Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course you are. The atheists are loving your posts and cheering you on. Scoring points for the enemy, I see. If you can't trust the foundation of the Holy Bible then what do you base your faith on? Warm fuzzy feelings?
God. Jesus. The Holy Spirit. Weren't you guys going on about how you are guided to know the truth by the Holy Spirit? Where does the Spirit go when it comes to finding out the truth of something other than whether or not the Bible is inerrant? Is that the only question the Spirit cares about? What is all this talk about a personal relationship with Jesus and with God, and these "personal encounters"? Are there rules about not being able to ask certain questions within the context of these relationships and encounters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD39
This website shows the probability odds which makes your "concidence" claim quite ridiculous.
I'd appreciate it if you'd learn to spell "coincidence."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD39
And if you are going to claim that "Tyre" was never destroyed, then I have no reason to take any of your posts seriously. You completely ignore the incredible detailed elements that were fullfilled about that prophecy and resort to the weak claim that it has failed completely because the survivors founded another city nearby and well, decided to call it Tyre. It wasn't the same city as before, and you know it.
And now you betray your abject ignorance of history, and even of what the text says. Here's the prophecy, from Ezek 26:1-14,19-21:
Quote:
Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,” says the Lord God; “it shall become plunder for the nations. Also her daughter villages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.”
For thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people. He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defense against you. He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. Because of the abundance of his horses, their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen, the wagons, and the chariots, when he enters your gates, as men enter a city that has been breached. With the hooves of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people by the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water. I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken,” says the Lord God....
For thus says the Lord God: “When I make you a desolate city, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you, then I will bring you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of old, and I will make you dwell in the lowest part of the earth, in places desolate from antiquity, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you may never be inhabited; and I shall establish glory in the land of the living. I will make you a terror, and you shall be no more; though you are sought for, you will never be found again,” says the Lord God.
Nebuchadnezzar's siege ended in 573 BCE with a negotiated settlement. The city was never compromised, much less had her walls knocked down, and much, much less completely razed to the ground to be covered in the sea. The texts says "he," which can only refer to Nebuchadnezzar, "will enter your gates," trampling through the streets and killing the people. None of this happened to the city of Tyre. It only happened to some suburbs on the mainland. The city of Tyre itself constituted the island alone. Much later Alexander the Great would build a causeway out to the city and take the city. He put a hole in the wall on the south side of the city, which allowed him to enter and capture the forces. He killed around 6000 soldiers, crucified around 2000 others, and sold around 30000 into slavery. The city itself was not destroyed, and it and the causeway remained exactly where they stood in antiquity, as you can see in this photo of the modern city. We know the city itself remained inhabited, since Alexander's general Antigonus had to go and siege the city again in 315 BCE. In 126 BCE the city gained its independence from the Seleucids, which it held on to down to the Roman annexation of the region around 64 BCE. Tyre was never a "bare rock" in the midst of the sea. It was never razed to the ground. The walls were never knocked down. The city remained inhabited. The majority of the population was never killed. Alexander the Great's siege comes much closer to fulfilling the prophecy than does Nebuchadnezzar's campaign, but neither comes anywhere near fulfillment.
Not only do you not have any idea whether or not those prophecies are ex eventu or not, whether they describe an historical situation or not, or whether they were ever really fulfilled, but there's no method described anywhere. The only clue he gives to how he arrives at his figures is monumentally ignorant of standards of statistical analysis. For instance:
Quote:
Since the Messiah's ministry could conceivably begin in any one of about 5000 years, there is, then, one chance in about 5000 that his ministry could begin in 26 A.D.
First, you don't know when his ministry began. You don't even know if it did begin. 26 is, at best, an educated guess, but that's not the worst part. The worst part is the notion that "the Messiah's ministry could conceivably begin in any one of about 5000 years." What an absolutely ludicrous and arbitrary number. In reality, Judaism's ideological climate was developing in a way that would only give a window of about a century for any messiah to appear in a theologically acceptable way. It's no coincidence that the first century of the Common Era is witness to an explosion of claims to being the messiah. These numbers are obviously not based on any actual scholarship, so where on earth do they come from? The site says "secular research scientists," but there's no hint of a willingness to share the sources, and none of the numbers he gives can have any basis in actual secular research. For instance, the account of the scattering and restoring of the nation of Israel must accept the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of the texts. Actual secular scholars are absolutely unanimous in agreeing that each refers to a quite disreet and immediate fulfillment that never happened. You "secular research scientists," in other words, are operating within a fundamentalist Christian worldview. For another example:
Quote:
Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10.
"God in human form" is a particular modern Christian perspective on the Messiah. It has nothing to do with any historical research (which acknowledges that that ideology developed over many centuries, beginning in the second century CE; it has nothing to do with the biblical account), nor is there any conceivable way whatsoever for a secular research scientist to determine the odds of a "god in human form" dying. What is the ontological makeup of a god for a secular research scientists? The answer: "what a stupid question. Secular research scientists have absolutely nothing to do with theological problems." Not only is that an absolutely asinine number, but antiquity is full of accounts of gods dying. If you added up all the gods in ancient literature and divided them by the number of gods who died at some point, the chances are more like 1 out of 10. "Secular research scientists." Yeah, right.
So then lay your cards out on the table and show exactly where you draw the line between fact and fiction in the Bible. And exactly what is your evidence for a divine Creator?
I'm not going to go through every single fact and every single fiction, but generally, the historical situations are broadly historical beginning with the division of the monarchy. The attributions of divine intervention are demonstrably false in the majority of instances (Sennacherib's invasion, for instance, has three different versions of its beginning, middle, and end, and only one has an angel killing thousands of people), and not one occurrence of any spiritual claim is legitimately evidenced in any way in the material or textual record. Before the division of the kingdoms, we have some historicity for David and Solomon, and there are pockets of earlier texts that witness to actual situations, but once you get back into the exodus and the patriarchs and earlier than that, the facts uniformly contradict the texts.
I hope she learns somewhere that profanity is wrong.
Oh the stories I could tell about that. Her mother and I gave up on the swear jar because it was looking like we would be able to make a dent in the national debt.
[Edit]
Oh and just so you know, I did notice that you completely ducked the point.
I hope she learns somewhere that profanity is wrong.
The Bible's full of profanity. Your modern English translations, of course, have mitigated the rhetorical force of the Hebrew and the Greek, but there are numerous occurrences of vulgarities being used by the biblical authors. They're even put into the mouths of Israelite prophets. If profanity is wrong, and the Bible has profanity in many places, does that mean the Bible's wrong? Or does it merely mean that you're a better person than Isaiah? No, maybe the standards have changed. Maybe it's wrong now, but it wasn't wrong back then. Maybe profanity is only wrong in English?
God. Jesus. The Holy Spirit. Weren't you guys going on about how you are guided to know the truth by the Holy Spirit? Where does the Spirit go when it comes to finding out the truth of something other than whether or not the Bible is inerrant? Is that the only question the Spirit cares about? What is all this talk about a personal relationship with Jesus and with God, and these "personal encounters"? Are there rules about not being able to ask certain questions within the context of these relationships and encounters?
God uses the Holy Spirit to speak to us through the Bible. I can read a passage that I've read dozens of times and God suddenly shows me a new meaning. Or I flip open my Bible or hear a verse that directly applies to my situation, and I suddenly know God is telling me something.
It's really sad that you have such low regard for the most powerful book in the history of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
I'd appreciate it if you'd learn to spell "coincidence."
Are you really that anal? You're down to nitpicking about spelling. Good grief. Your snide comments and jabs only betray your claims of Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
And now you betray your abject ignorance of history, and even of what the text says. Here's the prophecy, from Ezek 26:1-14,19-21:
Nebuchadnezzar's siege ended in 573 BCE with a negotiated settlement. The city was never compromised, much less had her walls knocked down, and much, much less completely razed to the ground to be covered in the sea. The texts says "he," which can only refer to Nebuchadnezzar, "will enter your gates," trampling through the streets and killing the people. None of this happened to the city of Tyre. It only happened to some suburbs on the mainland. The city of Tyre itself constituted the island alone. Much later Alexander the Great would build a causeway out to the city and take the city. He put a hole in the wall on the south side of the city, which allowed him to enter and capture the forces. He killed around 6000 soldiers, crucified around 2000 others, and sold around 30000 into slavery. The city itself was not destroyed, and it and the causeway remained exactly where they stood in antiquity, as you can see in this photo of the modern city. We know the city itself remained inhabited, since Alexander's general Antigonus had to go and siege the city again in 315 BCE. In 126 BCE the city gained its independence from the Seleucids, which it held on to down to the Roman annexation of the region around 64 BCE. Tyre was never a "bare rock" in the midst of the sea. It was never razed to the ground. The walls were never knocked down. The city remained inhabited. The majority of the population was never killed. Alexander the Great's siege comes much closer to fulfilling the prophecy than does Nebuchadnezzar's campaign, but neither comes anywhere near fulfillment.
No, the text says many nations will come against Tyre. MANY as in Nebuchadnezzar not being the only one to attack the city. Also, the pronoun shifts from the singular “he” to the plural “they" when talking about the complete destruction of the city. Alexander did complete the prophecy, and he tossed it into the sea just like the prophecy said. The only connection the current city of Tyre is a common name.
God uses the Holy Spirit to speak to us through the Bible. I can read a passage that I've read dozens of times and God suddenly shows me a new meaning. Or I flip open my Bible or hear a verse that directly applies to my situation, and I suddenly know God is telling me something.
So God is able to communicate messages to you through the Bible, but he is unwilling or unable to make those messages inform you of truth and error? That seems like an incredibly arbitrary restriction to place on what God can tell you through the Spirit. Where and were you informed that God will not help you discern truth from error in the Bible? Obviously something so important is based on revelation and not just on fallible human inference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD39
It's really sad that you have such low regard for the most powerful book in the history of the world.
I do not have low regard for the book at all. I have low regard for ignorant and dogmatic perspectives on what the book is, but not for the book itself. As I've already told you, I love the Bible, for all that it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD39
Are you really that anal? You're down to nitpicking about spelling. Good grief. Your snide comments and jabs only betray your claims of Christianity.
My asking you to fix a repeated spelling error in your assertions that I'm being ignorant betrays my claims of Christianity? Wow, your particular brand of Christianity has the weirdest criteria for membership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD39
No, the text says many nations will come against Tyre. MANY as in Nebuchadnezzar not being the only one to attack the city.
True, but in vv. 7-11 it uses the third masculine singular verbal forms in referring repeatedly to the individual who will attack the city and enter the gates. Observe:
Quote:
For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.
There can be only one subject for all of these verbs, and that is their immediate antecedent, Nebuchadnezzar. It cannot mean anyone else, no matter how many times you say "Yu-huh!" You cannot force this text to say anything else. It absolutely and unequivocally states that Nebuchadnezzar, through his army, would break down towers, enter the gates, trample people in the streets, slay the people with the sword, etc. The text states this. You can make it say nothing else. These things simply did not happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD39
Also, the pronoun shifts from the singular “he” to the plural “they" when talking about the complete destruction of the city. Alexander did complete the prophecy, and he tossed it into the sea just like the prophecy said. The only connection the current city of Tyre is a common name.
No, Alexander absolutely did not fulfill the prophecy. I explained what happened to you. He didn't even come close to completely destroying the city. Where on earth do you get the idea that he completely destroyed the city? Do you have some kind of ludicrously liberal definition of "destroy" that means everything but "destroy"? Where do you get the idea that he completely destroyed the city? What is your source? Additionally, the city was demonstrably not scraped clean. None of the walls were knocked down. The sea did not overcome it. It was not lost forever. It did not remain uninhabited. These are all things the prophecy unequivocally stated would happen. None of them happened. Are you honestly so cognitively dissonant that you can look at the complete account and just insist that a ton of things happened that the account unequivocally precludes from having happened? Now who's being explicitly and flagrantly intellectually dishonest? You're basically looking at 2+2 and telling me the answer is 5.
In my world, the truth always trumps lies. He cares about truth.
From what I've seen of your, Vizio's and 5150's posts - you sure as shinola don't.
I have no respect for someone who comes off arrogant, rude and insults others to try and appear superior. That aspect alone calls into question his sincerity. He has failed miserably to convice me that there is a single error in the Bible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
