Historical Accuracy of the Bible

[Quagmire]

RE: I would like to address Penguin and Quagmire in the same post

Quote:
17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the LORD came to me: 18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Ezekiel 29:17,18

Ezek.29:18: Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon subjected all his army to many hardships against Tyre till every head was made bald and every shoulder weary; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre for the service that he had performed against her.". The Pe****a.

Every other version of the OT says essentailly the same thing. The P****a is just clearest on it.

Quote:
In the seven and twentieth year — Of Jeconiah's captivity, the year after the conquest of Tyre. John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes
God would give him Egypt instead.

This is Wesley talking, not the Bible, and according to the bible (and history and geography), he's wrong.

Quote:
I think the inference is on Him not getting much out of it-(spoil, plunder, etc.) Here is a quote from 'Jerome' " Jerome asserts, on the authority of the Assyrian histories, that when the Trojans saw their city must fall, they put their most valuable effects on board their ships, and fled with them to the islands, and their colonies, `so that the city being taken, Nebuchadnezzar found nothing worthy of his labour.'"TSK

Are you equating Tyre with Troy? Not even close; Tyre's in Lebenon, Troy was in what became Northern Turkey.

Quote:
The Bible states that indeed- it did happen

No, it doesn't. It says just the oppisite.

As I have stated in other posts, I accept the Word of God over the words of men.

Unless of course, like Wesley, they happen to be telling you what you want to hear.

If you have any other information to the contrary to be investigated, please present it, so that we all can review it.

You apparently haven't looked at any of the evidence that's been presented to you so far.

Be sure to check back in when you do.

Or put it this way; you've already been shown more than once that Ezekiel predicted the complete destruction of Tyre, and you've already been shown that it didn't happen (it's still there and according to history always has been. What more proof do you need?).

I don't know what more I can do. In any case, like I said, if you still don't get it please resume this discussion in the "Is Biblical Prophesy Realible" thread where it started.

I'm done helping you hijack this thread.

 

[gnostic]

What's to prove? Ezechiel 26 predicted (among other things) that Tyre would be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzer, that it would become; Ezch.14:"..a bare rock, a drying place for nets.; you shall be built no more"

Never happened. King Neb laid seige to Tyre for 13 years unsuccesfully then finally gave up and went home.

Yeah.

And Alexander the Great did what Nebuchadnezzer couldn't do within a single year. Perhaps, Ezekhiel was prophesying the wrong king? The simplest answer is that Ezekhiel's prediction is just false.

 

[d.n.irvin]

Yeah.

And Alexander the Great did what Nebuchadnezzer couldn't do within a single year. Perhaps, Ezekhiel was prophesying the wrong king? The simplest answer is that Ezekhiel's prediction is just false.

Lets lay this false claim to rest, shall we:

Tyre was the maritime equivalent of Babylon. Carthage, a rival of Rome, was only a colony of Tyre. When Tyre was at the height of its power, the prophet Ezekiel prophesied: "And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water. And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God." Ezekial 26:4,12,14

(Ezekiel, chapter 26). The prophecy states that Tyre would first be razed by Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Later, it would be utterly destroyed by a coalition of nations, flattened like the top of a rock, its ruins (and even its dust) scraped and thrown into the sea, becoming a place for fishermen to spread their nets. The surrounding nations would witness Tyre's fate and surrender without a fight. It's a rather odd prophecy. Amazingly, the conditions of Ezekiel's prophecy were fulfilled, even to the tiniest detail. Nebuchadnezzar sacked Tyre. Later, Alexander the Great led a coalition of nations against Tyre, demolished it, scraped it to bedrock and threw its ruins into the sea. The ancient site became (and remains to this day) a place for local fishermen to spread their nets to dry. (For secular confirmation, see General History for Colleges and High Schools, Boston, Ginn & Co., p. 55).

The City of Tyre

In 586 BC (confirmed by secular sources as the 11th year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah), "Ezekiel" predicts the fall of mainland Tyre to the Babylonian armies of Nebuchadnezzar. 5 The text further describes the siege against the island fortress of Tyre (a half mile off the coast of mainland Tyre) hundreds of years later. Ezekiel's prophecy describes how the future invaders would tear down the ruins of mainland Tyre and throw them into the sea. They would "scrape her dust from her and leave her as the top of a rock". 6 "They will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water." "I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets." 7

Secular history records that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the great mainland city of Tyre about a year after Ezekiel's prophecy. The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "After a 13-year siege (585-573 BC) by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonian suzerainty." 8 When Nebuchadnezzar broke through the city gates, he found it nearly empty. Most of the people had moved by ship to an island about a half mile off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573 BC (Ezekiel's first prediction), but the city of Tyre on the island remained a powerful city for several hundred years.

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

Tyre
Tyre in Smiths Bible Dictionary (Bible History Online)
The Fall of Tyre
Apologetics Press - The Fall of Tyre

Once you have commented on and investigated the 1260 day prophecy, I'll be interested in your opinion of the Historical Accuracy of the Bible

 

[d.n.irvin]

Ezek.29:18: Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon subjected all his army to many hardships against Tyre till every head was made bald and every shoulder weary; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre for the service that he had performed against her.". The Pe****a.
Every other version of the OT says essentailly the same thing. The P****a is just clearest on it.
This is Wesley talking, not the Bible, and according to the bible (and history and geography), he's wrong.
Are you equating Tyre with Troy? Not even close; Tyre's in Lebenon, Troy was in what became Northern Turkey.
No, it doesn't. It says just the oppisite.
Unless of course, like Wesley, they happen to be telling you what you want to hear.
You apparently haven't looked at any of the evidence that's been presented to you so far.
Be sure to check back in when you do.
Or put it this way; you've already been shown more than once that Ezekiel predicted the complete destruction of Tyre, and you've already been shown that it didn't happen (it's still there and according to history always has been. What more proof do you need?).

I don't know what more I can do. In any case, like I said, if you still don't get it please resume this discussion in the "Is Biblical Prophesy Realible" thread where it started.

I'm done helping you hijack this thread.

My reply at post #203

 

[sojourner]

I know that Bible prophecy is 100% reliable

How do you know?

I have given proof with Biblical and Historical facts to attest to this.

You have given us personal interpretation.

Prophecy does not equal history.

 

[d.n.irvin]

How do you know?
You have given us personal interpretation.
I don't have an interpretation - I just believe in the Bible
Prophecy does not equal history.

When it comes to the Bible it does - the Bible is both Historical and Prophetic you can't separate the two.

 

[sojourner]

I don't have an interpretation - I just believe in the Bible

Everyone formulates an interpretation of Biblical writings. To say that you don't is to say that you don't read the Bible. I believe in the Bible, too, but it has to be interpreted through some lens, or it means nothing. Every time someone talks to you, you have to interpret what is being said. Every time you read a sign, you have to interpret what it says. What you believe about the Bible is your interpretation of it (although that interpretation might not always have a basis in reality.)

I said:

Prophecy does not equal history.

You replied:

When it comes to the Bible it does - the Bible is both Historical and Prophetic you can't separate the two.

How is the Bible different from other writings in this regard? History is the written record of human events of the past. Prophecy is a statement of what is, or what will come to be. They are two separate ddisciplines and two separate issues. We know that the Bible is not always 100% historically correct. We don't know the accuracy of prophecy, except by subjective interpretation of the same.

 

[d.n.irvin]

I should have said it "validates history" in my response

Everyone formulates an interpretation of Biblical writings. To say that you don't is to say that you don't read the Bible. I believe in the Bible, too, but it has to be interpreted through some lens,
The Bible itself is the lens, If you actually believe in all of the Bible
or it means nothing. Every time someone talks to you, you have to interpret what is being said. Every time you read a sign, you have to interpret what it says. What you believe about the Bible is your interpretation of it (although that interpretation might not always have a basis in reality.)
That my friend is a mind set, and not based upon Biblical precept. A mind set that strikes at the very core of our society today. That mind set says "there is no right and wrong- only what you interpret to be right or wrong. "Situational Ethics" so to speak

How is the Bible different from other writings in this regard? History is the written record of human events of the past. Prophecy is a statement of what is, or what will come to be. They are two separate ddisciplines and two separate issues. We know that the Bible is not always 100% historically correct. We don't know the accuracy of prophecy, The bible says "prove all things" - God even challenges us in Malachi to" prove Me now... Says the Lord of Hosts" We are to put Bible Prophecy to the test. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Aside from Bible study -we do this in part by comparing secular History along with Bible History. How else?- since none of us were there except by subjective interpretation of the same.

God so designed it- that If one seriously studied Bible prophecy, He would find that Bible Prophecy validates even more- the Word of God. The Bible is so accurate, that when we compare it with History- the Bible increases our Faith.

 

[sojourner]

I should have said it "validates history" in my response



God so designed it- that If one seriously studied Bible prophecy, He would find that Bible Prophecy validates even more- the Word of God. The Bible is so accurate, that when we compare it with History- the Bible increases our Faith.

I still think your method is highly eisegetical and does not prove anything. But if that's how you wish to look at it, who am I to invalidate your belief?

 

[d.n.irvin]

I still think your method is highly eisegetical and does not prove anything. But if that's how you wish to look at it, who am I to invalidate your belief?

It proves the Bible is Historically Accurate It also proves Bible Prophecy is reliable

Bible study is the only method employed here. The only way I wish to look at it - is how the Bible tells me to look at it.

[FONT=&quot]We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts[/FONT] 2 Peter 1:19

[FONT=&quot]Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand Revelation 1:3[/FONT]

When studied, Bible prophecy validates History and vice versa, especially so now. We as Christians should run to the scriptures to validate our FAITH - not the words of men, look around you Satan is attacking God on all fronts today. Now more than ever we need to be sure of Gods Word. It is always upsetting to hear Christians proclaim Christ and the Apostles as there example, when they don't believe what Christ and the Apostles taught.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Timothy 3:16

 

[d.n.irvin]

Protestant Beliefs Most reformers spoke of the papacy as antichrist. The papacy has since that time, received it's deadly wound by France in 1798 (Rev. 13:5,10) and is again becoming popular and powerful just as the prophecies predicted! (Rev. 13:3)

Quote:
Martin Luther (1483-1546) [founder of the Lutheran Church]
“nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist….For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny.” Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197
Quote:
John Calvin (1509-1564) [founder of the Presbyterian Church]
“I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist--I deny him to be the successor of Peter..I deny him to be the head of the church.” “Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt…I shall briefly show that (Pauls words in 2 Thessalonians 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy” John Calvin, Tracts, Vol. 1, pp. 219,220. John Calvin, Institutes.
Quote:
John Wesley (1703-1791) [founder of the Methodist Church]
“He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers… He it is…that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped… claiming the highest power, and highest honor… claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Albert Close, Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, London: Thynne and Co., 1917, p. 110.

 

[gnostic]

Tyre
Tyre in Smiths Bible Dictionary (Bible History Online)
The Fall of Tyre
Apologetics Press - The Fall of Tyre

Once you have commented on and investigated the 1260 day prophecy, I'll be interested in your opinion of the Historical Accuracy of the Bible

The main city of Tyre is on that island, d.n.irvin, especially the port, not on the mainland. So razing the outskirt of the city prove nothing about the historicity of the biblical prophecy.

Persia took Tyre's surrender without a drop of blood being spill. Alexander is still the one to raze Tyre to the ground. Nebechazzar did a half job, which count not much, so Ezekial's prophecy didn't become true.

Gee. I wish you Christians would stop spewing all such of rubbish when it comes to OT prophecy.

 

[d.n.irvin]

The main city of Tyre is on that island, d.n.irvin, especially the port, not on the mainland. So razing the outskirt of the city prove nothing about the historicity of the biblical prophecy.

Persia took Tyre's surrender without a drop of blood being spill. Alexander is still the one to raze Tyre to the ground. Nebechazzar did a half job, which count not much, so Ezekial's prophecy didn't become true.

Gee. I wish you Christians would stop spewing all such of rubbish when it comes to OT prophecy.

Im clueless to what you are saying? did you read the prophecy carefully?

 

[sojourner]

I said:

I still think your method is highly eisegetical and does not prove anything. But if that's how you wish to look at it, who am I to invalidate your belief?

You replied:

It proves the Bible is Historically Accurate It also proves Bible Prophecy is reliable

Bible study is the only method employed here. The only way I wish to look at it - is how the Bible tells me to look at it.

It proves nothing. It cannot prove anything, because it's your subjectiveinterpretation of what you read. Archaeology and extra-Biblical sources are what prove the Bible historically accurate. That prophecy is reliable depends upon how you choose to interpret that prophecy.

I know you're "studying the Bible." It's the particular way you're studying the Bible that I question. There are many different ways to study and interpret what you read. Your approach is eisegetical. Eisegesis proves nothing empirically. but if that's how you want to interpret -- if that's what brings you inspiration, so be it. just don't expect the rest of us to do the same.

The Bible is the "voice of God," but it is also the "voice of men." Why should we not check its accuracy against other disciplines? How else can we "be sure of God's word?"

What did Christ and the apostles teach? We can come up with any number of things, using a purely eisegetical approach. Yes, I think the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, etc...but it depends upon how you interpret what the scriptures are saying. My kitchen sink is profitable for washing dishes and providing water, too, but you have to plug the drain and turn the water on properly in order for it to do that...

 

[sojourner]

Protestant Beliefs Most reformers spoke of the papacy as antichrist. The papacy has since that time, received it's deadly wound by France in 1798 (Rev. 13:5,10) and is again becoming popular and powerful just as the prophecies predicted! (Rev. 13:3)

Quote:
Martin Luther (1483-1546) [founder of the Lutheran Church]
“nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist….For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny.” Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197
Quote:
John Calvin (1509-1564) [founder of the Presbyterian Church]
“I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist--I deny him to be the successor of Peter..I deny him to be the head of the church.” “Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt…I shall briefly show that (Pauls words in 2 Thessalonians 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy” John Calvin, Tracts, Vol. 1, pp. 219,220. John Calvin, Institutes.
Quote:
John Wesley (1703-1791) [founder of the Methodist Church]
“He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers… He it is…that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped… claiming the highest power, and highest honor… claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Albert Close, Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, London: Thynne and Co., 1917, p. 110.

Religious fervor is not a substitute for theological accuracy. Some of us are neither Lutheran nor Calvinist. Some of us are Anglican. The Anglican position did not wish to depart from the Catholic faith in point of doctrine, yet they were also part of the Reformation.

There was considerably more than theological reform going on during the Reformation. Politics played at least as large a role as theology.

Revelation is not a prophecy. It's a vision. There's a difference.

 

[gnostic]

Revelation is not a prophecy. It's a vision. There's a difference.

I thought this was interesting distinction so I started a new topic on this (with a poll).

Revelation: Prophecy or Vision?

 

[d.n.irvin]

We have proved the Historical Accuracy of the Bible many times over. Especially when it comes to Bible Prophecy

 

[logician]

We have proved the Historical Accuracy of the Bible many times over. Especially when it comes to Bible Prophecy

Who's we?

 

[d.n.irvin]

Who's we?[/quote]

Those who have been following these posts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We have proved the Historical Accuracy of the Bible many times over.

That is a delusional statement.