Testament other than the 10 Commandments and passages that shows god's distate for homosexuality?


[quot]This particular prophesy is one that's swept under the rug when explaining how 'true' the bible is.[/quote]

Christian apologists would never do such a thing.

And in the end......what difference does this prophesy make to anyone living in the USA?

That their "divinely inspired" Bible is not a accurate as they believe?

[Padgett2]

A "True Christian" is someone who believes that his or her way is the ONLY way, his or her life style is the ONLY approved by God way. Anyone else, no matter what they believe or think, is not a "true" christian.

In my opinion, for what it's worth, these "True Christians" have missed the point. We'll never know for sure, will we!!!

[godofthunder]

In my personal experience, the nations of the ancient times are frequently used symbolicly. Case in point, Isaiah 63.
"1. Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save .
2. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat?
3. I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.
4. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come .
5. And I looked , and there was none to help ; and I wondered that there was none to uphold : therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.
6. And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth."

Now a great many symbols are used to describe what can only be the Second Coming of Christ. Why use the nation of Edom? Was Edom to become great? Was Christ born of the descendenct of Edom? Was Edom going to conquer all who opposed her?

No, actually this passage is making referece to one simple thing. Edom was noted for redheads. The word's root means "red." Then we go through other descriptions about his garments being as one who treadeth the winefat -- in other words, that his apparel would be stained with a specific color. In this case, red. Whether the red apparel is symbolic or not is not 100% clear, but we do know that Edom is not directly tied with the lineage of Jesus Christ.

Similarly, many of the nations referred to in the Bible are often using the names of nations symbolicly. Babylon is often used to typify "the world" or "the worldly." Egypt is often used to typify "those who become complacent" though it has other modes of reference. It is possible that Ezekiel was being true to his typical self -- being so oversymbolic that everyone struggles to understand his meaning.

Some people struggle with Isaiah. I'd say Isaiah is a walk in the park next to understanding Ezekiel. I likewise do not expect living waters to shoot out from the temple at Jerusalem and heal the Dead Sea. I believe that Ezekiel was being symbolic of the spiritually dead world being returned to life -- and there is little doubt that I've only got it partly right.

[SeekerSA]

It always amazes me why folk deem it necessary to look in the OT for the signs of Jesus when we have a NT testifying to the fact. In fact the NT is the oldest sacred texts we have on record. The OT was copied on by the Jews and who knows what they may have altered.

Maybe the NT was too thin on its own hence the incorporation of the OT with the NT texts.

The point I am trying to make is this, even an Atheist can relate to the teachings of Jesus concerning brotherly love etc. Good advice for anyone. Jesus used the foundations the folk knew about and I am guessing He also used fables in His parables to teach folk principles. The gospels were not minutes of meeting scribed by a secretary of sorts, pity Jesus never considered that but even then, much of what Matthew wrote was hearsay.

If we can be taken out of context on a discussion board and we are all literate, how much more in the case of oral tradition. I am sure some folk have photographic memories and can regurgitate verbatim yet for most of us, what we say is influenced by bias and interpretation. Assuming the folk back then were better than we are today wrt oral tradition is a fallacy of assumption.

Imagine if we all thought exactly the same, what would we talk about?

If you look at Paul's letters esp Romans, the long intros, by the time you get to gist of what he says you are nearly asleep. Imagine me wanting to share something and first lay out my CV before each post? I am sure I would make many folk's ignore list

Blessings

[Marks]

Originally Posted by DonGorgonIV

The old "that was under the Old Covenant. I am under the New Covenant " trick, the one that implies a New Testament Christian does not have to concern himself with anything found in the Old Testament other than the 10 Commandments

So, some Christians are criticized if they happen to believe some of the Old Testament is speaking symbolically, or parts have already been fulfilled. And perhaps is only given for our learning as brother Paul says:

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4)

"Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted." (1 Corinthians 10:6)

"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly." (2 Peter 2:6)

But if, for example, something like the beliefs of preterists which reverses the argument to the New Testament are accept without examination?

Double standard!