Ask me any bible related question!

[Subduction Zone]

Whether Tyre was regularly attacked before the prophecy does not invalidate the prophecy or the fact that it was subsequently attacked never to be rebuilt again. Nebuchadnezzar was not the "many nations", the Bible passage makes a clear distinction between he (Nebuchadnezzear) and they (many nations) and as history shows many other nations besieged Tyre, according to the prophecy.

"Regarding the prediction that “many nations” would come against Tyre, the historical records surrounding the illustrious city report such turmoil and war that Ezekiel’s prophecy looks like a mild understatement of the facts. After Nebuchadnezzar’s attack of the city “a period of great depression” plagued the city which was assimilated into the Persian Empire around 538 B.C. (Fleming, p. 47). In 392 B.C., “Tyre was involved in the war which arose between the Persians and Evagorus of Cyprus” in which the king of Egypt “took Tyre by assault” (p. 52). Sixty years later, in 332, Alexander the Great besieged Tyre and crushed it (see below for further elaboration). Soon after this defeat, Ptolemy of Egypt conquered and subjugated Tyre until about 315 B.C. when Atigonus of Syria besieged Tyre for 15 months and captured it (Fleming, p. 65). In fact, Tyre was contested by so many foreign forces that Fleming wrote: “It seemed ever the fate of the Phoenician cities to be between an upper and a nether millstone” (p. 66). Babylon, Syria, Egypt, Rome, Greece, Armenia, and Persia are but a sampling of the “many nations” that had a part in the ultimate destruction of Tyre. Thus, Ezekiel’s prophecy about “many nations” remains as a historical reality that cannot be successfully gainsaid."
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

Sure it does. It tells us that later attacks were to be expected. That means that it is not part of the prophesy. And here is a hint. apologetics sites are all dishonest. They can't properly deal with the flaws in the Bible.

Read the prophesy. It refers only to Nebuchadnezzar. He was the "many armies". Read the prophesy. Zeke predicted that Nebby would attack Egypt and wipe it out. That never happened. Nebby lost again.

The Tyre prophesy is both the worst failed prophesy in the Old Testament and a clear test of one's honesty.

Why did you quote the same lying refuted source a second time?

 

[InChrist]

Sure it does. It tells us that later attacks were to be expected. That means that it is not part of the prophesy. And here is a hint. apologetics sites are all dishonest. They can't properly deal with the flaws in the Bible.

Read the prophesy. It refers only to Nebuchadnezzar. He was the "many armies". Read the prophesy. Zeke predicted that Nebby would attack Egypt and wipe it out. That never happened. Nebby lost again.

The Tyre prophesy is both the worst failed prophesy in the Old Testament and a clear test of one's honesty.

Why did you quote the same lying refuted source a second time?

I'm tired and going to sleep now, but the NKJV I read (and I looked up a couple of other versions.too) says...

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. 4 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. 5 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. 6 Also her daughter villages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.’
Ezekiel 26:3-6

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm tired and going to sleep now, but the NKJV I read (and I looked up a couple of other versions.too) says...

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. 4 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. 5 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. 6 Also her daughter villages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.’
Ezekiel 26:3-6

That was already explained to you. You are ignoring Zeke 26 7. You stopped one verse too soon:

""For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army."

Since he was "king of kings" he also had "many nations".
By the way, it also failed since this never happened: "I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. 5 It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,"

There are quite a few fails in that prophecy. You really should try to read it in context. One thing that apologetics sites do is to quote verses out of context. A very very bad strategy when one is using the Bible.

 

[Audie]

Whether Tyre was regularly attacked before the prophecy does not invalidate the prophecy or the fact that it was subsequently attacked never to be rebuilt again. Nebuchadnezzar was not the "many nations", the Bible passage makes a clear distinction between he (Nebuchadnezzear) and they (many nations) and as history shows many other nations besieged Tyre, according to the prophecy.

"Regarding the prediction that “many nations” would come against Tyre, the historical records surrounding the illustrious city report such turmoil and war that Ezekiel’s prophecy looks like a mild understatement of the facts. After Nebuchadnezzar’s attack of the city “a period of great depression” plagued the city which was assimilated into the Persian Empire around 538 B.C. (Fleming, p. 47). In 392 B.C., “Tyre was involved in the war which arose between the Persians and Evagorus of Cyprus” in which the king of Egypt “took Tyre by assault” (p. 52). Sixty years later, in 332, Alexander the Great besieged Tyre and crushed it (see below for further elaboration). Soon after this defeat, Ptolemy of Egypt conquered and subjugated Tyre until about 315 B.C. when Atigonus of Syria besieged Tyre for 15 months and captured it (Fleming, p. 65). In fact, Tyre was contested by so many foreign forces that Fleming wrote: “It seemed ever the fate of the Phoenician cities to be between an upper and a nether millstone” (p. 66). Babylon, Syria, Egypt, Rome, Greece, Armenia, and Persia are but a sampling of the “many nations” that had a part in the ultimate destruction of Tyre. Thus, Ezekiel’s prophecy about “many nations” remains as a historical reality that cannot be successfully gainsaid."
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

Now, you may think this is not fair or reasonable, but-
you really should realize that anything from "apologetics" will be seen as tainted.

Like getting "science" from "Answers in Genesis",
tainted and of no interest or value whatever.

Less than none, actually, because it will be taken as
evidence that it is the only source that will say things the way you want them to.

I am not on your side, but it is more fun if you give us
a run for our money.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now, you may think this is not fair or reasonable, but-
you really should realize that anything from "apologetics" will be seen as tainted.

Like getting "science" from "Answers in Genesis",
tainted and of no interest or value whatever.

Less than none, actually, because it will be taken as
evidence that it is the only source that will say things the way you want them to.

I am not on your side, but it is more fun if you give us
a run for our money.

To be fair, the Tyre prophecy fails so badly I doubt if he can find support while where else. Of course the site he used did what apologetics sites do far too often, they quote mined their own holy book. I am used to creationists dishonestly quoting out of context those that they disagree with. I am a bit surprised when they quote out of context a work that they supposedly admire. In this case it was amazingly easy to expose them. They stopped one verse shy of the verse that out the lie to their claim. They rely on the fact that most of the people that use them will not read the Bible passages in context.

 

[InChrist]

That was already explained to you. You are ignoring Zeke 26 7. You stopped one verse too soon:

""For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army." Since he was "king of kings" he also had "many nations".

The fact that Nebuchadnezzar was called king of kings or that he had a great army does not discount the fact that the Bible mentions "many nations" separately and that the passage distinguishes between he and they (vs. 7-14).
So although Nebuchadnezzar may have ruled other nations that does not automatically mean that other nations did not also attack Tyre...as history reveals happened.

By the way, it also failed since this never happened: "I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. 5 It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,"

No the prophecy did not fail, as this exact thing did occur:

Secular history next records that "Alexander the Great" laid siege to the island fortress of Tyre in 332 BC. His army destroyed the remains of mainland Tyre and threw them into the Mediterranean Sea. As Alexander's army constructed a causeway to the island, they scraped even the dust from the mainland city, leaving only bare rock. Historian Phillip Myers in his history textbook, General History for Colleges and High Schools, writes, "Alexander the Great reduced Tyre to ruins in 332 BC. Tyre recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now as bare as the top of a rock -- a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry." 9
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 5626688, member: 63191"]
There are quite a few fails in that prophecy. You really should try to read it in context. One thing that apologetics sites do is to quote verses out of context. A very very bad strategy when one is using the Bible.[/QUOTE]

It is clear that you don't understand prophetic writing in the scriptures which often includes more than one event over, different points of future time, in the same passage and/or prophecy as does Ezekiel 26 concerning the destruction of Tyre. So this prophecy came completely to pass and even secular history proves it to be so for anyone who takes an honest look.

 

[Audie]

It is clear that you don't understand
........................
proves it to be so for anyone who takes an honest look.

Are you willing to take an honest look at the fact that caribou /reindeer
(which are not the same thing) and muskoxen live well above the arctic circle year round?

Coz if not- the above rings mighty hollow, coming from you.

 

[InChrist]

Now, you may think this is not fair or reasonable, but-
you really should realize that anything from "apologetics" will be seen as tainted.

Like getting "science" from "Answers in Genesis",
tainted and of no interest or value whatever.

Less than none, actually, because it will be taken as
evidence that it is the only source that will say things the way you want them to.

I am not on your side, but it is more fun if you give us
a run for our money.

Well, I'm afraid it works both ways. I certainly don't consider the site posted earlier by Subduction Zone, or other such sites to be untainted or of any value whatsoever...except to give insight into the thinking of those whose desire is to discredit the scriptures. At least in that respect its educational.

 

[InChrist]

Are you willing to take an honest look at the fact that caribou /reindeer
(which are not the same thing) and muskoxen live well above the arctic circle year round?

Coz if not- the above rings mighty hollow, coming from you.

I'm not sure what you are getting at or what the connection is to the topic at hand.

 

[Audie]

Well, I'm afraid it works both ways. I certainly don't consider the site posted earlier by Subduction Zone, or other such sites to be untainted or of any value whatsoever...except to give insight into the thinking of those whose desire is to discredit the scriptures. At least in that respect its educational.

Of course it does. I know creationits cant stand actual research papers.
Just letting you know the uselessness of a creosite article.

Still, if it were true what you say about Tyre, would there not be some
other source? We can find info on Julius Casear, ol' Kind Nebby etc
without going to apologetics. What is the prob with Tyre?

Anyway-
So you consider it to be fair and balanced to disregard any and all data of any sort that does not come from a creosite.

What source did you use to find out about Giant Mammoths of North Antarctica?

 

[Audie]

I'm not sure what you are getting at or what the connection is to the topic at hand.

The connection has to do with your ability to look honestly at source material.
You are suggesting others do not. I think the problem is entirely with you.

An easy test is the one I suggested. See if you can pass it. If not,
your creds are in serious tatters.

 

[InChrist]

Of course it does. I know creationits cant stand actual research papers.
Just letting you know the uselessness of a creosite article.

Still, if it were true what you say about Tyre, would there not be some
other source? We can find info on Julius Casear, ol' Kind Nebby etc
without going to apologetics. What is the prob with Tyre?

Anyway-
So you consider it to be fair and balanced to disregard any and all data of any sort that does not come from a creosite.

What source did you use to find out about Giant Mammoths of North Antarctica?

Well, first the site I referenced to is not primarily a creation site. Secondly, the article included references to secular historical sources. I have no problem with secular information.

I haven't done any actual research concerning Giant Mammoths of North America from secular sources or creation sources and don't have the time or interest at the moment and really don't understand exactly why you keep bringing up Giant Mammoths on this thread.

 

[Audie]

I haven't done any actual research concerning Giant Mammoths of North America from secular sources or creation sources and don't have the time or interest at the moment and really don't understand exactly why you keep bringing up Giant Mammoths on this thread.

There is no such creature as the "Giant Mammoth".

See, the thing is I do know what I am talking about. You dont.
I pointed out several errors you made, and you disputed me on them, without your having a clue.

Exactly why?
Just to see how your actions match your words, re
"honest" research.

So far, not so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that Nebuchadnezzar was called king of kings or that he had a great army does not discount the fact that the Bible mentions "many nations" separately and that the passage distinguishes between he and they (vs. 7-14).
So although Nebuchadnezzar may have ruled other nations that does not automatically mean that other nations did not also attack Tyre...as history reveals happened.


No the prophecy did not fail, as this exact thing did occur:

Secular history next records that "Alexander the Great" laid siege to the island fortress of Tyre in 332 BC. His army destroyed the remains of mainland Tyre and threw them into the Mediterranean Sea. As Alexander's army constructed a causeway to the island, they scraped even the dust from the mainland city, leaving only bare rock. Historian Phillip Myers in his history textbook, General History for Colleges and High Schools, writes, "Alexander the Great reduced Tyre to ruins in 332 BC. Tyre recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now as bare as the top of a rock -- a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry." 9
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 5626688, member: 63191"]
There are quite a few fails in that prophecy. You really should try to read it in context. One thing that apologetics sites do is to quote verses out of context. A very very bad strategy when one is using the Bible.

It is clear that you don't understand prophetic writing in the scriptures which often includes more than one event over, different points of future time, in the same passage and/or prophecy as does Ezekiel 26 concerning the destruction of Tyre. So this prophecy came completely to pass and even secular history proves it to be so for anyone who takes an honest look.[/QUOTE]

Read it in context. That your last source had to cut off the last verse tells you that they were not being honest.

Until you do much better it is a failed prophecy and right now you are guilty of making all prophecies as "amazing" as my prediction that you will see a red car. By lowering the bar so low you make me a biblical prophet. Either way you lose the argument.

 

[anonymous9887]

Any progress on my question regarding who the 12 disciples were?

1. Peter
2. Philip
3. James
4. James
5. Bartholomew
6. Thaddaeus
7. Simon the zealot
8. Judas Iscariot
9. Thomas
10. Matthew
11. John
12. Andrew

 

[anonymous9887]

Here's one. Tim McGrew (lots of videos on YouTube) claims there are errors of the type we see with eyewitness accounts, yet he believes in inerrancy of the Bible. Yet if there are errors, no matter how small, we can't know which words, verses, and passages are true and which are errors.

Seems to me the whole of Christianity depends on some sort of dictation theory (perhaps using the mind of the writer) of God creating scripture, but if there are errors, why would God dictate errors?

The manuscript tradition dictates the reliability of scripture. Comparing manuscripts from different places and different times and yet getting the same message is the key.

 

[exchemist]

There is no such creature as the "Giant Mammoth".

See, the thing is I do know what I am talking about. You dong.
I pointed out several errors you made, and you disputed me on them, without your having a clue.

Exactly why?
Just to see how your actions match your words, re
"honest" research.

So far, not so much.

According to my researches, Giant Mammoth is a 2 piece Finnish band. Giant Mammoth

Whereas a dong is, er, er, the unit of currency in Vietnam.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to my researches, Giant Mammoth is a 2 piece Finnish band. Giant Mammoth

Whereas a dong is, er, er, the unit of currency in Vietnam.

I remember one discussion with @Audie about the use of the apostrophe. She said that she no longer used them. Perhaps she will rethink that decision now

 

[exchemist]

I remember one discussion with @Audie about the use of the apostrophe. She said that she no longer used them. Perhaps she will rethink that decision now

Heh heh. It seems that Yu Dong is a highly successful Chinese film producer:Yu Dong - Wikipedia

....Not to be confused with NoDong, which was the name of a (rather unsuccessful?) N Korean medium range ballistic missile.: Rodong-1 - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Heh heh. It seems that Yu Dong is a highly successful Chinese film producer:Yu Dong - Wikipedia

....Not to be confused with NoDong, which was the name of a (rather unsuccessful?) N Korean medium range ballistic missile.: Rodong-1 - Wikipedia

You made me do it: