26 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe prophecy was not that Nebby would be doing the wiping, but that Tyre would be wiped out, nonetheless. It begins with Nebby, then transitions to "they."
The prophecy was that Nebby would completely wipe out the City of Tyre; which he didn't. "No reward" means just that not "didn't receive the bounty he deserved".
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderEither that, or I have more guts than most to admit it when I'm wrong. And, unlike you, I don't claim to know better than PhD's about every subject under the sun.
EDIT: Actually you never apologize when it is shown that you have made untruthful factual assertions over and over again; we get a "fair enough" or "I'll retract that claim for now". The sheer volume of times you have had to do this shows your utter inability and/or unwillingness to put any effort into discerning the truth of the things you claim.
26 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLearn how to read. It says Nebby and then consistently "his". They refers to his army, not everybody in the future.
The prophecy was not that Nebby would be doing the wiping, but that Tyre would be wiped out, nonetheless. It begins with Nebby, then transitions to "they."
26 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerSTFU. You try a fallacious Appeal to Authority when it suits you. Opinions of Catholic revisionist historians does not = historical truth.
Either that, or I have more guts than most to admit it when I'm wrong. And, unlike you, I don't claim to know better than PhD's about every subject under the sun.
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderJust starting to learn how to read, so I'm certain you'll bear with me.
Learn how to read. It says Nebby and then consistently "his". They refers to his army, not everybody in the future.
Just out of curiosity, what it the first word of verse twelve, please? I'm having difficulty sounding this one out.
26 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFirst, it is simply gerrymandering to claim that the supposed prophesy of Ezekiel was fulfilled in virtue of Alexander's conquest of it. The most natural reading of Ezekiel leads to the conclusion that the supposed agent of the destruction of Tyre was Nebuchadnezzar. While explicit mention is made of Nebuchadnezzar, no mention at all is made of some other conquerer that would come hundreds of years later. The change to third person plural in verse 12 hardly licenses such a reading, as it could easily (and naturally) be taken to refer to the men of Nebuchadnezzar's army. Since Neb. failed to take Tyre, after a 13 year siege, the most natural reading of Ezekiel entails that the prophesy in this case was false. Further, this reading makes sense of Ezekiel 29:7, where God clearly recognizes that Nebuchadnezzar had strived, to no avail, in the taking of Tyre. This explains why God promises to give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as recompense for his labor.
Eh? While you'll not likely find anyone here who is willing to challenge your grasp of compbatil-thingymajiggy-ism, I must take exception to your take on history.
Nebby did lay siege to mainland Tyre. When he busted down the gates, the city was all but empty: the majority of folks had moved to an island about a mile off the coast. The mainland city w Tyre has become a fishing village, where fishermen spread their nets, and nothing more.
Second, even if some non-question begging argument could be given to support your bizarre reading of this text, it would still be true that the some of the content of the prophesy had come out false. Consider 27:19-21. These verses claim that Tyre shall be 'uninhabited,...shall cease to be...shall be sought, but never found". But of course, if one wants to find Tyre, all one has to do is go to Lebanon. Further, even after the Alexandrian conquering, Tyre remained throughout the following centuries an important city (and it was conquered again during the Crusades, which would have been difficult had nobody been able to find Tyre because it had ceased to be). And it is simply false that the island portion of Tyre, or even large parts of it, are now scraped bare. After centuries of being occupied, by the Romans and others, the island portion of Tyre is less bare than it was in Alexander's time. Even today, there is a school located on the island, and even Alexander's causeway is currently inhabited. That quote you cribbed from some Christian apologist website is simply wrong, and so is P.V.N Myers' textbook. And, by the way, Myers' as not a secular historian and his textbook was written over a hundred years ago (again with the cherry-picking). Consider the following quote of Myers', found in the same textbook you cite:
"It was in the midst of the reign of Tiberius that, in a remote province of the Roman empire, the Saviour
was crucified. Animated by an unparalleled missionary spirit, His followers traversed the length and
breadth of the empire, preaching everywhere the "glad tidings."
Secular historian indeed!
Third, even if you come up with some reason to think that, despite Tyre's continued existence after Alexander, the entirety of the Ezekiel prophesy was fulfilled, you still are faced with the dilemma that the Isaiah prohesy claims that the destruction of Tyre will only be temporary. So, you are faced with conflicting prophesies. Of course, you could claim that the Ezekiel prophesy only refers to some minor part of Tyre (that was thoroughly destroyed) and the Isaiah prophesy refers to all of Tyre, but that, again, is just gerrymandering on your part; you cherry pick evidence and reinterpret scripture so as to make your prophesy come out true. But anybody can do that, given they have sufficient commitment to some desired conclusion, and aren't afraid to use their secret decoder rings to take perfectly understandable texts and translate them into more pleasing forms.
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour tiresome little comments aside, bbarr was exactly correct in his post. The examples of prophecies mentioned by Biblethumpers like yourself all require creative interpretation to come anywhere near being realized. A paragraph starts out specifically describing Nebby and his army but supposedly changes in mid stream to refer to events 225 years later without actually mentioning this rather radical change. This is a bizarre reading to put it mildly. It is just an example of your "we'll make it fit" mentality.
No1, you seem a classic example of the 'forest for the trees' type of guy. Perhaps you should see an optometrist, if your health plan provides for such coverage.
26 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderPlease.
STFU. You try a fallacious Appeal to Authority when it suits you. Opinions of Catholic revisionist historians does not = historical truth.
For one thing, you appeal to authority no less than I do to support your points. The difference is that I don't make as big a deal of you doing it as you do with me.
For another, appeal to authority is not automatically fallacious.
As to the historians - did you actually check how many of them were, in fact, Catholic?
And even if they are Catholic, why does that mean they are automatically "revisionist"? You're committing the genetic fallacy.
Or are they "revisionist" simply because they challenge popular views? Because they challenge your pet views?
And stop bandying about the term "opinions" as though it's an insult. Exactly what was it you were going to offer once you've seen the evidence? "Historical truth"? And what, precisely, was your competence in providing a more informed judgment than them? Your understanding of socio-cultural and political context and worldview? Your expertise in the language of the period? Your familiarity with primary texts from the period?
When there is widespread agreement amongst historians on a subject, I'll take it over your part-time research-informed "opinions" any day.
EDIT: I can see why you seem to love Galileo so much. Both of you seem to think expertise in one area of human knowledge automatically entitles you to lord over experts in other areas.
26 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat is Ivanhoe away so you feel the need to troll after me? If I feel like wasting my time refuting your points AGAIN in the other thread, I will. You're simply being an off-topic stalker.
Please.
For one thing, you appeal to authority no less than I do to support your points.
For another, appeal to authority is not automatically fallacious.
As to the historians - did you actually check how many of them were, in fact, Catholic?
And even if they are Catholic, why does that mean they are automatically "revisionist"? You're com a subject, I'll take it over your part-time research-informed "opinions" any day.
BTW: I actually do have expertise in trials, something you lack. In fact as far as I can see, you lack expertise in ANY area except snotnosery.
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderQED.
BTW: I actually do have expertise in trials, something you lack. In fact as far as I can see, you lack expertise in ANY area except snotnosery.
You believe your legal expertise makes you an expert in Scriptural exegesis, history, logic, science (just to name the subjects that came immediately to mind) and more - enough for you to pass judgment on my expertise on every subject under the sun.
LOL!
26 Feb 06
Calm down, boys. There's too much huffing and puffing going on here.
The problem is that the skeptics are speaking of that which they do not know.
Reading prophesy isn't like reading standard text, there's a knowledge that must be applied for proper understanding.
Think of it as calculus. If all those squiggles and tildes don't make sense to a man, is that a problem with the calculus, or is that a problem with the man. If the man learns more, he will be able to understand the squiggles. Same is true of prophetic writings. It's written for the learned, not the layman. And, I'm sorry, but skeptics aren't learned enough in the ways of God to know things like a pronoun shift from he/his to they is indeed important.
DF
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhere does the Bible claim that the Earth is 10,000 years old?
Well one should think that the sun being older than the earth (despite Genesis claiming it the other way around), and a 3.6 million year old proto-human skeleton on a 10,000 year old earth should do it.
DF
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerUnlike you, I have the ability to think for myself. I don't resort to lies when the truth doesn't support my views. You've constantly shown that you are terrible at research, take the opinions of unqualified and/or biased "scholars" as gospel IF and only IF they agree with the position of the RCC and in general are a sloppy and confused "debater". And with all that, you possess a singular level of arrogance for someone so obviously ignorant; ridiculing Galileo and Kepler as scientists! Your gall is unmitigated by any sense of independent inquiry and thought; you are brainwashed. I'd feel sorry for you, if you weren't such an insufferable jerk.
QED.
You believe your legal expertise makes you an expert in Scriptural exegesis, history, logic, science (just to name the subjects that came immediately to mind) and more - enough for you to pass judgment on my expertise on every subject under the sun.
LOL!
26 Feb 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendYou know, reading the arguments of skeptics isn't like reading standard text. There's knowledge that must be applied for proper understanding. Think of it like logic. If you don't understand a proof, is that a problem with the proof, or a problem with you? If you learn more, you'll be able to understand the proof. Same is true of skeptical arguments. They're written for those who know something about standards of evidence, and the giving of reasons. You believers just aren't learned enough in epistemology to know that the skeptical arguments presented above are indeed decisive.
Calm down, boys. There's too much huffing and puffing going on here.
The problem is that the skeptics are speaking of that which they do not know.
Reading prophesy isn't like reading standard text, there's a knowledge that must be applied for proper understanding.
Think of it as calculus. If all those squiggles and tildes don't make sense to a ma ...[text shortened]... f God to know things like a pronoun shift from he/his to they is indeed important.
DF