I almost forgot. Where in the prophecy does it state that Ezekiel would live to see all of it fulfilled? Plus, history (biblical and secular) describe Tyre as both a mainland and an island.
"Founded at the start of the third millennium B.C., Tyre originally consisted of a mainland settlement and a modest island city that lay a short distance off shore. But it was not until the first millennium B.C. that the city experienced its golden age."
@MCWAY1 I mentioned the Biblical passages that refer to Tyre as an island. I don't believe I said anything about Ezekiel having to live to see anything. My point is the following question: "built no more" "never be found again" ... are those true or false statements?
The old "many nations" referring just to Nebuchadnezzar's forces doesn't fly. It's a strange condition placed on the text by Bible skeptics. First, the text states that "many nations" would sack Tyre, BEFORE BABYLON or Nebuchadnezzar is even mentioned specifically by name.
Add to that the tens of thousands of Phoenicians that were either massacred or sold into slavery, totally over 40,000 (according to ancient historians).
"It (Tyre) is a Babel of broken walls, pillars, vaults, etc., there being not so much as one entire house left! Its present inhabitants are only a few poor wretches, harbouring themselves in the vaults, and subsisting chiefly on fishing; who seem to be preserved in this place by Divine Providence as a visible argument how God has fulfilled his word concerning Tyre, that it should be the top of a rock, a place for fishers to dry their nets on." - Henry Maundrell, 1697
@ozmoroid True. I don't see the Phoeniecian's capitol anymore. They lost it after Alexander the Great nearly burned it to the ground and they never got it back. And that's the island portion of Tyre. The mainland portion (Palae-Tyrus or "Old Tyre)" is what Alex used to get to the mainland. He literally threw Tyre's stones, timbers, and dust into the sea.
I've cited two historians who have seen the site and come to the same conclusion. And there are others that have done the same.
@ozmoroid I answered your question last week. "True. I don't see the Phoeniecian's capitol anymore. They lost it after Alexander the Great nearly burned it to the ground and they never got it back."
That's what I posted. Read it again, and you'll get your explanation.
What was one mainland Tyre NOW is now used to spread nets.
"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." - Phillip Myers, 'General Histories for Colleges and High Schools'
n don't forget OT israel n Law, and Christ's Gospel Interpretation and Clarification thereof, one of Peace, and not glory in war, one of conversion and prayer, not the 'bloodshed' of old...for Christ Gave Such for us and for all , Lord Have MERCY PLGB
minds, etc. i pray for you friends Good Lord Have Mercy! 'the world' asks for solutions, and when not following The Biblical/Gospel ones of mercy, fellowship, peace, evangelism, going 'against' money or prestige, following God's Rules/Law, which is not oppressive but freeing, on sex, love of neighbor, etc., then it can have it's solutions right there God Given, PLGB thanks n thank God Amen
nature and 'law', etc. is not random, and even the 'big bang' is essentially in gen.1, only 'scientists' took much longer to 'figure it out' than to trust in Truth, God Forgive
wanna know what God Says/Thinks? Read And Pray carefully, not simply 'jumping' onto the 'interpretations' or 'misrepresentations' of 'the world' or 'mankind' on the matter....do not be deceived into seeing His Work as evil, that goes for folk on both sides!
God Is Everywhere and in everything, open your hearts, eyes,
thing of it is, i cannot judge their thoughts or discernment either way, the translators, the initial speakers, the writers who may not have been the prophets themselves, etc. Lord Have Mercy be i 'wrong' or 'off-base'....nor do i know their expertise, though they may likely be experts
and @gcc, you're 'message' is reversed, you cannot 'prove' such is imagined, but you can prove natural phenomena so to speak, the things mentioned in The Bible coming to fruition, the beauty and structure of
or because it actually a) did happen or b) some stuff has yet to come, maybe some combo of both.... when something is real or did happen, difficult to try to 'disprove' God Willing impossible to disprove Truth....proof of God is everywhere, PLGB
@lockinglugnut Proof of people's imaginations is certainly demonstrable. Proof of people's imaginings of gods, very provable. Proof that those imaginings represent real phenomena, not so much.
When you look at the universe around you and choose to label something in it "proof of god" without any kind of rational evidence to justify that label, you're really just exercising your imagination. So good for you. Your imagination works. Now work on exercising your intellect through scientific study.
@GermanChocolateCake funny thing is though that this 'proof', these 'times' all the things Christ Said, all God's Advice really is True/Pure, at least the portions of it that have come to fruition. your very existence and that of all around you is proof. read up friend usccb dot org slash nab....get to it!
@lockinglugnut "all God's Advice really is True/Pure" ... Is God's "advice" (commandment actually) to "kill all the boys" of the Midianites "pure?" "Proof of God is everywhere" - then why are so many productive scientists agnostic/atheist? If you see all this evidence yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a personal God, what is your explanation?
@ozmoroid God Forgive be i wrong, but Lord Have Mercy maybe lost in the grammar/translation, or just people reading it in general, we confuse God's 'Imperative' with God's 'Warning'...we also confuse fallen times and actions/choices/justifications/rationale of some 'In God's Name' with things He Actually Seeks, which is God Willing what Christ Came To Clarify! PLGB thanks be to GOD indeed....
'God's rain falls on good and evil, just and unjust' The Bible Tells us many 'reject' Truth....
@lockinglugnut The KJV says in Number 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones". Is this translation correct? If not, what is the correct translation?
@ozmoroid not sure exactly as i'm not ahebrew expert, but look at the earlier portions of The Passage, there's a transition from The LORD's Directive to your reference, which is mpses'speech apparently,not to accuse the law-guy of anything but who knows O.Ot Lord Have Mercy be i wrong, and remember Christ's going for a 'back to the beginning' relationship,'love of enemies' and not executing vengeance,execution God Willing, etc. in lieu of mercy, PLGB, read through all, midian vs. israel,etc.PLGB
@lockinglugnut Do you think the Jewish scholars who translate the Tanakh into English are Hebrew experts? I do. They translate the passage this way. See, for example, mechon-mamre-org. And, this is not the only place in the OT where God commands the slaughter of innocents. Was "He" just is killing all the firstborn of Egypt?
but *none* have to, all are welcome! science and religion this they share is that Truth Is Truth regardless of who or what believes in it!
has the 'majority' always been right? not so many a times, existence of God is not up to a vote, and i pray if this statistic is true that these people open their hearts and minds!
the big bang was written in gen. 1 (thanks be to GOD) thousands of years before science 'proved' the same exact thing! all have a 'seed', God Willing it be not on 'shallow ground', we must open ourselves up to prayer and allow ourselves to believe in order to see....'to those who have much more is Given' says The Lord in mt. and lk. (thanks be to GOD PLGB)
@lockinglugnut Really? "Let there be light" = General Relativity? If the Bible is so chock full of science, please tell me something scientific that it teaches that is currently unknown. Or, does it only become "scientific" in hindsight?
Respond to this video... ps: grad student in materials sci.+eng., which has brought me closer to God, not further from.....if you've still concerns contact joel chavady on facebook, or fr. jaehwa lee at swarthmore
ozmoroid - There is a big catch. The real Tyre is indeed gone. Thank you for your video - I will dismember your argument as a bonus in the video I'm working on. I didn't realize folks were having this argument. You are in fact looking at the wrong spot and in the wrong way. Its all about what and who is in the center...of everything.
@Masonictoaster9 You giving me a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy. The "real" Tyre? How about this: the "real" Bible doesn't exist anymore. There are no "real" Christians. etc.
Thanks. The "prophecy" of Tyre is one of my favorite to argue. Bible believers use everyone of the arguments you brought up. This is ten minutes I will watch several more times to better remember all the points. It is obviously a failed prophecy but it is hard to remember all the points when the believer is throwing out all their objections. Thanks again!
"Because you keep saying that Neb didn't attack the island. Please provide your reference."
What?? Are you serious? That's like asking an athiest to prove God DOESN'T exist. You want me to provide evidence that something DIDN'T happen! Look, the burden of proof is on your side. You made the original claim. I am showing you how ridiculous that claim is. You need to show me how an army without ships can attack an island. That is why Neb failed - he kind of realized the basic problem.
@UppsalaDragby Here's how it's going to work. No historical references from you = no more posts. Provide some evidence that you've actually read about the history of Tyre and you can post. Otherwise you are really just wasting time and comment space and further posts from you will be deleted.
"Ezekiel points out that Neb's army came away with out the expected spoils."
Exactly. It's obvious that the prophecy concerning spoils was not referring to Neb. It wouldn't make sense for Ezekiel to contradict his own prophecy just a few verses later!!
btw. If Fleming came to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar attacked the island with horses and chariots then I don't think I would want to waste my time reading his book!
@UppsalaDragby Have you read any history of Tyre? Please explain why Neb spent 13 years in a siege of Tyre and left with a political compromise. What was he doing for those 13 years?
@UppsalaDragby This evasive answer leads me to believe that you have no historical references to refer to. In that case further discussion is a waste of time. Provide historical references for your assertions if you wish to continue the discussion.
This video is embarassing. It builds it's arguments by supporting it's claims on the "Google earth" level of evidence, and ignores the fact that Tyre has been attacked, among others, by Babylon, Syria, Egypt, Rome, Greece, Armenia, and Persia. It also makes one basic assumption without which it totally fails. Try checking out the entire historical evidence and consult schollars, or at least somone who has fundamental knowledge of the original Hebrew text before opening your mouth!
@UppsalaDragby Uhm, apparently you missed the fact that most of the video consists of quoting from a scholarly work on the history of Tyre. And, most tellingly, your long comment doesn't address a single fact raised in the video. I assume you didn't watch it and instead just started rambling on in a comment thereby doing nothing more than showcasing your intellectual laziness.
@ozmoroid On the contrary, I watched it completely several times and found it's "facts" to be mainly built on the false assumption that the prophecy predicted that Nebuchadnezzar alone would complete the prophecy. The prophecy states explicitly that Neb's share was confined to the "mainland settlements". Verse 11 and onward, although grouped in the same paragraph as the verses attributed to Neb, refer to the "many nations". Paragraphs and punctuation are not part of the original Hebrew text.
@UppsalaDragby Since you asked me questions that were clearly answered in the video, I'm guessing you didn't watch it very carefully. Where does the prophecy explicitly state that Neb's share was confined to the mainland settlements? How would that result in Tyre being destroyed and "never found again" if the Tyrians still had their main settlement on the island? Ezekiel himself admits that Neb failed to plunder Tyre.
@UppsalaDragby What chapter:verse of Ezekiel says "settlements on the mainland"? "The prophesy does NOT say that Neb would get any loot" ... Ezekiel 26:12 "And they shall make a spoil of thy riches" Also 26:15 "Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall" Why would Ezekiel mention the isles shaking if he was not referring to the island of Tyre?
@ozmoroid Again, 26:12 makes no mention of Nebuchadnezzar. What "he" would do is what the prophecy says "he" would do. What the many nations would do is what the prophecy says "they" would do.
@UppsalaDragby Even if you want to make that very weak claim, I address this in the video. Let "they" refer to everyone who has ever lived. How do the claims that Tyre will be covered by great waters, never built again, never found again and so on hold up? Why does the New Testament refer to Tyre if it was destroyed and never built again during Old Testament times?
@ozmoroid When Alex the great attacked Tyre he demolished the mainland city and threw the rubble of it into the sea. Modern day Tyre is not the original city. The mainland city cannot be found simply because it was practically scraped bare. Of course you can make silly arguments and say that the rubble can be found.. but I hope you are more serious than that.
@ozmoroid No, not at all. The island played it's part and not an unimportant one. However, the parts of the phrophecy that refer to the mainland city do not apply to the island.
@UppsalaDragby No modern day city is the original ancient city - Rome, Jerusalem, Athens or Tyre. How could Ezekiel say things like though you be sought for you will never be found again if he was not referring to the complete destruction of Tyre? God's divine retribution on Tyre was to destroy some of its suburbs?
@ozmoroid "No modern day city is the original ancient city"
There is a big difference between a city being sucessively renewed by it's inhabitants, and one in which has been scraped into the sea and it's inhabitants killed off. Can you name anything standing today that has been rebuilt by the Phoenecians?
@UppsalaDragby Again, I address this in the video. The Phoenecians rebuilt Tyre after Alexander sacked it. They were not all killed off. I'm starting to think you are BSing me about having watched it.
@ozmoroid "The Phoenecians rebuilt Tyre after Alexander sacked it. They were not all killed off." .
You can think whatever you want. I am not BSing anyone, and I did NOT say Alexander killed them all off. The Tyrians were attacked quite a few times after that throughout history. I have never seen any acount of Phoenecians rebuilding Tyre, but rather, what remains today was primarily built by the Greeks, the Romans and the Crusaders.
@UppsalaDragby What, exactly did Neb spend 13 years trying to do before he arrived at a political settlement?
Exactly what the prophecy said he would do:
"your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you."
@UppsalaDragby Because you keep saying that Neb didn't attack the island. Please provide your reference. I'm pointing out that after he had overrun the mainland settlements he continued to try and take the island. Ezekiel points out that Neb's army came away with out the expected spoils.
@UppsalaDragby Total historical fail on your part. Yes Alexander had a navy during the siege of Tyre. There are many historical accounts of that. You are clearly an ignorant person who is too lazy to study history but wants to waste my time with your blathering. No more. Provide historical references if you want to continue any discussion. To start, tell me the name of a book on the history of Tyre that you have read.
@ozmoroid Ozmo, you don't have to exaggerate. I knew that Alex had some naval support, but I thought that it consisted mainly of allies. But you were right, I shouldn't have said he DIDN'T have a navy. I should have said that he didn't have much of a navy. The reason I didn't check it out was it wasn't essential to the point I was making - which was that without a navy (of considerable size :-) there was no way of attacking the island, and apparantly Neb did NOT have that.
@newperve "Well Neb could have done it the same way Alexander did it. That's the point, he didn't. "
Yes, that is EXACTLY the point, because if Neb had done so then the prophecy would really have failed - it tells us that "many nations" would be involved. Also, the idea was so far-fetched that the likelyhood of anyone attempting it was totally incredible. Alex almost failed trying.
@UppsalaDragby 1. In the video I made it clear why when Ezekiel refers to Tyre he was not just referring to a mainland settlement. So, that was answered. What, exactly did Neb spend 13 years trying to do before he arrived at a political settlement? 2. "They" seems to refer to Neb's army. "He" clearly refers to Neb. Obviously if you are going to talk about his soldiers you wouldn't say "he". There is zero indication that "they" is refers to people in the distant future.
@ozmoroid In the video I made it clear why when Ezekiel refers to Tyre he was not just referring to a mainland settlement.
I don't care what you think your straw man video makes clear, the fact remains that you have no evidence that shows that Neb had any part in attacking the island.
@UppsalaDragby I have put together a logical video presentation that makes my points clearly. It is now your turn to do the same. Do it for the glory of God or whatever. Put together your entire argument in one logical whole in video form. Cite historical references and so on. Your comments are getting repetitive.
@ozmoroid I don't have the resource to put together a video and even if I did it would just be one among many others. I prefer to simply debate the issue because I think these kinds of videos spread out false information. That is my right. I understand you don't like being critisized, but that's just too bad.
@UppsalaDragby If I had a problem with being criticized I would censor comments and block users, but I don't. Your last sentence is an appeal to ridicule that simply fails. While making this video I looked at many Tyre apologist vids. I found them poorly argued. So, if you could put together a decent one it certainly wouldn't just one among many.
@ozmoroid Here's a question. Since you believe that Neb was attacking the island city (based on Ez 27, not Ex 26) then why does the prophecy only seem to mention horses and chariots and not ships. Maybe its because Neb didn't have any ships. No wonder he failed!!!
@ozmoroid "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." With what?
@ozmoroid Ok Fleming. One source. Was it fleming who claimed that Nebuchadnessar attacked the island, or was that your idea? Also, what qualifications does Fleming have for interpreting scripture?
@UppsalaDragby Read Fleming's book. He references his sources extensively. You are grasping at straws here. Please watch the video and address the main points. I am not interested in repeating myself simply because you are too lazy to listen to my original presentation. Better yet, make a video response in which you refute this video point by point.
@ozmoroid You are merely avoiding the questions I asked. As I said, your main points are built on one assumption. You have not provided any evidence that verse 12 and onward refer to Neb. To me, seeing that it would be far easier for you to do that than for me to read some book and make a video, that tells me that you are the lazy one. If you are so sure of yourself then answer the questions.
@UppsalaDragby No, my argument is not built on one assumption. You are attempting to straw man here and it is failing. I explicitly addressed the apologist argument that Neb only played one part in the prophecy. Why do you ignore that?
@UppsalaDragby 26:8 "He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee" Notice it is Tyre's daughters which are in the field and not Tyre.
@ozmoroid "Notice it is Tyre's daughters which are in the field and not Tyre."
So where are you trying to go with this? That while Neb was attacking the island, the women happened to be out in the fields? Now that really makes sense!
@UppsalaDragby In some Biblical commentaries that I have read, Tyre's daughters is taken to refer to the mainland settlements. It does not seem to refer to the Tyrian women.
@ozmoroid "Tyre's daughters is taken to refer to the mainland settlements."
Uh... Thats what I have been saying all along. So you agree with me now? Whatever way you interpret this verse, it in no way supports the claim that Neb tried to attack the island!
@UppsalaDragby I addressed point 2 directly in the video. This is the second such question you've asked, so I'm starting to think you just want to waste my time. "They" seems to refer to the many nations that made up the army of the Babylonian Empire. Likewise Alexander's army was comprised of many nations.
@ozmoroid "I addressed point 2 directly in the video." .
Whatever you "addressed" certainly didn't answer the question. The prophecy predicts that many nations would be involved. Just making the claim that the "they" in v.12 is referring to Neb doesn't make it true, and the question remains: why not just continue with "he"? Surely that would be the normal thing to do if that passage of scripture was referring to Neb.
@UppsalaDragby Sorry, I meant verse 12 of course. The fact that the original Hebrew text lacked punctuation and paragraphs, makes it more important to pay attention to such things as pronouns. With that in mind, who do you think "They" are in verse 12? Neb? His army? If that was the case then why make the sudden switch from "he" to "they"?
@UppsalaDragby Yes it has been attacked, but not destroyed as the bible claimed it would be. Seriously damaged at times sure, but never made a "place to spread fishnets". You fail again.
I knew about Tyre because of the siege of Alexander - always been an Alexander the Great fan. But I also didn't know of the Tyre prophecy. But, a Christian told me it was the most convincing Biblical prophecy, so I had to investigate.
And to elaborate on why I suspected it's not a prophecy. For one it's too close to the event to be a prophecy. However, the text is very reflective of how the Hebrews felt about Tyre. It really appears to be a good bye letter to Tyre. (see Ezekiel 26:15 This is what the Sovereign LORD says to Tyre:") Nations would always speak in the name of their God or gods back then. My god will kill your god and so-forth. So So the entire passage I strongly suspect is a diatribe and nothing more.
OK Mike, I'll give it to you that you TRIED to answer my question, but in reality the answer doesn't matter all that much. The point I've been trying to make (just one of many points you've declined to address) is that you are interpreting the Bible on a case-by-case basis. At what point do you recognize that the Bible is whatever you make of it. It's so ambiguous that even within Christianity there isn't agreement. Aren't you all just arguing over whose interpretation is the best?
Can any of your interpretations reasonably be said the be the word of God? Consider how many different interpretations there are when you count every person that takes your position. There would be at least as many interpretations as there are people! As I said earlier, your interpretation of the Bible, instead of taking it literally, means that you are your own God. This is why is appeared I was arguing for a literal interpretation of the Bible. To do otherwise is heretical by definition.
"...you are interpreting the Bible on a case-by-case basis...."
That's true I do. You have to interpret the Bible on a case by case basis. The Bible is a collection of books. And even some of the books appear to be a collection of stories. Each book has it's own history and cultural to consider before we can understand what is being said. We can't assume, like you do, that something is what it appears. What was the real purpose behind the writing? Who wrote it? When? Why? And to who?
"The Bible is a collection of books. And even some of the books appear to be a collection of stories."
Don't forget that those stories are collections of paragraphs which are, in turn, collections of sentences, which are collections of words, which are collections of letters.
"We can't assume, like you do, that something is what it appears."
I see where we're getting hung up now. Words don't actually have meaning to you. I wonder what you're interpreting when you read what I write?
"You have to interpret the Bible on a case by case basis." - 'nuff said. Then the Bible can mean anything to anybody. The "Word of God" is literally one big Rorschach Ink Blot onto which you project whatever it is you wish to believe. No matter what you say about the Bible I will merely reply with, "My interpretation is different." End of conversation.
"That's why we study it so we know the actual meaning." If there is an "actual meaning" then why isn't there just one type of Christianity? Given that there are many different branches of Christianity with differing interpretations of the Bible, it would seem that "we" can't agree on a common Biblical interpretation. You are not a biblical inerrantist. For many Christians that means your Christianity is false and you are going to Hell. So please tell us how we find the "actual meaning."
"which Christians are those?" - Google it. Some "creedalists" believe preterism is heresy because it denies the doctrine that Jesus will "come again."
Now, please address my main point - why isn't there just one type of Christianity?
imike - will you please answer the question everyone wants answered? What criteria do you use to determine if a Biblical passage is the true word of God?
Here I go again. I consider the entire Bible authoritative for the Church and therefore the Word of God. I consider issues that may exist. But I do not throw out the entire Bible because this or that may be questionable.
But you haven't answered the question. You "consider issues that may exist." How do you consider such issues. How do decide which passages are questionable? You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say the entire Bible is the Word of God (thus presumably perfect) yet you consider that "issues" may exist? Huh, how do "issues" exist in the Word of a perfect God? And if it's not the perfect Word of God, then HOW DO YOU TELL?
I'm beginning to doubt your honesty pal. We've asked you repeatedly to make it clear what criteria you use when you "consider issues." You're giving us a crappy general response because either you don't really know, or you do know, and you also know that being clear on it would be bad for your argument. So, be honest, it's what Christ would want. How exactly do you "consider issues?"
"What criteria do you use to determine if a Biblical passage..."
You keep asking that over and over like I didn't answer you. What do you want me to say? I consider the entire Bible the inspired Word of God. But I don't consider the entire book to be perfect, I'd say it's a very high percentage 99.5%. Questionable items, like the end of Mark, are very well understood and it's moot. Not a single doctrine would change if removed or if they stay.
And, imike, you haven't answered my other question above - Why isn't there just one form of Christianity? Why are there so many sects that think they have the "true" interpretation and the others are wrong?
When I say these prophecies are "hidden" I don't mean they are hidden today but rather they were hidden before their fulfillment in Christ. Thus no fake Messiah could attempt to fit the prophecy. Not that these passages jump out at you as prophecies but they are. Nobody was looking for a suffering Messiah not even Jesus' disciples. So when you see things like Abraham telling Isaac God Himself will provide the Lamb for the Sacrifice. We now understand that is pointing to Christ. Abraham's faith
"We now understand that ..." Well, how come the Jewish people as a whole don't seem to "understand" what you understand and have rejected this interpretation for 2,000 years? The OT is the story of their people, after all. Apparently it's not quite so obvious as you seem to think.
"...how come the Jewish people as a whole don't seem to "understand"
Read Paul's letters he laments this over and over. He being amoung the Jews that did accept Christ as the Messiah. All the parables of Jesus are really talking about this as well.
And they are not NT prophecies they are OT prophecies. They are not hard to read and understand. But the prophecies are not single passages they are ENTIRE stories. You have to read the whole story and step back to see the prophecies contained therein. A casual look won't work.
Have you ever seen those Magic Eye 3D posters? You stare at it for awhile and then a 3D image pops out at you. These prophecies remind me of that effect. You will have a sudden epiphany. It actually frighted me.
imike - finding "hidden messages" in books, TV shows, newspapers and so on is, quite frankly, often a sign of mental illness. I am not trying to be disrespectful, just pointing out that this line of argument not only isn't going to convince an atheist of anything, but may in fact lead him/her to conclude that you have lost, or never had, a rational connection to reality.
And regarding the Ezekiel Tyre issue. You claim they likely knew in advance that Neb was going to attack the city. It was on the gossip channel of the day or they had military intelligence.
Ok let's go with that. Then you agree it's not a prophecy. It's really nothing more than a Hebrew diatribe against Tyre. Your exegesis clears up the entire matter no failed prophecy we now understand this passage. It's just a diatribe.
Good work. Now I just need to get you to come to church.
imike - No, I don't agree. You are dodging the whole point of the video. Ezekiel said Neb. would destroy Tyre, that it would never be built or found again. That was the prophecy. It failed. That Tyre would be attacked and that Zeke would know about it is not surprising given that the Jews were in Babylonian captivity at the time he wrote!
No actually you were the one that suggested it wasn't really a prophecy that they knew the attack was coming. Thus it's really just a diatribe, a curse if you prefer. A letter to send to the King of Tyre. Kind regards from their enemies the Hebrews saying bye bye. Nothing magical, nothing mystical nothing prophetic at all.
No, I never said it wasn't a prophecy. I said it wasn't a stretch to assume Neb would attack Tyre. Again, you avoid the main point. The heart of the prophecy is that Neb would utterly destroy Tyre. He didn't. Zeke makes specific claims about events that didn't come to pass. Now you are trying to defend the failure of this prophecy by claiming it wasn't really a prophecy in the first place.
I suspected it wasn't a prophecy to begin with. It appears to be what I just said a diatribe against Tyre. And as I also pointed out if it was a failed prophecy there is no way those scribes would have preserved it as a holy text. Why would they? Thus there are two possibilities. 1.) they believed Tyre was destroyed sufficiently to validate a prophecy. 2.) They regarded the text as a diatribe or a curse and not a prophecy at all.
imike - let me ask you this. When, in the synoptic gospels, Jesus says of his second coming, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." Was that a prophecy? Did it come true? Did the scribes preserve it?
Well you're talking to a preterist not a futurist so yes in my view. However taking that entire chapter into context they are talking about the end of the age. Which would have been the end of their age. The end of the age of the Law where life was centered around a Temple and the beginning of the age of Grace and the Church. That was a very significant change and did in fact occur.
Wow, it finally makes sense! All these years I denied the existence of Santa Clause because the stories said he'd come through my chimney, and we never had a fireplace. Now that you've shown me that I can re-interpret ANY word to mean ANYTHING I want it to by claiming "context," I'll go ahead and re-interpret Santa down the chimney to Santa compels my mom to sneak presents under the tree. I mean, if you look at the context that's what the prophecy of Santa REALLY says. It's so obvious!
You could and you do. That is why we must use proper biblical exegesis.
"Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth" means?
Take revenge? Nope.
It merely means the punishment must fit the crime. Because in the old world the rich would be punished lightly while a poor person could be executed for stealing a loaf of bread. Thus "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" means you cannot exact a punishment greater than the crime committed.
"you're talking to a preterist ..." Well that is an excellent example of what we have been talking about. The great majority of Christians do not accept your interpretation of the Bible on this issue. So, how is it that your interpretation is so different from that of most other Christians? Is your interpretation correct? If so, how do you know? Are most Christians wrong in their interpretation? If so, why do you think that is?
"The great majority of Christians do not accept your interpretation..."
That is true I'm not mainstream. However, there is critical doctrine we all agree on. Christians, believe it or not, are allowed to having different views on minor subjects and still be included in the fellowship.
I would say that the second coming of Christ is not a minor subject. It's actually one of the central foci of Christianity. You are out of the mainstream on this one. Why? Why don't you agree with the majority of Christians? Why is it so difficult for all Christians to agree on such a central issue?
And like I said before I don't like prophecies that put themselves out as prophecies. I prefer the hidden OT prophecies pointing to Jesus Christ. Such as the story of Joseph starting in Genesis 37. Abraham and Isaac clearly foreshadows Christ. Same with Jonah, Moses and Joshua and tons more sprinkled throughout the OT. Cryptology is a hobby of mine and I've found these story prophecies to be a form of cryptology. Nobody could have attempted to fulfill them since they were hidden.
And I'm curious why you don't want to refute my assertion that there are hidden prophecies of Christ contained within the OT stories themselves. Do this. Read the NT completely (again if you already have) it's actually not very long. Even take Luther's advice and stop at Titus, good enough. Then read the OTstories I mentioned armed with the knowledge that the stories themselves are prophecies of Christ. That's my challenge to you.
Are you deflecting? This video was about Ezekiel 26, not about the "hidden NT prophecies" which, apparently, only lunatics and amateur cryptographers can find. You haven't answered for a single one of the ridiculous claims you've made:
Ezekiel 26 isn't prophecy, but then it is.
The Bible can have errors, but it's infallible.
My views are like Luther's
Ezekiel is a "minor" book
You need to read over what you've written so far, and honestly appraise your position.
No and my position hasn't changed. Your video I assume is an attempt at saying the entire Bible is unsound not simply a passage in Ezekiel.
And you very easily dismiss things you know nothing about. I'm telling you the prophecies are there if you want to look at them. And once you understand the entire story is a prophecy of Christ that is very powerful. They are there whenever you are ready. And once you see them you won't be able to walk away so easily.
imike - you certainly aren't the first person who has claimed all kinds of OT stories are prophecies of Christ. That was one of the arguments of the early Christians. The fact that you have to call them "hidden prophecies" just shows that they aren't clear predictions but something you have to "properly interpret" to make work. The Jews, to whom the OT belongs, haven't been impressed and neither am I.
"you certainly aren't the first person who has claimed all kinds of OT stories are prophecies of Christ."
Actually Christ claimed the Jonah story was a prophecy of himself so it's not a made up concept. Christ said that he was "the sign of Jonah". Jonah sacrificed himself to save his shipmates from God's destruction he is dead for three days and three nights and rises again to also save entire city from the judgment of God. Surprisingly all these OT stories I mentioned run parallel to Christ.
"all these OT stories I mentioned ... " imike - you should explain all of this to a Rabbi. Apparently they don't understand their holy book the way you do. Funny that.
The NT actually says the Jews wouldn't accept Jesus as their Messiah. Christ is "the stone the builders rejected." The fact that they don't actually confirms the Bible.
"I don't like prophecies that put themselves out as prophecies." Okay, that's a pretty funny statement all by itself. In other words, you don't like prophecies that are falsifiable. You prefer "hidden prophecies" that can always be interpreted to work out. You prefer prophecies that aren't prophecies. You prefer Rorschach ink blots.
btw, I'm not "throwing out Ezekiel". However, your video makes a good point on that prophecy. It's at least questionable. However, if in fact that prophecy was put to paper beforehand it's not illegitimate, exaggerated at best. The Tyre of that day clearly took a significant hit. My gut (nothing authoritative from imike) tells me it's like those verses in Mark. Appended after the fact. That doesn't make the entire Bible illegitimate or even the entire book of Ezekiel for that matter.
First of all, I'd like to point out that your original contention was that Ezekiel 26 was not a prophecy. Has that changed?
Tell me this, how can you tell what verses were appended "after the fact?" I would assume that if it were written AFTER the Tyre incident, it would have gotten something factually correct. *shrug*
Can't you see how your waffling on this book means you can waffle on ANY book you PERSONALLY disagree with. I bet you think the passages on slavery were inserted later too?
Well if it was written before the Tyre incident then that was a good trick. So just depending on your bias it's legit. It's merely the detials of the event we can debate. Did Tyre get enough of a pounding or didn't it?
No. I tried to point out in the video that this "prophecy" was an obvious thing to expect. Neb had just stomped Jerusalem, and Tyre, being also in revolt, was logically one of the next on the list. The point is that the Bible makes specific claims about what would happen that those claims didn't hold up.
"...Neb had just stomped Jerusalem, and Tyre, being also in revolt, was logically one of the next on the list..."
That's a possibility. However, then it's curious they kept their known failed prophecy as a sacred text. They must have considered the damage to be severe enough to fit. Otherwise the author would have been stoned and the document burned. They were really strict about that stuff back in those days.
So now you're saying that the text is so stupid and self contradictory that it MUST be true or else they would have stricken it from the Bible? Wow, this is certainly new. I'm not sure how to approach that. Have you ever read a ridiculous kid's book?
Also, why don't you address the main point ozmo made ... you know, you've made a terrible game out of avoiding the issue as hard as I have tried to shove them directly under your nose. Here, I'll even tell you what part of what ozmo said you should be addressing:
"The point is that the Bible makes specific claims about what would happen that those claims didn't hold up."
"Straw Man Alert! I never said that" - You said "It's curious that they kept their known failed prophecy as a sacred text." So I think josh's characterization is accurate. The Gospel's have Jesus saying his return will occur during the lifetime of some of those in his audience. This is epic failure, yet it's still in the NT. Nope, what theists do is keep the text - kinda embarrassing to change "sacred text" - but change the interpretation.
And Revelation is a good example of this. It was in and out of the Protestant cannon off and on since the Reformation. The Greek Orthodox Church still rejects it and ironically it is the only book that was even written in Greek. Martin Luther openly doubted the authoritativeness of this book. And in fact it ended up at the back of the New Testament canon because it was regarded as the least authoritative book. Most Christians don't know this today. But it's the truth.
mike - I'm curious to know: Do you believe the books of the Bible are the inerrant word of God? Or are they just books written by men? Or something in between?
Well I know that Mark 16:17 was added to the book of Mark sometime during the Middle Ages. So my view of the Bible is very similar to that of Luther. I do believe it is the word of God and the teaching in those texts are authoritative for the Church. I believe they are reliable in the extreme and I trust them but not with blinders. I'm not in the inerrant camp. However, the Christian Church was established before the canon was finalized. So it's moot as to my faith in Christ.
I suggest that you read some of Luther's writings mike. Please feel free to PM me if you're honestly looking for information. The entire Lutheran Confessions are online and freely available. Why not read the words of the man himself?
"I believe they are reliable in the extreme ..."
Why do you think Ezekiel is the exception? Please, be clear ... this is the crux of the issue. On what basis do you throw out Ezekiel while maintaining that the Bible is both divine and "reliable in the extreme?"
You really do bloviate don't you? You can rest assured I've read and understand Luther's views on scripture. He originally wanted entire books removed. I've made my views on scripture clear and I'm not changing my mind. The funny thing is I have you arguing a fundamentalist view of scripture. Clever on your part but I don't really see how this supports your views? Clearly my view of scripture is a threat. Just when you thought everything was black and white things get complicated.
"I don't really see how this supports your views?"
It doesn't. I'm attempting to argue from within your world view. This is a process.
"my view of scripture is a threat."
No, it's self-refuting. The Bible says it is the word of God, you say you believe the Bible, yet you claim parts of the Bible are not the word of God. It's quite simple really.
"Just when you thought everything was black and white things get complicated."
I've had this discussion many many times before. Your refusal to answer simple questions while contradicting yourself on multiple occasions, is what complicated the issue. Rest assured, you're actually in the majority with your opinion. You have the option of being clear and uncomplicating things: What criteria do you use to decide if a book/chapter/verse is legitimate word of God? I've asked repeatedly.
And I've repeatedly answered your question but you never pay attention. So here I go again. I consider the entire Bible authoritative for the Church and thus the Word of God. If a passage has an issue I then consider that issue. But I don't throw out the entire Bible because this or that may be questionable. Was I clear enough that time?
This doesn't make sense. How can "the entire Bible" be the "Word of God" but then you are willing to veto certain passages? How does that work? Is it the Word of God or isn't it? Either the Bible is infallible or it's fallible. Can't be both.
I almost forgot. Where in the prophecy does it state that Ezekiel would live to see all of it fulfilled? Plus, history (biblical and secular) describe Tyre as both a mainland and an island.
"Founded at the start of the third millennium B.C., Tyre originally consisted of a mainland settlement and a modest island city that lay a short distance off shore. But it was not until the first millennium B.C. that the city experienced its golden age."
MCWAY1 10 months ago
@MCWAY1 I mentioned the Biblical passages that refer to Tyre as an island. I don't believe I said anything about Ezekiel having to live to see anything. My point is the following question: "built no more" "never be found again" ... are those true or false statements?
ozmoroid 10 months ago
The old "many nations" referring just to Nebuchadnezzar's forces doesn't fly. It's a strange condition placed on the text by Bible skeptics. First, the text states that "many nations" would sack Tyre, BEFORE BABYLON or Nebuchadnezzar is even mentioned specifically by name.
MCWAY1 10 months ago
Add to that the tens of thousands of Phoenicians that were either massacred or sold into slavery, totally over 40,000 (according to ancient historians).
MCWAY1 10 months ago
"It (Tyre) is a Babel of broken walls, pillars, vaults, etc., there being not so much as one entire house left! Its present inhabitants are only a few poor wretches, harbouring themselves in the vaults, and subsisting chiefly on fishing; who seem to be preserved in this place by Divine Providence as a visible argument how God has fulfilled his word concerning Tyre, that it should be the top of a rock, a place for fishers to dry their nets on." - Henry Maundrell, 1697
MCWAY1 10 months ago
@MCWAY1 "built no more" "never be found again" ... are those true or false statements?
ozmoroid 10 months ago
@ozmoroid True. I don't see the Phoeniecian's capitol anymore. They lost it after Alexander the Great nearly burned it to the ground and they never got it back. And that's the island portion of Tyre. The mainland portion (Palae-Tyrus or "Old Tyre)" is what Alex used to get to the mainland. He literally threw Tyre's stones, timbers, and dust into the sea.
I've cited two historians who have seen the site and come to the same conclusion. And there are others that have done the same.
MCWAY1 10 months ago
@MCWAY1 You did not answer my question, so I'll ask again. "built no more" "never be found again" ... are those true or false statements?
ozmoroid 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ozmoroid I answered your question last week. "True. I don't see the Phoeniecian's capitol anymore. They lost it after Alexander the Great nearly burned it to the ground and they never got it back."
That's what I posted. Read it again, and you'll get your explanation.
MCWAY1 9 months ago
What was one mainland Tyre NOW is now used to spread nets.
"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." - Phillip Myers, 'General Histories for Colleges and High Schools'
MCWAY1 10 months ago
n don't forget OT israel n Law, and Christ's Gospel Interpretation and Clarification thereof, one of Peace, and not glory in war, one of conversion and prayer, not the 'bloodshed' of old...for Christ Gave Such for us and for all , Lord Have MERCY PLGB
lockinglugnut 11 months ago
minds, etc. i pray for you friends Good Lord Have Mercy! 'the world' asks for solutions, and when not following The Biblical/Gospel ones of mercy, fellowship, peace, evangelism, going 'against' money or prestige, following God's Rules/Law, which is not oppressive but freeing, on sex, love of neighbor, etc., then it can have it's solutions right there God Given, PLGB thanks n thank God Amen
lockinglugnut 11 months ago
nature and 'law', etc. is not random, and even the 'big bang' is essentially in gen.1, only 'scientists' took much longer to 'figure it out' than to trust in Truth, God Forgive
wanna know what God Says/Thinks? Read And Pray carefully, not simply 'jumping' onto the 'interpretations' or 'misrepresentations' of 'the world' or 'mankind' on the matter....do not be deceived into seeing His Work as evil, that goes for folk on both sides!
God Is Everywhere and in everything, open your hearts, eyes,
lockinglugnut 11 months ago
thing of it is, i cannot judge their thoughts or discernment either way, the translators, the initial speakers, the writers who may not have been the prophets themselves, etc. Lord Have Mercy be i 'wrong' or 'off-base'....nor do i know their expertise, though they may likely be experts
and @gcc, you're 'message' is reversed, you cannot 'prove' such is imagined, but you can prove natural phenomena so to speak, the things mentioned in The Bible coming to fruition, the beauty and structure of
lockinglugnut 11 months ago
or because it actually a) did happen or b) some stuff has yet to come, maybe some combo of both.... when something is real or did happen, difficult to try to 'disprove' God Willing impossible to disprove Truth....proof of God is everywhere, PLGB
lockinglugnut 1 year ago
@lockinglugnut Proof of people's imaginations is certainly demonstrable. Proof of people's imaginings of gods, very provable. Proof that those imaginings represent real phenomena, not so much.
When you look at the universe around you and choose to label something in it "proof of god" without any kind of rational evidence to justify that label, you're really just exercising your imagination. So good for you. Your imagination works. Now work on exercising your intellect through scientific study.
GermanChocolateCake 11 months ago
@GermanChocolateCake funny thing is though that this 'proof', these 'times' all the things Christ Said, all God's Advice really is True/Pure, at least the portions of it that have come to fruition. your very existence and that of all around you is proof. read up friend usccb dot org slash nab....get to it!
thanks,
Best†,
~joan
lockinglugnut 11 months ago
@lockinglugnut "all God's Advice really is True/Pure" ... Is God's "advice" (commandment actually) to "kill all the boys" of the Midianites "pure?" "Proof of God is everywhere" - then why are so many productive scientists agnostic/atheist? If you see all this evidence yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a personal God, what is your explanation?
ozmoroid 11 months ago
@ozmoroid God Forgive be i wrong, but Lord Have Mercy maybe lost in the grammar/translation, or just people reading it in general, we confuse God's 'Imperative' with God's 'Warning'...we also confuse fallen times and actions/choices/justifications/rationale of some 'In God's Name' with things He Actually Seeks, which is God Willing what Christ Came To Clarify! PLGB thanks be to GOD indeed....
'God's rain falls on good and evil, just and unjust' The Bible Tells us many 'reject' Truth....
lockinglugnut 11 months ago
@lockinglugnut The KJV says in Number 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones". Is this translation correct? If not, what is the correct translation?
ozmoroid 11 months ago
@ozmoroid not sure exactly as i'm not ahebrew expert, but look at the earlier portions of The Passage, there's a transition from The LORD's Directive to your reference, which is mpses'speech apparently,not to accuse the law-guy of anything but who knows O.Ot Lord Have Mercy be i wrong, and remember Christ's going for a 'back to the beginning' relationship,'love of enemies' and not executing vengeance,execution God Willing, etc. in lieu of mercy, PLGB, read through all, midian vs. israel,etc.PLGB
lockinglugnut 11 months ago
@lockinglugnut Do you think the Jewish scholars who translate the Tanakh into English are Hebrew experts? I do. They translate the passage this way. See, for example, mechon-mamre-org. And, this is not the only place in the OT where God commands the slaughter of innocents. Was "He" just is killing all the firstborn of Egypt?
ozmoroid 11 months ago
but *none* have to, all are welcome! science and religion this they share is that Truth Is Truth regardless of who or what believes in it!
has the 'majority' always been right? not so many a times, existence of God is not up to a vote, and i pray if this statistic is true that these people open their hearts and minds!
lockinglugnut 11 months ago
the big bang was written in gen. 1 (thanks be to GOD) thousands of years before science 'proved' the same exact thing! all have a 'seed', God Willing it be not on 'shallow ground', we must open ourselves up to prayer and allow ourselves to believe in order to see....'to those who have much more is Given' says The Lord in mt. and lk. (thanks be to GOD PLGB)
lockinglugnut 11 months ago
@lockinglugnut Really? "Let there be light" = General Relativity? If the Bible is so chock full of science, please tell me something scientific that it teaches that is currently unknown. Or, does it only become "scientific" in hindsight?
ozmoroid 11 months ago
Respond to this video... ps: grad student in materials sci.+eng., which has brought me closer to God, not further from.....if you've still concerns contact joel chavady on facebook, or fr. jaehwa lee at swarthmore
lockinglugnut 11 months ago
What is the music in the background?
pipesmple 1 year ago
@pipesmple It Louis Armstrong's tune "Hotter Than That."
ozmoroid 1 year ago
ozmoroid - There is a big catch. The real Tyre is indeed gone. Thank you for your video - I will dismember your argument as a bonus in the video I'm working on. I didn't realize folks were having this argument. You are in fact looking at the wrong spot and in the wrong way. Its all about what and who is in the center...of everything.
Masonictoaster9 1 year ago
@Masonictoaster9 You giving me a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy. The "real" Tyre? How about this: the "real" Bible doesn't exist anymore. There are no "real" Christians. etc.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
Thanks. The "prophecy" of Tyre is one of my favorite to argue. Bible believers use everyone of the arguments you brought up. This is ten minutes I will watch several more times to better remember all the points. It is obviously a failed prophecy but it is hard to remember all the points when the believer is throwing out all their objections. Thanks again!
csnowutube 1 year ago
"Because you keep saying that Neb didn't attack the island. Please provide your reference."
What?? Are you serious? That's like asking an athiest to prove God DOESN'T exist. You want me to provide evidence that something DIDN'T happen! Look, the burden of proof is on your side. You made the original claim. I am showing you how ridiculous that claim is. You need to show me how an army without ships can attack an island. That is why Neb failed - he kind of realized the basic problem.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Here's how it's going to work. No historical references from you = no more posts. Provide some evidence that you've actually read about the history of Tyre and you can post. Otherwise you are really just wasting time and comment space and further posts from you will be deleted.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
"Ezekiel points out that Neb's army came away with out the expected spoils."
Exactly. It's obvious that the prophecy concerning spoils was not referring to Neb. It wouldn't make sense for Ezekiel to contradict his own prophecy just a few verses later!!
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
btw. If Fleming came to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar attacked the island with horses and chariots then I don't think I would want to waste my time reading his book!
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Have you read any history of Tyre? Please explain why Neb spent 13 years in a siege of Tyre and left with a political compromise. What was he doing for those 13 years?
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby What historical references regarding Tyre are you citing?
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid "What historical references regarding Tyre are you citing?" .
Concerning what, exactly? Is there something in particular in my posts that disagrees with history?
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby This evasive answer leads me to believe that you have no historical references to refer to. In that case further discussion is a waste of time. Provide historical references for your assertions if you wish to continue the discussion.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
This video is embarassing. It builds it's arguments by supporting it's claims on the "Google earth" level of evidence, and ignores the fact that Tyre has been attacked, among others, by Babylon, Syria, Egypt, Rome, Greece, Armenia, and Persia. It also makes one basic assumption without which it totally fails. Try checking out the entire historical evidence and consult schollars, or at least somone who has fundamental knowledge of the original Hebrew text before opening your mouth!
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Uhm, apparently you missed the fact that most of the video consists of quoting from a scholarly work on the history of Tyre. And, most tellingly, your long comment doesn't address a single fact raised in the video. I assume you didn't watch it and instead just started rambling on in a comment thereby doing nothing more than showcasing your intellectual laziness.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid On the contrary, I watched it completely several times and found it's "facts" to be mainly built on the false assumption that the prophecy predicted that Nebuchadnezzar alone would complete the prophecy. The prophecy states explicitly that Neb's share was confined to the "mainland settlements". Verse 11 and onward, although grouped in the same paragraph as the verses attributed to Neb, refer to the "many nations". Paragraphs and punctuation are not part of the original Hebrew text.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Since you asked me questions that were clearly answered in the video, I'm guessing you didn't watch it very carefully. Where does the prophecy explicitly state that Neb's share was confined to the mainland settlements? How would that result in Tyre being destroyed and "never found again" if the Tyrians still had their main settlement on the island? Ezekiel himself admits that Neb failed to plunder Tyre.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid 1. Neb's share:
"He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword;"
2. How would that result in Tyre being destroyed and "never found again".
Verses 12-14 make no reference to the island settlement but to the "rubble" that was thrown into the sea.
3. Ezekiel himself admits that Neb failed to plunder Tyre.
This is also built on the assumption I mentioned. The prophesy does NOT say that Neb would get any loot from his attack.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby What chapter:verse of Ezekiel says "settlements on the mainland"? "The prophesy does NOT say that Neb would get any loot" ... Ezekiel 26:12 "And they shall make a spoil of thy riches" Also 26:15 "Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall" Why would Ezekiel mention the isles shaking if he was not referring to the island of Tyre?
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid Ezekiel 26:12 "And they shall make a spoil of thy riches"
This does not make any reference to Neb!
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby That is fail to the nth degree. Of course it does. Just read Ezekiel 26:7 through 26:12.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid Again, 26:12 makes no mention of Nebuchadnezzar. What "he" would do is what the prophecy says "he" would do. What the many nations would do is what the prophecy says "they" would do.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Even if you want to make that very weak claim, I address this in the video. Let "they" refer to everyone who has ever lived. How do the claims that Tyre will be covered by great waters, never built again, never found again and so on hold up? Why does the New Testament refer to Tyre if it was destroyed and never built again during Old Testament times?
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid When Alex the great attacked Tyre he demolished the mainland city and threw the rubble of it into the sea. Modern day Tyre is not the original city. The mainland city cannot be found simply because it was practically scraped bare. Of course you can make silly arguments and say that the rubble can be found.. but I hope you are more serious than that.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Are you saying that the prophecy had nothing to do with the island, but only the mainland settlement?
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid No, not at all. The island played it's part and not an unimportant one. However, the parts of the phrophecy that refer to the mainland city do not apply to the island.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby No modern day city is the original ancient city - Rome, Jerusalem, Athens or Tyre. How could Ezekiel say things like though you be sought for you will never be found again if he was not referring to the complete destruction of Tyre? God's divine retribution on Tyre was to destroy some of its suburbs?
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid "No modern day city is the original ancient city"
There is a big difference between a city being sucessively renewed by it's inhabitants, and one in which has been scraped into the sea and it's inhabitants killed off. Can you name anything standing today that has been rebuilt by the Phoenecians?
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Again, I address this in the video. The Phoenecians rebuilt Tyre after Alexander sacked it. They were not all killed off. I'm starting to think you are BSing me about having watched it.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid "The Phoenecians rebuilt Tyre after Alexander sacked it. They were not all killed off." .
You can think whatever you want. I am not BSing anyone, and I did NOT say Alexander killed them all off. The Tyrians were attacked quite a few times after that throughout history. I have never seen any acount of Phoenecians rebuilding Tyre, but rather, what remains today was primarily built by the Greeks, the Romans and the Crusaders.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby What, exactly did Neb spend 13 years trying to do before he arrived at a political settlement?
Exactly what the prophecy said he would do:
"your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you."
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby So why did he arrive at a political settlement if he had achieved his objectives militarily?
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid "So why did he arrive at a political settlement if he had achieved his objectives militarily?" .
I didn't say Neb achieved HIS objectives. What do his objectives have to do with this?
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Because you keep saying that Neb didn't attack the island. Please provide your reference. I'm pointing out that after he had overrun the mainland settlements he continued to try and take the island. Ezekiel points out that Neb's army came away with out the expected spoils.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid "I'm pointing out that after he had overrun the mainland settlements he continued to try and take the island." .
How? He didn't have a navy, he only had an army. Neither did Alex. Why do you think he went to all the trouble of building the causeway?
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Total historical fail on your part. Yes Alexander had a navy during the siege of Tyre. There are many historical accounts of that. You are clearly an ignorant person who is too lazy to study history but wants to waste my time with your blathering. No more. Provide historical references if you want to continue any discussion. To start, tell me the name of a book on the history of Tyre that you have read.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid Ozmo, you don't have to exaggerate. I knew that Alex had some naval support, but I thought that it consisted mainly of allies. But you were right, I shouldn't have said he DIDN'T have a navy. I should have said that he didn't have much of a navy. The reason I didn't check it out was it wasn't essential to the point I was making - which was that without a navy (of considerable size :-) there was no way of attacking the island, and apparantly Neb did NOT have that.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Well Neb could have done it the same way Alexander did it. That's the point, he didn't.
newperve 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@newperve "Well Neb could have done it the same way Alexander did it. That's the point, he didn't. "
Yes, that is EXACTLY the point, because if Neb had done so then the prophecy would really have failed - it tells us that "many nations" would be involved. Also, the idea was so far-fetched that the likelyhood of anyone attempting it was totally incredible. Alex almost failed trying.
UppsalaDragby 10 months ago
@ozmoroid Questions NOT answered in the video:
1. Was it fleming who claimed that Nebuchadnessar attacked the island, or was that your idea?
2. Who do you think "They" are in verse 12? Neb? His army? If that was the case then why make the sudden switch from "he" to "they"?
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby 1. In the video I made it clear why when Ezekiel refers to Tyre he was not just referring to a mainland settlement. So, that was answered. What, exactly did Neb spend 13 years trying to do before he arrived at a political settlement? 2. "They" seems to refer to Neb's army. "He" clearly refers to Neb. Obviously if you are going to talk about his soldiers you wouldn't say "he". There is zero indication that "they" is refers to people in the distant future.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid In the video I made it clear why when Ezekiel refers to Tyre he was not just referring to a mainland settlement.
I don't care what you think your straw man video makes clear, the fact remains that you have no evidence that shows that Neb had any part in attacking the island.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby I have put together a logical video presentation that makes my points clearly. It is now your turn to do the same. Do it for the glory of God or whatever. Put together your entire argument in one logical whole in video form. Cite historical references and so on. Your comments are getting repetitive.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid I don't have the resource to put together a video and even if I did it would just be one among many others. I prefer to simply debate the issue because I think these kinds of videos spread out false information. That is my right. I understand you don't like being critisized, but that's just too bad.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby If I had a problem with being criticized I would censor comments and block users, but I don't. Your last sentence is an appeal to ridicule that simply fails. While making this video I looked at many Tyre apologist vids. I found them poorly argued. So, if you could put together a decent one it certainly wouldn't just one among many.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid Here's a question. Since you believe that Neb was attacking the island city (based on Ez 27, not Ex 26) then why does the prophecy only seem to mention horses and chariots and not ships. Maybe its because Neb didn't have any ships. No wonder he failed!!!
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@ozmoroid "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." With what?
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@ozmoroid What was the name of the schollar who came up with this stuff?
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Watch the video.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid Ok Fleming. One source. Was it fleming who claimed that Nebuchadnessar attacked the island, or was that your idea? Also, what qualifications does Fleming have for interpreting scripture?
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Read Fleming's book. He references his sources extensively. You are grasping at straws here. Please watch the video and address the main points. I am not interested in repeating myself simply because you are too lazy to listen to my original presentation. Better yet, make a video response in which you refute this video point by point.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid You are merely avoiding the questions I asked. As I said, your main points are built on one assumption. You have not provided any evidence that verse 12 and onward refer to Neb. To me, seeing that it would be far easier for you to do that than for me to read some book and make a video, that tells me that you are the lazy one. If you are so sure of yourself then answer the questions.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby No, my argument is not built on one assumption. You are attempting to straw man here and it is failing. I explicitly addressed the apologist argument that Neb only played one part in the prophecy. Why do you ignore that?
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid Verse 8. In KJV it says "field" which translates:
field, land
(a) cultivated field
(b) of home of wild beasts
(c) plain (opposed to mountain)
(d) land (opposed to sea)
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby 26:8 "He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee" Notice it is Tyre's daughters which are in the field and not Tyre.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid "Notice it is Tyre's daughters which are in the field and not Tyre."
So where are you trying to go with this? That while Neb was attacking the island, the women happened to be out in the fields? Now that really makes sense!
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby In some Biblical commentaries that I have read, Tyre's daughters is taken to refer to the mainland settlements. It does not seem to refer to the Tyrian women.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid "Tyre's daughters is taken to refer to the mainland settlements."
Uh... Thats what I have been saying all along. So you agree with me now? Whatever way you interpret this verse, it in no way supports the claim that Neb tried to attack the island!
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
Questions NOT answered in the video: .
1. Was it fleming who claimed that Nebuchadnessar attacked the island, or was that your idea? .
2. Who do you think "They" are in verse 12? Neb? His army? If that was the case then why make the sudden switch from "he" to "they"?
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby I addressed point 2 directly in the video. This is the second such question you've asked, so I'm starting to think you just want to waste my time. "They" seems to refer to the many nations that made up the army of the Babylonian Empire. Likewise Alexander's army was comprised of many nations.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid "I addressed point 2 directly in the video." .
Whatever you "addressed" certainly didn't answer the question. The prophecy predicts that many nations would be involved. Just making the claim that the "they" in v.12 is referring to Neb doesn't make it true, and the question remains: why not just continue with "he"? Surely that would be the normal thing to do if that passage of scripture was referring to Neb.
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Sorry, I meant verse 12 of course. The fact that the original Hebrew text lacked punctuation and paragraphs, makes it more important to pay attention to such things as pronouns. With that in mind, who do you think "They" are in verse 12? Neb? His army? If that was the case then why make the sudden switch from "he" to "they"?
UppsalaDragby 1 year ago
@UppsalaDragby Yes it has been attacked, but not destroyed as the bible claimed it would be. Seriously damaged at times sure, but never made a "place to spread fishnets". You fail again.
newperve 10 months ago
As soon as the polar caps melt, Tyre won't be so high and dry then, will it?
Ya think Ezekiel would have mentioned the climate change?
Must have slipped his mind, or God's...
gjsterp 2 years ago
Whatever happens it will be taken as "fulfillment" of the prophecy, I guarantee.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
wow great vid
Im a big ancient history buff but didnt know about this prophecy, very well done
"not even 250 years and Alexander the Great can make this prophecy happen" lololol, best line ever^^
handofnergal 2 years ago
I knew about Tyre because of the siege of Alexander - always been an Alexander the Great fan. But I also didn't know of the Tyre prophecy. But, a Christian told me it was the most convincing Biblical prophecy, so I had to investigate.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
well I'm glad that you did ^^
handofnergal 2 years ago
And to elaborate on why I suspected it's not a prophecy. For one it's too close to the event to be a prophecy. However, the text is very reflective of how the Hebrews felt about Tyre. It really appears to be a good bye letter to Tyre. (see Ezekiel 26:15 This is what the Sovereign LORD says to Tyre:") Nations would always speak in the name of their God or gods back then. My god will kill your god and so-forth. So So the entire passage I strongly suspect is a diatribe and nothing more.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
OK Mike, I'll give it to you that you TRIED to answer my question, but in reality the answer doesn't matter all that much. The point I've been trying to make (just one of many points you've declined to address) is that you are interpreting the Bible on a case-by-case basis. At what point do you recognize that the Bible is whatever you make of it. It's so ambiguous that even within Christianity there isn't agreement. Aren't you all just arguing over whose interpretation is the best?
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
Can any of your interpretations reasonably be said the be the word of God? Consider how many different interpretations there are when you count every person that takes your position. There would be at least as many interpretations as there are people! As I said earlier, your interpretation of the Bible, instead of taking it literally, means that you are your own God. This is why is appeared I was arguing for a literal interpretation of the Bible. To do otherwise is heretical by definition.
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
"...you are interpreting the Bible on a case-by-case basis...."
That's true I do. You have to interpret the Bible on a case by case basis. The Bible is a collection of books. And even some of the books appear to be a collection of stories. Each book has it's own history and cultural to consider before we can understand what is being said. We can't assume, like you do, that something is what it appears. What was the real purpose behind the writing? Who wrote it? When? Why? And to who?
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"The Bible is a collection of books. And even some of the books appear to be a collection of stories."
Don't forget that those stories are collections of paragraphs which are, in turn, collections of sentences, which are collections of words, which are collections of letters.
"We can't assume, like you do, that something is what it appears."
I see where we're getting hung up now. Words don't actually have meaning to you. I wonder what you're interpreting when you read what I write?
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
"You have to interpret the Bible on a case by case basis." - 'nuff said. Then the Bible can mean anything to anybody. The "Word of God" is literally one big Rorschach Ink Blot onto which you project whatever it is you wish to believe. No matter what you say about the Bible I will merely reply with, "My interpretation is different." End of conversation.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
"Then the Bible can mean anything to anybody"
Indeed it can and you are a perfect example of that. That's why we study it so we know the actual meaning.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"That's why we study it so we know the actual meaning." If there is an "actual meaning" then why isn't there just one type of Christianity? Given that there are many different branches of Christianity with differing interpretations of the Bible, it would seem that "we" can't agree on a common Biblical interpretation. You are not a biblical inerrantist. For many Christians that means your Christianity is false and you are going to Hell. So please tell us how we find the "actual meaning."
ozmoroid 2 years ago
"For many Christians that means your Christianity is false and you are going to Hell. "
Really which Christians are those? You really do assume much.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"which Christians are those?" - Google it. Some "creedalists" believe preterism is heresy because it denies the doctrine that Jesus will "come again."
Now, please address my main point - why isn't there just one type of Christianity?
ozmoroid 2 years ago
"which Christians are those?" - One obvious example, traditional catholics believe there is no salvation outside the catholic church.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
imike - will you please answer the question everyone wants answered? What criteria do you use to determine if a Biblical passage is the true word of God?
ozmoroid 2 years ago
Here I go again. I consider the entire Bible authoritative for the Church and therefore the Word of God. I consider issues that may exist. But I do not throw out the entire Bible because this or that may be questionable.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
But you haven't answered the question. You "consider issues that may exist." How do you consider such issues. How do decide which passages are questionable? You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say the entire Bible is the Word of God (thus presumably perfect) yet you consider that "issues" may exist? Huh, how do "issues" exist in the Word of a perfect God? And if it's not the perfect Word of God, then HOW DO YOU TELL?
ozmoroid 2 years ago
I'm beginning to doubt your honesty pal. We've asked you repeatedly to make it clear what criteria you use when you "consider issues." You're giving us a crappy general response because either you don't really know, or you do know, and you also know that being clear on it would be bad for your argument. So, be honest, it's what Christ would want. How exactly do you "consider issues?"
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
"What criteria do you use to determine if a Biblical passage..."
You keep asking that over and over like I didn't answer you. What do you want me to say? I consider the entire Bible the inspired Word of God. But I don't consider the entire book to be perfect, I'd say it's a very high percentage 99.5%. Questionable items, like the end of Mark, are very well understood and it's moot. Not a single doctrine would change if removed or if they stay.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
And, imike, you haven't answered my other question above - Why isn't there just one form of Christianity? Why are there so many sects that think they have the "true" interpretation and the others are wrong?
ozmoroid 2 years ago
When I say these prophecies are "hidden" I don't mean they are hidden today but rather they were hidden before their fulfillment in Christ. Thus no fake Messiah could attempt to fit the prophecy. Not that these passages jump out at you as prophecies but they are. Nobody was looking for a suffering Messiah not even Jesus' disciples. So when you see things like Abraham telling Isaac God Himself will provide the Lamb for the Sacrifice. We now understand that is pointing to Christ. Abraham's faith
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"We now understand that ..." Well, how come the Jewish people as a whole don't seem to "understand" what you understand and have rejected this interpretation for 2,000 years? The OT is the story of their people, after all. Apparently it's not quite so obvious as you seem to think.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
"...how come the Jewish people as a whole don't seem to "understand"
Read Paul's letters he laments this over and over. He being amoung the Jews that did accept Christ as the Messiah. All the parables of Jesus are really talking about this as well.
watch?v=iMPHAD-HKGM
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
And they are not NT prophecies they are OT prophecies. They are not hard to read and understand. But the prophecies are not single passages they are ENTIRE stories. You have to read the whole story and step back to see the prophecies contained therein. A casual look won't work.
Have you ever seen those Magic Eye 3D posters? You stare at it for awhile and then a 3D image pops out at you. These prophecies remind me of that effect. You will have a sudden epiphany. It actually frighted me.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"What criteria do you use to decide if a book/chapter/verse is legitimate word of God?"
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
Hey imike - Everyone wants to know: What criteria do you use to decide if a book/chapter/verse is the word of God?
ozmoroid 2 years ago
imike - finding "hidden messages" in books, TV shows, newspapers and so on is, quite frankly, often a sign of mental illness. I am not trying to be disrespectful, just pointing out that this line of argument not only isn't going to convince an atheist of anything, but may in fact lead him/her to conclude that you have lost, or never had, a rational connection to reality.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
And regarding the Ezekiel Tyre issue. You claim they likely knew in advance that Neb was going to attack the city. It was on the gossip channel of the day or they had military intelligence.
Ok let's go with that. Then you agree it's not a prophecy. It's really nothing more than a Hebrew diatribe against Tyre. Your exegesis clears up the entire matter no failed prophecy we now understand this passage. It's just a diatribe.
Good work. Now I just need to get you to come to church.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
imike - No, I don't agree. You are dodging the whole point of the video. Ezekiel said Neb. would destroy Tyre, that it would never be built or found again. That was the prophecy. It failed. That Tyre would be attacked and that Zeke would know about it is not surprising given that the Jews were in Babylonian captivity at the time he wrote!
ozmoroid 2 years ago
No actually you were the one that suggested it wasn't really a prophecy that they knew the attack was coming. Thus it's really just a diatribe, a curse if you prefer. A letter to send to the King of Tyre. Kind regards from their enemies the Hebrews saying bye bye. Nothing magical, nothing mystical nothing prophetic at all.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
No, I never said it wasn't a prophecy. I said it wasn't a stretch to assume Neb would attack Tyre. Again, you avoid the main point. The heart of the prophecy is that Neb would utterly destroy Tyre. He didn't. Zeke makes specific claims about events that didn't come to pass. Now you are trying to defend the failure of this prophecy by claiming it wasn't really a prophecy in the first place.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
"...by claiming it wasn't really a prophecy ..."
I suspected it wasn't a prophecy to begin with. It appears to be what I just said a diatribe against Tyre. And as I also pointed out if it was a failed prophecy there is no way those scribes would have preserved it as a holy text. Why would they? Thus there are two possibilities. 1.) they believed Tyre was destroyed sufficiently to validate a prophecy. 2.) They regarded the text as a diatribe or a curse and not a prophecy at all.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
imike - let me ask you this. When, in the synoptic gospels, Jesus says of his second coming, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." Was that a prophecy? Did it come true? Did the scribes preserve it?
ozmoroid 2 years ago
"Was that a prophecy? Did it come true?"
Well you're talking to a preterist not a futurist so yes in my view. However taking that entire chapter into context they are talking about the end of the age. Which would have been the end of their age. The end of the age of the Law where life was centered around a Temple and the beginning of the age of Grace and the Church. That was a very significant change and did in fact occur.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
Wow, it finally makes sense! All these years I denied the existence of Santa Clause because the stories said he'd come through my chimney, and we never had a fireplace. Now that you've shown me that I can re-interpret ANY word to mean ANYTHING I want it to by claiming "context," I'll go ahead and re-interpret Santa down the chimney to Santa compels my mom to sneak presents under the tree. I mean, if you look at the context that's what the prophecy of Santa REALLY says. It's so obvious!
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
"I can re-interpret ANY word to mean ANYTHING..."
You could and you do. That is why we must use proper biblical exegesis.
"Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth" means?
Take revenge? Nope.
It merely means the punishment must fit the crime. Because in the old world the rich would be punished lightly while a poor person could be executed for stealing a loaf of bread. Thus "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" means you cannot exact a punishment greater than the crime committed.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"you're talking to a preterist ..." Well that is an excellent example of what we have been talking about. The great majority of Christians do not accept your interpretation of the Bible on this issue. So, how is it that your interpretation is so different from that of most other Christians? Is your interpretation correct? If so, how do you know? Are most Christians wrong in their interpretation? If so, why do you think that is?
ozmoroid 2 years ago
"The great majority of Christians do not accept your interpretation..."
That is true I'm not mainstream. However, there is critical doctrine we all agree on. Christians, believe it or not, are allowed to having different views on minor subjects and still be included in the fellowship.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
I would say that the second coming of Christ is not a minor subject. It's actually one of the central foci of Christianity. You are out of the mainstream on this one. Why? Why don't you agree with the majority of Christians? Why is it so difficult for all Christians to agree on such a central issue?
ozmoroid 2 years ago
so - how much are they allowed to deviate from the original teachings to still be called Christians ??? ...
symelian 2 years ago
And like I said before I don't like prophecies that put themselves out as prophecies. I prefer the hidden OT prophecies pointing to Jesus Christ. Such as the story of Joseph starting in Genesis 37. Abraham and Isaac clearly foreshadows Christ. Same with Jonah, Moses and Joshua and tons more sprinkled throughout the OT. Cryptology is a hobby of mine and I've found these story prophecies to be a form of cryptology. Nobody could have attempted to fulfill them since they were hidden.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
And I'm curious why you don't want to refute my assertion that there are hidden prophecies of Christ contained within the OT stories themselves. Do this. Read the NT completely (again if you already have) it's actually not very long. Even take Luther's advice and stop at Titus, good enough. Then read the OTstories I mentioned armed with the knowledge that the stories themselves are prophecies of Christ. That's my challenge to you.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
Are you deflecting? This video was about Ezekiel 26, not about the "hidden NT prophecies" which, apparently, only lunatics and amateur cryptographers can find. You haven't answered for a single one of the ridiculous claims you've made:
Ezekiel 26 isn't prophecy, but then it is.
The Bible can have errors, but it's infallible.
My views are like Luther's
Ezekiel is a "minor" book
You need to read over what you've written so far, and honestly appraise your position.
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
"Are you deflecting?"
No and my position hasn't changed. Your video I assume is an attempt at saying the entire Bible is unsound not simply a passage in Ezekiel.
And you very easily dismiss things you know nothing about. I'm telling you the prophecies are there if you want to look at them. And once you understand the entire story is a prophecy of Christ that is very powerful. They are there whenever you are ready. And once you see them you won't be able to walk away so easily.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"What criteria do you use to decide if a book/chapter/verse is legitimate word of God?"
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
imike - you certainly aren't the first person who has claimed all kinds of OT stories are prophecies of Christ. That was one of the arguments of the early Christians. The fact that you have to call them "hidden prophecies" just shows that they aren't clear predictions but something you have to "properly interpret" to make work. The Jews, to whom the OT belongs, haven't been impressed and neither am I.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
"you certainly aren't the first person who has claimed all kinds of OT stories are prophecies of Christ."
Actually Christ claimed the Jonah story was a prophecy of himself so it's not a made up concept. Christ said that he was "the sign of Jonah". Jonah sacrificed himself to save his shipmates from God's destruction he is dead for three days and three nights and rises again to also save entire city from the judgment of God. Surprisingly all these OT stories I mentioned run parallel to Christ.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"all these OT stories I mentioned ... " imike - you should explain all of this to a Rabbi. Apparently they don't understand their holy book the way you do. Funny that.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
The NT actually says the Jews wouldn't accept Jesus as their Messiah. Christ is "the stone the builders rejected." The fact that they don't actually confirms the Bible.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"I don't like prophecies that put themselves out as prophecies." Okay, that's a pretty funny statement all by itself. In other words, you don't like prophecies that are falsifiable. You prefer "hidden prophecies" that can always be interpreted to work out. You prefer prophecies that aren't prophecies. You prefer Rorschach ink blots.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
btw, I'm not "throwing out Ezekiel". However, your video makes a good point on that prophecy. It's at least questionable. However, if in fact that prophecy was put to paper beforehand it's not illegitimate, exaggerated at best. The Tyre of that day clearly took a significant hit. My gut (nothing authoritative from imike) tells me it's like those verses in Mark. Appended after the fact. That doesn't make the entire Bible illegitimate or even the entire book of Ezekiel for that matter.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
First of all, I'd like to point out that your original contention was that Ezekiel 26 was not a prophecy. Has that changed?
Tell me this, how can you tell what verses were appended "after the fact?" I would assume that if it were written AFTER the Tyre incident, it would have gotten something factually correct. *shrug*
Can't you see how your waffling on this book means you can waffle on ANY book you PERSONALLY disagree with. I bet you think the passages on slavery were inserted later too?
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
Well if it was written before the Tyre incident then that was a good trick. So just depending on your bias it's legit. It's merely the detials of the event we can debate. Did Tyre get enough of a pounding or didn't it?
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
No. I tried to point out in the video that this "prophecy" was an obvious thing to expect. Neb had just stomped Jerusalem, and Tyre, being also in revolt, was logically one of the next on the list. The point is that the Bible makes specific claims about what would happen that those claims didn't hold up.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
"...Neb had just stomped Jerusalem, and Tyre, being also in revolt, was logically one of the next on the list..."
That's a possibility. However, then it's curious they kept their known failed prophecy as a sacred text. They must have considered the damage to be severe enough to fit. Otherwise the author would have been stoned and the document burned. They were really strict about that stuff back in those days.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
So now you're saying that the text is so stupid and self contradictory that it MUST be true or else they would have stricken it from the Bible? Wow, this is certainly new. I'm not sure how to approach that. Have you ever read a ridiculous kid's book?
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
Also, why don't you address the main point ozmo made ... you know, you've made a terrible game out of avoiding the issue as hard as I have tried to shove them directly under your nose. Here, I'll even tell you what part of what ozmo said you should be addressing:
"The point is that the Bible makes specific claims about what would happen that those claims didn't hold up."
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
"So now you're saying that the text is so stupid and self contradictory"
Straw Man Alert! I never said that.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"Straw Man Alert! I never said that" - You said "It's curious that they kept their known failed prophecy as a sacred text." So I think josh's characterization is accurate. The Gospel's have Jesus saying his return will occur during the lifetime of some of those in his audience. This is epic failure, yet it's still in the NT. Nope, what theists do is keep the text - kinda embarrassing to change "sacred text" - but change the interpretation.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
And Revelation is a good example of this. It was in and out of the Protestant cannon off and on since the Reformation. The Greek Orthodox Church still rejects it and ironically it is the only book that was even written in Greek. Martin Luther openly doubted the authoritativeness of this book. And in fact it ended up at the back of the New Testament canon because it was regarded as the least authoritative book. Most Christians don't know this today. But it's the truth.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
mike - I'm curious to know: Do you believe the books of the Bible are the inerrant word of God? Or are they just books written by men? Or something in between?
ozmoroid 2 years ago
Well I know that Mark 16:17 was added to the book of Mark sometime during the Middle Ages. So my view of the Bible is very similar to that of Luther. I do believe it is the word of God and the teaching in those texts are authoritative for the Church. I believe they are reliable in the extreme and I trust them but not with blinders. I'm not in the inerrant camp. However, the Christian Church was established before the canon was finalized. So it's moot as to my faith in Christ.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
I suggest that you read some of Luther's writings mike. Please feel free to PM me if you're honestly looking for information. The entire Lutheran Confessions are online and freely available. Why not read the words of the man himself?
"I believe they are reliable in the extreme ..."
Why do you think Ezekiel is the exception? Please, be clear ... this is the crux of the issue. On what basis do you throw out Ezekiel while maintaining that the Bible is both divine and "reliable in the extreme?"
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
You really do bloviate don't you? You can rest assured I've read and understand Luther's views on scripture. He originally wanted entire books removed. I've made my views on scripture clear and I'm not changing my mind. The funny thing is I have you arguing a fundamentalist view of scripture. Clever on your part but I don't really see how this supports your views? Clearly my view of scripture is a threat. Just when you thought everything was black and white things get complicated.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"I've read and understand Luther's views"
Bare assertion.
"He originally wanted entire books removed."
Bare assertion.
"I don't really see how this supports your views?"
It doesn't. I'm attempting to argue from within your world view. This is a process.
"my view of scripture is a threat."
No, it's self-refuting. The Bible says it is the word of God, you say you believe the Bible, yet you claim parts of the Bible are not the word of God. It's quite simple really.
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
"Just when you thought everything was black and white things get complicated."
I've had this discussion many many times before. Your refusal to answer simple questions while contradicting yourself on multiple occasions, is what complicated the issue. Rest assured, you're actually in the majority with your opinion. You have the option of being clear and uncomplicating things: What criteria do you use to decide if a book/chapter/verse is legitimate word of God? I've asked repeatedly.
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
And I've repeatedly answered your question but you never pay attention. So here I go again. I consider the entire Bible authoritative for the Church and thus the Word of God. If a passage has an issue I then consider that issue. But I don't throw out the entire Bible because this or that may be questionable. Was I clear enough that time?
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
This doesn't make sense. How can "the entire Bible" be the "Word of God" but then you are willing to veto certain passages? How does that work? Is it the Word of God or isn't it? Either the Bible is infallible or it's fallible. Can't be both.
ozmoroid 2 years ago
NO. You were NOT clear. You merely stated that you look at the Bible passage by passage and "consider that issue." So, I will ask AGAIN:
"What criteria do you use to decide if a book/chapter/verse is legitimate word of God?"
joshTheGoods 2 years ago
No I already answered that you are just bloviating as you do so well.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
"What criteria do you use to decide if a book/chapter/verse is legitimate word of God?"
joshTheGoods 2 years ago