Is Yahweh A Liar? Yes, He Is. I Can Prove It.

[SeekingAllTruth]

Of course it could have a meaning other than what you ascribed to it, but I'll leave this one to the Christians and Jews as it's their scripture and I do not have the context as they do.... I know my own limits.

Very wise.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

He was crucified by the Romans. Part of the punishment was leaving the bodies up there as an object lesson to others. It was a very gruesome and cruel world back then.

Still is.

 

[Left Coast]

11 In the day that thy walls are to be built, in that day shall the decree be far removed.

The decree was removed in 1844:

Edict of Toleration 1844

An edict of toleration is a declaration, made by a government or ruler and states, that members of a given religion will not be persecuted for engaging in their religious practices and traditions. The edict implies tacit acceptance of the religion rather than its endorsement by the ruling power.

Edict of toleration - Wikipedia

So that is not the removal of a decree, it's the declaration of one. So the exact opposite of the prophecy (which doesn't say which decree it's talking about anyway, making it unclear from the start). And no walls built. So not a good start.

Verse 12 describes where the Messiah will come from and go to:

12 In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.

And again, Assyria no longer existed when Bahaullah was alive. So again, not a fulfillment of any prophecy. The rest of the prophecy is vague: lots of people have traveled between mountains, or from one sea to another, etc. There's really nothing to see here, so far.

Verses 13-20 describe what the land would look like and what the Messiah would do.

13 Notwithstanding the land shall be desolate because of them that dwell therein, for the fruit of their doings.

Right, and those places that you mentioned Bahaullah visiting were not "desolate." Again, the vagueness of the prophecy itself is a problem.

14 Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.

15 According to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I shew unto him marvellous things.

16 The nations shall see and be confounded at all their might: they shall lay their hand upon their mouth, their ears shall be deaf.

17 They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the Lord our God, and shall fear because of thee.

18 Who is a God like unto thee, thatpardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? heretaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

20 Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.

And again, none of this happened, unless you suddenly switch from literal to "spiritual" interpretation mid-prophecy. Again, none of this looks good for anyone trying to make an argument for Bahaullah.

1. He would come from Assyria.

Which as we've covered, he didn't. So that's out.

2. He would come from the fortified cities.

This could apply to many many people in history, and again is non-specific.

3. He would come from a fortress to a river.

Again, vague. Which fortress? Which river? The prophecy itself doesn't say.

4. He would come from sea to sea.
5. He would come from mountain to mountain.

More vague prophecies fulfilled by countless people. I've fulfilled those, for goodness' sake.

6. The land to which he came would be desolate.

How was Constantinople "desolate" in the 1860s?

7. He would feed his flock in the midst of Mount Carmel.

Again, we switch to non-literal interpretation. He gave sermons from Mount Carmel, you mean?

8. He would work his wonders for a period equal to the days which the Jews spent coming out of Egypt.

What does "work his wonders" mean, and how many days is that? And where is that documented?

So again, summarizing the list, we have things he outright didn't fulfill, things he fulfilled because they're so vague they've been fulfilled by any number of thousands of people, and non-literal "fulfillment."

1. Come as a Messenger of God and tread upon the high places of the earth.

Coming as a Messenger of God is the thing attempting to be established, so that's a bit of question begging there. "Treading upon the high places" is again vague and has been done by countless people. There are people who spend their entire lives in "the high places of the Earth."

2. Appear in the day when the children of Israel would be gathered into their own land.

So that just outright didn't happen. The Jewish people were not all gathered in their own land in Bahaullah's lifetime. They still aren't.

3. Establish his house in the mountain.

Which mountain? Mount Zion?

4. Draw the people to it in a flow of love.
5. Send forth His love from that mountain.

Again, these are squishy. Any number of religions/religious figures could be said to fulfill these.

6. Go to Babylon.

Again, not a remarkable thing - lots of people have been to Babylon. However, it didn't exist anymore as a city when Bahaullah was in the area. So you'd have to weirdly interpret a prophecy to "visit Babylon" to mean "visit the place where Babylon used to be and is now in ruins."

7. Withdraw from the city.
8. Dwell in the wilderness and the field.

Again, these are vague and have been "fulfilled" my millions.

9. Give birth in Babylon that would redeem the children of Israel.

Bahaullah was a dude, so he never gave birth to anyone.

Even if the Bible prophecies were the ONLY proof of who Baha’u’llah was, that would be enough for me, if I believed in the Bible.

Yikes. I have oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you, Trail!

 

[Quagmire]

It looks like you're making the assumption that the quotations are actually attributable to Yahweh, rather than to some human writer who was making up quotes...

I think a better thread title would have been "people lie about what Yahweh said (if he said anything at all)...

I suspect the OP phrased the title the way that he did for the sake of clickbait.

 

[Quagmire]

It demonstrates quite a bit of enlightenment on your part. I'm rather pleased.

Where as this demonstrates quite a bit of self-importance on your part.

I'm quite amused.

 

[rational experiences]

When the pyramid demonstrated water laying around the bottom of its body and also the Sphinx the river could have gone dry and then natural flooding put the water back. Yet meanwhile the loss of the water would have greatly affected life and Nature.

To study if it were real....a geologist would say, forests or growth of a Nature Garden once existed in the Egyptian vicinity and is now gone.
Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated | Live Science

Humans own consciousness. Humans manipulate and coerce information just for self human want, right or wrong. Which is determined to be lying. How can a God of any name lie? It is present, the entity, O mass Earth. Its heavens as spirits own form and exist in mass. So God by determined human scientific advice never lied. The scientist did, for a choice of his want, not of his need.

We teach human spirituality for a purpose. Seeing humans, natural are spiritual and caring. So an alter condition was introduced......lying that caused a situation for preaching about communal family equality and living to be introduced. Which is why science has it wrong today.

Preaching was a theists place to surmise and infer data reasoning to his science status to build a machine to get the energy power from mass. Knowing that mass was not giving it to him in any other way. So want of invention and how invention caused unnatural change became a new form of proselyting preaching. Maths and science.

Most of their predictions are arguable as natural existed first, and a human is only applying a human study.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He was crucified by the Romans. Part of the punishment was leaving the bodies up there as an object lesson to others. It was a very gruesome and cruel world back then.

Yeah, I know. There was a time when this happened in India also. The world is still very cruel, as we saw during the IS rule. But how long? They had other people to crucify (they crucified two others with Jesus) - till the vultures ate all flesh and the bones fell down?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sometimes they are intended to be interpreted symbolically or metaphorically and sometimes the meaning is literal.

#8 Trailblazer, 10 minutes ago

That’s an accurate assessment...

Waters or water, in the Bible, like @ Revelation 17:1, can mean people, which is clearly explained in Revelation 17:15.

Sea, in the Bible, like we read @ Revelation 21:1 & Luke 21:25, can mean the wicked (the turbulent part of society), revealed in Isaiah 57:20.

And earth, at times, can refer to people also, as seen in Genesis 11:1.

 

[Trailblazer]

So that is not the removal of a decree, it's the declaration of one. So the exact opposite of the prophecy (which doesn't say which decree it's talking about anyway, making it unclear from the start). And no walls built. So not a good start.

And again, Assyria no longer existed when Bahaullah was alive. So again, not a fulfillment of any prophecy. The rest of the prophecy is vague: lots of people have traveled between mountains, or from one sea to another, etc. There's really nothing to see here, so far.

Right, and those places that you mentioned Bahaullah visiting were not "desolate." Again, the vagueness of the prophecy itself is a problem.

And again, none of this happened, unless you suddenly switch from literal to "spiritual" interpretation mid-prophecy. Again, none of this looks good for anyone trying to make an argument for Bahaullah.

Which as we've covered, he didn't. So that's out.

This could apply to many many people in history, and again is non-specific.

Again, vague. Which fortress? Which river? The prophecy itself doesn't say.

More vague prophecies fulfilled by countless people. I've fulfilled those, for goodness' sake.

How was Constantinople "desolate" in the 1860s?

Again, we switch to non-literal interpretation. He gave sermons from Mount Carmel, you mean?

What does "work his wonders" mean, and how many days is that? And where is that documented?

So again, summarizing the list, we have things he outright didn't fulfill, things he fulfilled because they're so vague they've been fulfilled by any number of thousands of people, and non-literal "fulfillment."

Coming as a Messenger of God is the thing attempting to be established, so that's a bit of question begging there. "Treading upon the high places" is again vague and has been done by countless people. There are people who spend their entire lives in "the high places of the Earth."

So that just outright didn't happen. The Jewish people were not all gathered in their own land in Bahaullah's lifetime. They still aren't.

Which mountain? Mount Zion?

Again, these are squishy. Any number of religions/religious figures could be said to fulfill these.

Again, not a remarkable thing - lots of people have been to Babylon. However, it didn't exist anymore as a city when Bahaullah was in the area. So you'd have to weirdly interpret a prophecy to "visit Babylon" to mean "visit the place where Babylon used to be and is now in ruins."

Again, these are vague and have been "fulfilled" my millions.

Bahaullah was a dude, so he never gave birth to anyone.

Yikes. I have oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you, Trail!

In the past, I would have answered your post point by point, but I am no longer compelled to do that because I have no need to prove anything to you, since that is not my job. I know that Baha’u’llah fulfilled all the prophecies for the return of Christ and the Messiah because He was both. Exactly HOW they were fulfilled is explained in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears so if people really want to know if Baha’u’llah was the return of Christ and the Messiah they can read that book. #1-8 and #1-9 in my post was just a list. The actual prophecies and the details regarding how they were fulfilled are in the book. It is called history and geography.

The fact that individual prophecies could have been fulfilled by millions is a moot point because one needs to look at ALL the prophecies and I guarantee you will not find anyone except Baha’u’llah who fulfilled all of them.

You can nitpick the meanings of the prophecies and you can interpret any of these prophecies in various and sundry ways in order to try to prove that Baha’u’llah did not fulfill them; that is what Jews and Christians do. It’s their loss, not mine. I already knew who Baha’u’llah was before I ever read one page of the Bible. The Bible prophecies are just icing on the cake.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about evidence, how to establish the truth of His claims. Please note that He said nothing about looking at Bible prophecies.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yahweh is okay when he makes grand sweeping prophecies that he will do things that are described in vague opaque terms like, "And I will bring forth great suffering on the inhabitants of the earth for they have done evil in my sight. I the Lord have spoken." Well, duh! We've seen people suffering every day since hominids stood upright. But when Yahweh gets real specific then he has a way of tripping all over himself.

Yahweh lied to no less than three prophets in the Old Testament that he would dry up the Nile river and he never did.

"I will dry up the streams of the Nile and sell the land to evil men; by the hand of foreigners I will lay waste the land and everything in it. I the LORD have spoken." Ezekiel 30:12

Never happened.

"...the river shall be wasted and dried up. The fishermen will groan and lament, all who cast hooks into the Nile." Isaiah 19:5,8

Never happened.

"They shall pass through the sea of Egypt, and the waves of the sea shall be smitten and all the depth of the Nile dried up." Zechariah 10:11

The Nile never dried up.

Christians invent all sorts of excuses for God's failure to keep his word. One says, "Well, these are metaphoric. God means he will figuratively dry up the Nile." What???? Another says, "Well, God is really saying that he will dry up the tributaries of the Nile, not the Nile itself."

To that I have a very succinct explanation of why that is erroneous:

The original Hebrew text simply uses the plural form of the word for "Nile" (Ye'or), hence literally the "Niles", likely referring to the various stretches of the river, or the Blue Nile and the White Nile that at one point run together. The plural "Niles" cannot be stretched to mean mere tributaries that would not be considered part of the Nile proper at all. A few other respected translations make this passage a bit more clear:

• "I will dry up the waters of the Nile and sell the land to an evil nation. I the LORD have spoken," New International Version
• "I will dry up the Nile River and sell the land to wicked men. I, the LORD, have spoken!" New Living Translation

Then there's always that old chestnut any apologist can fall back on when all else fails.

"It's a future prophecy yet to be fulfilled."

Come on!

I think you (and probably the fundamentalists) are taking this verse too literally. "Prophecy" against nations were just blanket statements. Jewish literature, especially ones which condemned others, were filled with hyperbole. A good example is the with the destruction of nations. The authors would say that a nation would be utterly destroyed and its people wiped out but in the same book written by the same author those same people would be shown as surviving. So to me the term "the Nile will be dried up" is just hyperbole which is a common trait of Jewish literature.

It could be a symbol for the land of Egypt not being fruitful anymore as well.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I personally believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
Before I say lie I would embrace anything, potentially that God postponed it perhaps.

I believe that God has the power to provide a flawless book... and I believe this to be the Bible.

But doesn't that make prophecy unfalsifiable?

 

[thomas t]

But doesn't that make prophecy unfalsifiable?

maybe.
True, I would always be more inclined to question my own capacities of understanding than the veracity of the Bible.

If you want to look out for evidence, you might want to take a look at the complexity of prophecies that have been fulfilled, such as the gathering of Israel in the Holy Land.

 

[Samael_Khan]

maybe.
True, I would always be more inclined to question my own capacities of understanding than the veracity of the Bible.

If you want to look out for evidence, you might want to take a look at the complexity of prophecies that have been fulfilled, such as the gathering of Israel in the Holy Land.

I have checked those out already. One of the most interesting ones is the prophecy of Tyre but that also has some vague and ambiguous elements in it. It seems like the nature of biblical prophecy is too be vague enough to be truthful and suspect at the same time. Often times the question is: "to what extent must the words stated in a prophecy be fulfilled?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yahweh is okay when he makes grand sweeping prophecies that he will do things that are described in vague opaque terms like, "And I will bring forth great suffering on the inhabitants of the earth for they have done evil in my sight. I the Lord have spoken." Well, duh! We've seen people suffering every day since hominids stood upright. But when Yahweh gets real specific then he has a way of tripping all over himself.

Yahweh lied to no less than three prophets in the Old Testament that he would dry up the Nile river and he never did.

"I will dry up the streams of the Nile and sell the land to evil men; by the hand of foreigners I will lay waste the land and everything in it. I the LORD have spoken." Ezekiel 30:12

Never happened.

"...the river shall be wasted and dried up. The fishermen will groan and lament, all who cast hooks into the Nile." Isaiah 19:5,8

Never happened.

"They shall pass through the sea of Egypt, and the waves of the sea shall be smitten and all the depth of the Nile dried up." Zechariah 10:11

The Nile never dried up.

Christians invent all sorts of excuses for God's failure to keep his word. One says, "Well, these are metaphoric. God means he will figuratively dry up the Nile." What???? Another says, "Well, God is really saying that he will dry up the tributaries of the Nile, not the Nile itself."

To that I have a very succinct explanation of why that is erroneous:

The original Hebrew text simply uses the plural form of the word for "Nile" (Ye'or), hence literally the "Niles", likely referring to the various stretches of the river, or the Blue Nile and the White Nile that at one point run together. The plural "Niles" cannot be stretched to mean mere tributaries that would not be considered part of the Nile proper at all. A few other respected translations make this passage a bit more clear:

• "I will dry up the waters of the Nile and sell the land to an evil nation. I the LORD have spoken," New International Version
• "I will dry up the Nile River and sell the land to wicked men. I, the LORD, have spoken!" New Living Translation

Then there's always that old chestnut any apologist can fall back on when all else fails.

"It's a future prophecy yet to be fulfilled."

Come on!

Make the rivers dry—i.e., the canals of Egypt, by which the land was irrigated, and on which its fertility depended. It may also include the comparative drying, the lessening of the inundation of the Nile, which occurred from time to time, and was the cause of the various famines in Egypt mentioned in Scripture. Source: Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

1 John 2:22 - Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.

 

[capumetu]

Yahweh is okay when he makes grand sweeping prophecies that he will do things that are described in vague opaque terms like, "And I will bring forth great suffering on the inhabitants of the earth for they have done evil in my sight. I the Lord have spoken." Well, duh! We've seen people suffering every day since hominids stood upright. But when Yahweh gets real specific then he has a way of tripping all over himself.

Yahweh lied to no less than three prophets in the Old Testament that he would dry up the Nile river and he never did.

"I will dry up the streams of the Nile and sell the land to evil men; by the hand of foreigners I will lay waste the land and everything in it. I the LORD have spoken." Ezekiel 30:12

Never happened.

"...the river shall be wasted and dried up. The fishermen will groan and lament, all who cast hooks into the Nile." Isaiah 19:5,8

Never happened.

"They shall pass through the sea of Egypt, and the waves of the sea shall be smitten and all the depth of the Nile dried up." Zechariah 10:11

The Nile never dried up.

Christians invent all sorts of excuses for God's failure to keep his word. One says, "Well, these are metaphoric. God means he will figuratively dry up the Nile." What???? Another says, "Well, God is really saying that he will dry up the tributaries of the Nile, not the Nile itself."

To that I have a very succinct explanation of why that is erroneous:

The original Hebrew text simply uses the plural form of the word for "Nile" (Ye'or), hence literally the "Niles", likely referring to the various stretches of the river, or the Blue Nile and the White Nile that at one point run together. The plural "Niles" cannot be stretched to mean mere tributaries that would not be considered part of the Nile proper at all. A few other respected translations make this passage a bit more clear:

• "I will dry up the waters of the Nile and sell the land to an evil nation. I the LORD have spoken," New International Version
• "I will dry up the Nile River and sell the land to wicked men. I, the LORD, have spoken!" New Living Translation

Then there's always that old chestnut any apologist can fall back on when all else fails.

"It's a future prophecy yet to be fulfilled."

Come on!

The only way it can be determined accurately and justly sir is to judge Him during the millennial reign of Christ. We are living in satans world right now, at humans request I might add.

 

[Left Coast]

In the past, I would have answered your post point by point, but I am no longer compelled to do that because I have no need to prove anything to you, since that is not my job. I know that Baha’u’llah fulfilled all the prophecies for the return of Christ and the Messiah because He was both. Exactly HOW they were fulfilled is explained in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears so if people really want to know if Baha’u’llah was the return of Christ and the Messiah they can read that book. #1-8 and #1-9 in my post was just a list. The actual prophecies and the details regarding how they were fulfilled are in the book. It is called history and geography.

Since we're exchanging reading material, mine is much shorter but perhaps may be enlightening for you. I started a thread on what qualifies as a reasonably believable prophecy here:

How To Make a Believable Prophecy

Needless to say, nothing you've mentioned thus far remotely qualifies. If you want to dig further in, that's up to you.

The fact that individual prophecies could have been fulfilled by millions is a moot point because one needs to look at ALL the prophecies and I guarantee you will not find anyone except Baha’u’llah who fulfilled all of them.

At some point the prophecies have to be examined individually. And when you break them down, as we've seen, they're either vague, interpreted "spiritually," or Bahaullah just did not meet the requirement at all. So that's all relevant.

You can nitpick the meanings of the prophecies and you can interpret any of these prophecies in various and sundry ways in order to try to prove that Baha’u’llah did not fulfill them; that is what Jews and Christians do. It’s their loss, not mine. I already knew who Baha’u’llah was before I ever read one page of the Bible. The Bible prophecies are just icing on the cake.

Similarly, you can contort prophesies to convince yourself that Bahaullah fulfilled them if you read them with a preconceived idea already in your head as you just conceded you did. It's called motivated reasoning. If you didn't have that idea already in your head, I wager you wouldn't independently conclude Bahaullah fulfilled the Bible's prophesies.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about evidence, how to establish the truth of His claims. Please note that He said nothing about looking at Bible prophecies.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

We've discussed this somewhat before, but that doesn't help either. How can one conclude from "his own self" that Bahaullah was a Messenger of God? He allegedly did miraculous things? Show me independent verification. He was a loving wonderful person? So is my best friend. What else?

If Bible prophecies are irrelevant to concluding that he's a Messenger, then it's an off topic tangent for this thread and you should take it elsewhere.

 

[firedragon]

Yahweh is okay when he makes grand sweeping prophecies that he will do things that are described in vague opaque terms like, "And I will bring forth great suffering on the inhabitants of the earth for they have done evil in my sight. I the Lord have spoken." Well, duh! We've seen people suffering every day since hominids stood upright. But when Yahweh gets real specific then he has a way of tripping all over himself.

Yahweh lied to no less than three prophets in the Old Testament that he would dry up the Nile river and he never did.

"I will dry up the streams of the Nile and sell the land to evil men; by the hand of foreigners I will lay waste the land and everything in it. I the LORD have spoken." Ezekiel 30:12

Never happened.

"...the river shall be wasted and dried up. The fishermen will groan and lament, all who cast hooks into the Nile." Isaiah 19:5,8

Never happened.

"They shall pass through the sea of Egypt, and the waves of the sea shall be smitten and all the depth of the Nile dried up." Zechariah 10:11

The Nile never dried up.

Christians invent all sorts of excuses for God's failure to keep his word. One says, "Well, these are metaphoric. God means he will figuratively dry up the Nile." What???? Another says, "Well, God is really saying that he will dry up the tributaries of the Nile, not the Nile itself."

To that I have a very succinct explanation of why that is erroneous:

The original Hebrew text simply uses the plural form of the word for "Nile" (Ye'or), hence literally the "Niles", likely referring to the various stretches of the river, or the Blue Nile and the White Nile that at one point run together. The plural "Niles" cannot be stretched to mean mere tributaries that would not be considered part of the Nile proper at all. A few other respected translations make this passage a bit more clear:

• "I will dry up the waters of the Nile and sell the land to an evil nation. I the LORD have spoken," New International Version
• "I will dry up the Nile River and sell the land to wicked men. I, the LORD, have spoken!" New Living Translation

Then there's always that old chestnut any apologist can fall back on when all else fails.

"It's a future prophecy yet to be fulfilled."

Come on!

So since you think YHWH is a liar quoting the Bible you do believe that the Bible is YHWH's word right?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yahweh is okay when he makes grand sweeping prophecies that he will do things that are described in vague opaque terms like, "And I will bring forth great suffering on the inhabitants of the earth for they have done evil in my sight. I the Lord have spoken." Well, duh! We've seen people suffering every day since hominids stood upright. But when Yahweh gets real specific then he has a way of tripping all over himself.

Yahweh lied to no less than three prophets in the Old Testament that he would dry up the Nile river and he never did.

"I will dry up the streams of the Nile and sell the land to evil men; by the hand of foreigners I will lay waste the land and everything in it. I the LORD have spoken." Ezekiel 30:12

Never happened.

"...the river shall be wasted and dried up. The fishermen will groan and lament, all who cast hooks into the Nile." Isaiah 19:5,8

Never happened.

"They shall pass through the sea of Egypt, and the waves of the sea shall be smitten and all the depth of the Nile dried up." Zechariah 10:11

The Nile never dried up.

Christians invent all sorts of excuses for God's failure to keep his word. One says, "Well, these are metaphoric. God means he will figuratively dry up the Nile." What???? Another says, "Well, God is really saying that he will dry up the tributaries of the Nile, not the Nile itself."

To that I have a very succinct explanation of why that is erroneous:

The original Hebrew text simply uses the plural form of the word for "Nile" (Ye'or), hence literally the "Niles", likely referring to the various stretches of the river, or the Blue Nile and the White Nile that at one point run together. The plural "Niles" cannot be stretched to mean mere tributaries that would not be considered part of the Nile proper at all. A few other respected translations make this passage a bit more clear:

• "I will dry up the waters of the Nile and sell the land to an evil nation. I the LORD have spoken," New International Version
• "I will dry up the Nile River and sell the land to wicked men. I, the LORD, have spoken!" New Living Translation

Then there's always that old chestnut any apologist can fall back on when all else fails.

"It's a future prophecy yet to be fulfilled."

Come on!

I don't know history of the Nile. But could it be this already happened for a period of time? I mean the prophecy does not say it will be dry forever.

Other possibility to consider is, these are symbolic. So, Nile could be a symbol, a metaphor, for something else.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I don't know history of the Nile. But could it be this already happened for a period of time? I mean the prophecy does not say it will be dry forever.

Other possibility to consider is, these are symbolic. So, Nile could be a symbol, a metaphor, for something else.

I mentioned else where that prophecies should be interpreted literally. If the psalm says, they have pierced my hands and feet, Christians want to interpret literally. If the prophecy is unfulfilled they want to say it's symbolic. They want to have their cake and eat it. Under conditions where one has a choice of literal metaphoric symbolic or allegory what the point in trying to interpret it. Too many different ways to approach the verse.

 

[Colt]

I mentioned else where that prophecies should be interpreted literally. If the psalm says, they have pierced my hands and feet, Christians want to interpret literally. If the prophecy is unfulfilled they want to say it's symbolic. They want to have their cake and eat it. Under conditions where one has a choice of literal metaphoric symbolic or allegory what the point in trying to interpret it. Too many different ways to approach the verse.

The problem with the scripture books is that some of the highlights really are true.

Another massive revelation occurred in the last century so I have a cheat sheet.

Evolution of the God Concept Among the Hebrews: Paper 97, The Urantia Book



.