The Tyre prophecy

[Agnostic75]

I will move on to another prophecy that is far more certain.

"Far more certain?," now that is cute since in your post 41, you said that the odds that God inspired the Tyre prophecy are roughly 75 million to one. The odds are far less than that that Jesus fulfilled any messianic prophecies, and no rational person would ever claim that the odds that God inspired the Tyre prophecy are even ten to one, let alone 75 million to one. You got those utterly absurd odds from the late Peter W. Stoner, who you amazingly tried to discredit for other reasons later in this thread when I told you that he disagreed with you about something, but it wasn't actually amazing since some of your other sources disagreed with you about some other issues. Of course, Stoner was a nut, as his online book at http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/ shows if you are interested in reading lots of the book. That is where the odds that you mentioned in your post 41 came from.

Holy heck what are you talking about. You have been pushing a debate with me, trying to suck me into new threads, posting the same thing over and over, getting upset even when I was slow in responding, now you really are not interested. Fine with me either way but this is like a Jeckle and Hyde sort of change here.

As is often the case, you have made a false assessment of something. It is you who have a history of withdrawing from debates, not me, four of which I mentioned in my previous post, and you planned to soon withdraw from this thread, which would make five debates that you have withdrawn from. Three of the debates that you withdrew from were not nearly as long as this thread, and the main thread on homosexuality. Your typical tricks when you get into trouble are to claim that I repeat arguments, which I sometimes don't, or that I did not reply to your arguments adequately, which I usually do. In this thread, and in the thread on homosexuality, I replied to far more of your arguments than you replied to mine. Yes, you are busier than I am, but nevertheless, it is you who are evasive, not me. There are still lots of things that need to be discussed regarding those five debates. If necessary, I can provide numerous post numbers from various threads regarding cases where I did not repeat an argument, and you refused to reply to it.

You just let me know what you want to do and I will respond accordingly.

Ok, let's continue all five debates, starting with my post 350 in this thread, and my most recent reply to you in the main thread on homosexuality. You thought that you made a good post when you eventually came up with two main arguments, but all that you did was state two problems, not offer any solutions. Obviously, from a secular moral perspective, no action is wrong unless there are better alternatives, and you did not provide any alternatives that all homosexuals need to use. I agree with you that homosexuals who practice unsafe sex should practice abstinence, but any reasonable person knows that there is no need for long term, monogamous homosexuals who are strongly committed to monogamy to practice abstinence, and especially lesbians, who have far less STD risks than gay men do.

The 350 that predict Christ and points in his life.

As an article at Why Jesus could not be the Messiah of the Old Testament shows, Jesus did not fulfill any messianic prophecies. There is a multitude of evidence, largely from modern Jewish scholars, that shows that Jesus did not fulfill any messianic prophecies.

Wikipedia says:

Judaism generally views Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history. Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs. However, since the mainstream Jewish belief is that the messiah has not yet come and the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism.

Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus.......Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred, including the return of Jews to their homeland and the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace and understanding during which "the knowledge of God" fills the earth, and since Jews believe that none of these events occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards, except for the return of many Jews to their homeland in Israel), he is not a candidate for messiah.

So Jesus could not have been the messiah. Even if Jesus performed miracles, and rose from the dead, he did not fulfill any messianic prophecies, and must have been an imposter.

The Hebrews could not have been God's chosen people. The Old Testament says that God promised Abraham and his descendants all of the ancient land of Canaan as an everlasting convenient. However, today, Israel does not control anywhere near all of the ancient land of Canaan, and there is not any credible evidence that the ancient Hebrews did. Even if they did, the covenant was not everlasting since Israel does not control anywhere near all of the ancient land of Canaan today. No discussion about the Hebrews being God's chosen people can begin until modern Jews control all of the ancient land of Canaan since that was part of the original covenant that God made with Abraham. Many secular arguments can easily explain why modern Israel accomplished what it accomplished. Of course, I much prefer Israel to its neighbors, partly because the majority of Israelis accept homosexuals, and Israel has allowed openly homosexual people to serve in its military for decades, and partly because I prefer Judaism to Islam.

During Old Testament times, there is no way that a loving God would have been primarily concerned with Hebrews, and would have essentially turned his back on everyone else in the world.

Anyway, I will not discuss any of those things in detail until we have finished discussing the other issues that I mentioned in my previous post.

 

[1robin]

"Far more certain?," now that is cute since in your post 41, you said that the odds that God inspired the Tyre prophecy are roughly 75 million to one.

I don't think so: This is what I said (quoted).

The chance then of Ezekiel writing this prophecy from his own knowledge, and having it all come true, is 1 in 3 x 5 x 500 x 10 x 10 x 5 x 20. This is 1 in 75,000,000.

That means the chance of his writing it without God given only natural knowledge or luck.

The odds are far less than that that Jesus fulfilled any messianic prophecies, and no rational person would ever claim that the odds that God inspired the Tyre prophecy are even ten to one, let alone 75 million to one.

Probability is not really your game is it? No complaint it is not most peoples. If X comes true the likelihood God did it increases with it's improbability. If X has a 1 in 10 chance then luck is a reasonable candidate. If a prophecy has a 1 in 1000000000000000000 chance of getting it right by luck then it no longer is satisfactory and God must be viewed as the likely source.

You got those utterly absurd odds from the late Peter W. Stoner, who you amazingly tried to discredit for other reasons later in this thread when I told you that he disagreed with you about something, but it wasn't actually amazing since some of your other sources disagreed with you about some other issues. Of course, Stoner was a nut, as his online book at On-line book: Science Speaks by Peter Stoner (Peter W. Stoner) shows if you are interested in reading lots of the book. That is where the odds that you mentioned in your post 41 came from.

I have no idea who stoner is, he could very well be a nut but his probabilities concerning NATURALLY guessing Tyre's details without God are reasonable. Numbers like those are never extremely accurate which is why I said from the start they are only a ballpark. Divide them by ten, quarter them, half them if you wish they still leave luck as an absurd explanation.

As is often the case, you have made a false assessment of something.

So far you have above have made the only false assessment.

It is you who have a history of withdrawing from debates, not me, four of which I mentioned in my previous post, and you planned to soon withdraw from this thread, which would make five debates that you have withdrawn from. Three of the debates that you withdrew from were not nearly as long as this thread, and the main thread on homosexuality. Your typical tricks when you get into trouble are to claim that I repeat arguments, which I sometimes don't, or that I did not reply to your arguments adequately, which I usually do. In this thread, and in the thread on homosexuality, I replied to far more of your arguments than you replied to mine. Yes, you are busier than I am, but nevertheless, it is you who are evasive, not me. There are still lots of things that need to be discussed regarding those five debates. If necessary, I can provide numerous post numbers from various threads regarding cases where I did not repeat an argument, and you refused to reply to it.

I did not say anything about your constantly withdrawing from debates. I have said the exact opposite. You mistaken assessment number two. I have actually said you never give up on a debate even when it has been over for some time. You just keep posting and repeating posts on and on. I don't know what your talking about. I have no tricks, no fears, and I have not been intimidated and your claiming I have even after my asking you to stop with the unknowable guesses at my motives your still saying so is not helping your credibility at all.

Ok, let's continue all five debates, starting with my post 350 in this thread, and my most recent reply to you in the main thread on homosexuality. You thought that you made a good post when you eventually came up with two main arguments, but all that you did was state two problems, not offer any solutions. Obviously, from a secular moral perspective, no action is wrong unless there are better alternatives, and you did not provide any alternatives that all homosexuals need to use. I agree with you that homosexuals who practice unsafe sex should practice abstinence, but any reasonable person knows that there is no need for long term, monogamous homosexuals who are strongly committed to monogamy to practice abstinence, and especially lesbians, who have far less STD risks than gay men do.

I will decide what I continue or not and have. I will respond to one more post about Tyre if you ever point it out or create it, I will not respond to the dead end homosexuality issue at this time, and I will move on to another prophecy if you ever decide which one you "approve of". That's it, or you can quit if you want.

As an article at Why Jesus could not be the Messiah of the Old Testament shows, Jesus did not fulfill any messianic prophecies. There is a multitude of evidence, largely from modern Jewish scholars, that shows that Jesus did not fulfill any messianic prophecies.

Wikipedia says:



So Jesus could not have been the messiah. Even if Jesus performed miracles, and rose from the dead, he did not fulfill any messianic prophecies, and must have been an imposter.

The Hebrews could not have been God's chosen people. The Old Testament says that God promised Abraham and his descendants all of the ancient land of Canaan as an everlasting convenient. However, today, Israel does not control anywhere near all of the ancient land of Canaan, and there is not any credible evidence that the ancient Hebrews did. Even if they did, the covenant was not everlasting since Israel does not control anywhere near all of the ancient land of Canaan today. No discussion about the Hebrews being God's chosen people can begin until modern Jews control all of the ancient land of Canaan since that was part of the original covenant that God made with Abraham. Many secular arguments can easily explain why modern Israel accomplished what it accomplished. Of course, I much prefer Israel to its neighbors, partly because the majority of Israelis accept homosexuals, and Israel has allowed openly homosexual people to serve in its military for decades, and partly because I prefer Judaism to Islam.

During Old Testament times, there is no way that a loving God would have been primarily concerned with Hebrews, and would have essentially turned his back on everyone else in the world.

Anyway, I will not discuss any of those things in detail until we have finished discussing the other issues that I mentioned in my previous post.

Before I open the ball on this line of prophecy I need to know if you actually quit, are going to quit anytime soon, or are again interested in debating this issue. Your all over the place lately and I am not investing time without first knowing it is justifiable. Which is it?

 

[Agnostic75]

I have no idea who stoner is, he could very well be a nut but his probabilities concerning naturally guessing Tyre's details without God are reasonable.

Not at all, as I have shown many times. Few historians would say that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement by ordinary means. In addition, few historians would be impressed with an ancient prediction that implied that a fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years. Further, the prophecy definitely failed according to your limited time frame, which was only until Alexander left Tyre.

If you changed your mind, and said that you agree with me, and even some of your own sources, that the prophecy was not completely fulfilled until 1291 A.D., my position would be that I cannot reasonably prove that the prophecy failed, but that you have not provided sufficient evidence that it is probable that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

I will decide what I continue or not and have.

And I decided what I will continue, as I told you in my post 360.

I will respond to one more post about Tyre if you ever point it out or create it.......

I already did. In my post 360, I told you that I was able to include all of my most recent arguments in my post 350. I would like to amend Argument 2 in my post 350 as follows:

You claimed that the time limit was only until Alexander defeated the fortress, and that after that, there was no Phoenician presence at the island. If that is true, the prophecy definitely failed for the following reasons:

The island did not look anything like a bare rock at that time. Alexander left the fortress largely undamaged, and Arrian says that very little damage was done to the wall that faced the causeway, and Arrian implies that no breaches were made from the causeway, and that only a few breaches were made. There is no way that a largely undamaged fortress can look like a bare rock that has been scraped clean.

The island was useful for much more than just the spreading of nets since Alexander left the fortress largely undamaged, and it was rebuilt.

It was quite absurd that you asked me to predict when an earthquake would cover part of an island with water when there were not any recorded earthquakes in Lebanon within your brief time frame, and there is not any credible evidence that the majority of the island has ever been covered by water since Ezekiel's time, and today, the majority of the island is covered by modern buildings, not by water.

I will not respond to the dead end homosexuality issue at this time.......

I easily refuted your two main arguments regarding homosexuality a number of times, in various threads, and with various arguments. Your two main arguments are:

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

I already told you that both of those claims are composition fallacies. You said that they aren't, but they definitely are. Wikipedia says:

"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)."

If you used the words "homosexuality" in item 1, and "it" in item 2, to refer to all homosexuals, then you made two composition fallacies since you judged all homosexuals based upon some homosexuals. It is quite obvious to almost anyone that nowhere near all homosexuals produce massive increases in suffering, death, and cost, and common sense indicates that homosexuality is justified for long term monogamous homosexuals who have proven that they are strongly committed to monogamy.

All that you did was state two problems, and no solutions. From a secular moral perspective, no action is wrong unless there area better alternatives. Abstinence would be a better alternative for homosexuals who practice unsafe sex, but not for long term monogamous homosexuals who have shown that they are strongly committed to monogamy, and not for homosexuals who tried long term abstinence and ended up much worse off than they were before.

You have no secular moral basis to recommend that all homosexuals should practice abstinence since you said that some other high risks groups should not practice abstinence. I am referring to black American heterosexuals, who have high risks, black African heterosexuals, who have much higher risks, heterosexuals who live in poverty, and heterosexual women 45 years of age and older, many of whom have sex only for pleasure, and are not needed in most countries to maintain the populations. You have even less of a secular moral basis since you also said that any deaths at all from AIDS is too many when I asked you how many deaths is too many. As far as I know, you never replied to the arguments in this paragraph when I made some similar arguments months ago.

As I told you in my post 360, I will not discuss any new topic with you unless you are willing to continue discussing five issues at lot more, including homosexuality, and that after we conclude those discussions to my satisfaction, then I would be willing to discuss some new topics. A topic has not been sufficiently discussed just because you say that it has. Regarding any topic that you have refused to discuss anymore, I could easily prove that there are plenty of issues that need lots of further discussions.

Although I would be willing to discuss some new topics with you under the circumstances that I mentioned, there is no need since I already provided reasonable proof using different arguments, reference my post 360, that the God of the Bible does not exist. In addition, you have not reasonably proven that God is not an imposter. If God is an imposter, either he inspired Bible prophecies, or prophets made them up themselves.

You do not need me around to discuss Bible prophecy since billions of people reject it, and you can discuss it with some of them. There are a number of Jews, and skeptics at this forum who would be happy to discuss messianic prophecies with you.

 

[1robin]

Not at all, as I have shown many times. Few historians would say that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement by ordinary means. In addition, few historians would be impressed with an ancient prediction that implied that a fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years. Further, the prophecy definitely failed according to your limited time frame, which was only until Alexander left Tyre.

For the twentieth time you cannot eradicate a dozen claims by showing that one had possible if improbable naturalistic sources. That is a composition fallacy.

If you changed your mind, and said that you agree with me, and even some of your own sources, that the prophecy was not completely fulfilled until 1291 A.D., my position would be that I cannot reasonably prove that the prophecy failed, but that you have not provided sufficient evidence that it is probable that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

You could not duplicate the claim using all of humanity as a source so humanity has not been shown to be the source. That only leaves luck and God. Luck is out because the probabilities are extremely unlikely. If you gave me any 50% of similar islands in all likelihood none would meet that prophecy in that time span much less one.

And I decided what I will continue, as I told you in my post 360.

I give up, and will just keep typing until you quit or something.

I already did. In my post 360, I told you that I was able to include all of my most recent arguments in my post 350. I would like to amend Argument 2 in my post 350 as follows:

So post 350 is your last hat in the ring with the below amendment. Ok I will get to it soon.

I easily refuted your two main arguments regarding homosexuality a number of times, in various threads, and with various arguments. Your two main arguments are:

How is this an amendment to post 350?

I already told you that both of those claims are composition fallacies. You said that they aren't, but they definitely are. Wikipedia says:

"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)."

If you used the words "homosexuality" in item 1, and "it" in item 2, to refer to all homosexuals, then you made two composition fallacies since you judged all homosexuals based upon some homosexuals. It is quite obvious to almost anyone that nowhere near all homosexuals produce massive increases in suffering, death, and cost, and common sense indicates that homosexuality is justified for long term monogamous homosexuals who have proven that they are strongly committed to monogamy.

All that you did was state two problems, and no solutions. From a secular moral perspective, no action is wrong unless there area better alternatives. Abstinence would be a better alternative for homosexuals who practice unsafe sex, but not for long term monogamous homosexuals who have shown that they are strongly committed to monogamy, and not for homosexuals who tried long term abstinence and ended up much worse off than they were before.

You have no secular moral basis to recommend that all homosexuals should practice abstinence since you said that some other high risks groups should not practice abstinence. I am referring to black American heterosexuals, who have high risks, black African heterosexuals, who have much higher risks, heterosexuals who live in poverty, and heterosexual women 45 years of age and older, many of whom have sex only for pleasure, and are not needed in most countries to maintain the populations. You have even less of a secular moral basis since you also said that any deaths at all from AIDS is too many when I asked you how many deaths is too many. As far as I know, you never replied to the arguments in this paragraph when I made some similar arguments months ago.

As I told you in my post 360, I will not discuss any new topic with you unless you are willing to continue discussing five issues at lot more, including homosexuality, and that after we conclude those discussions to my satisfaction, then I would be willing to discuss some new topics. A topic has not been sufficiently discussed just because you say that it has. Regarding any topic that you have refused to discuss anymore, I could easily prove that there are plenty of issues that need lots of further discussions.

Although I would be willing to discuss some new topics with you under the circumstances that I mentioned, there is no need since I already provided reasonable proof using different arguments, reference my post 360, that the God of the Bible does not exist. In addition, you have not reasonably proven that God is not an imposter. If God is an imposter, either he inspired Bible prophecies, or prophets made them up themselves.

You do not need me around to discuss Bible prophecy since billions of people reject it, and you can discuss it with some of them. There are a number of Jews, and skeptics at this forum who would be happy to discuss messianic prophecies with you.

Despite the ease it would require I am not wasting my time engaging in a homosexuality debate. You do not appear capable of conceding the most lopsided of arguments concerning it. You also seem to desire debate, suggest there is no need for one, then agree to any subject all in the same post. I have no idea what you want to do so I will respond to 350 and see what happens.

 

[Agnostic75]

Not at all, as I have shown many times. Few historians would say that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement by ordinary means. In addition, few historians would be impressed with an ancient prediction that implied that a fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years. Further, the prophecy definitely failed according to your limited time frame, which was only until Alexander left Tyre.

For the twentieth time you cannot eradicate a dozen claims by showing that one had possible if improbable naturalistic sources. That is a composition fallacy.

A composition fallacy is judging a whole based upon some of the parts. I did not do that regarding that paragraph. I was only judging what I judged in that paragraph. Regarding "a dozen claims," please be specific, and I will adequately refute them again as I already have many times.

If you changed your mind, and said that you agree with me, and even some of your own sources, that the prophecy was not completely fulfilled until 1291 A.D., my position would be that I cannot reasonably prove that the prophecy failed, but that you have not provided sufficient evidence that it is probable that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

You could not duplicate the claim using all of humanity as a source so humanity has not been shown to be the source. That only leaves luck and God. Luck is out because the probabilities are extremely unlikely. If you gave me any 50% of similar islands in all likelihood none would meet that prophecy in that time span much less one.

Again, please be specific. Also, please state which parts of the prophecy were fulfilled within your brief time frame, which was only about 254 years. The actual time frame was about 1700 years since the fortress was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D., and even some of your own sources say that.

I already did. In my post 360, I told you that I was able to include all of my most recent arguments in my post 350.

I would like to amend Argument 2 in my post 350.........

So post 350 is your last hat in the ring with the below amendment. Ok I will get to it soon.

As I have told you, I would reply to your reply to my post 350 whether or not you withdrew from this thread after that. You have been wasting time instead of replying to that post.

How is this an amendment to post 350?

In my previous post, I said that "I would like to amend Argument 2 in my post 350," and that is what I did. In my previous post, I posted the amendment to Argument 2, not the original Argument 2.

I easily refuted your two main arguments regarding homosexuality a number of times, in various threads, and with various arguments. Your two main arguments are:

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

I already told you that both of those claims are composition fallacies. You said that they aren't, but they definitely are. Wikipedia says:

"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)."

If you used the words "homosexuality" in item 1, and "it" in item 2, to refer to all homosexuals, then you made two composition fallacies since you judged all homosexuals based upon some homosexuals. It is quite obvious to almost anyone that nowhere near all homosexuals produce massive increases in suffering, death, and cost, and common sense indicates that homosexuality is justified for long term monogamous homosexuals who have proven that they are strongly committed to monogamy.

All that you did was state two problems, and no solutions. From a secular moral perspective, no action is wrong unless there area better alternatives. Abstinence would be a better alternative for homosexuals who practice unsafe sex, but not for long term monogamous homosexuals who have shown that they are strongly committed to monogamy, and not for homosexuals who tried long term abstinence and ended up much worse off than they were before.

You have no secular moral basis to recommend that all homosexuals should practice abstinence since you said that some other high risks groups should not practice abstinence. I am referring to black American heterosexuals, who have high risks, black African heterosexuals, who have much higher risks, heterosexuals who live in poverty, and heterosexual women 45 years of age and older, many of whom have sex only for pleasure, and are not needed in most countries to maintain the populations. You have even less of a secular moral basis since you also said that any deaths at all from AIDS is too many when I asked you how many deaths is too many. As far as I know, you never replied to the arguments in this paragraph when I made some similar arguments months ago.

Despite the ease it would require I am not wasting my time engaging in a homosexuality debate. You do not appear capable of conceding the most lopsided of arguments concerning it. You also seem to desire debate, suggest there is no need for one, then agree to any subject all in the same post. I have no idea what you want to do so I will respond to 350 and see what happens.

It would not be easy at all for you to refute those arguments, and that is why you will not discuss them. Almost anyone knows that you made two composition fallacies since nowhere near all homosexuals produce massive increases in suffering, death, and cost. That is a fact, and even most sixth graders would know that. In addition, no reasonable person would say that homosexuality is not justified for long term homosexuals who have proven that they are strongly committed to monogamy. Further, I was right that you have no secular moral basis to say that all homosexuals should practice abstinence since you said that some other high risks groups of people should not practice abstinence, and especially since you said that any deaths from AIDS at all is too many, thereby hypocritically refuting your own claim that some other high risk groups of people should not practice abstinence. It is incredible that you still claim that you won the debates when I easily won them.

 

[1robin]

A composition fallacy is judging a whole based upon some of the parts. I did not do that regarding that paragraph. I was only judging what I judged in that paragraph. Regarding "a dozen claims," please be specific, and I will adequately refute them again as I already have many times.

OOOOHHHHHHH PEACHES. That is pretty much what you did you wrote off a prophecy with many aspects to it by merely offering a not impossible explanation for one of them. Of course you threw anything at the wall concerning some of the other aspects in other places but I was referring to your summation in that paragraph.

Again, please be specific. Also, please state which parts of the prophecy were fulfilled within your brief time frame, which was only about 254 years. The actual time frame was about 1700 years since the fortress was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D., and even some of your own sources say that.

I have been but now I am trying to wind down this Tyre morass and move on.

As I have told you, I would reply to your reply to my post 350 whether or not you withdrew from this thread after that. You have been wasting time instead of replying to that post.

Exactly I have been having to respond to your posts about debating, homosexuality, or me personally instead of getting to post 350.

In my previous post, I said that "I would like to amend Argument 2 in my post 350," and that is what I did. In my previous post, I posted the amendment to Argument 2, not the original Argument 2.

You said that but the next statement was about homosexuality. Where is the amendment to the claim about Tyre?

It would not be easy at all for you to refute those arguments, and that is why you will not discuss them.

I have told you several times anything that contains your guesses at my motivation which are so horribly flawed and self serving will not be responded to so ........

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I suggest that we take one thing at a time, starting with my post 350, and the amended Argument 2. Following is the amendment, which I already posted in my post 363:

You claimed that the time limit was only until Alexander defeated the fortress, and that after that, there was no Phoenician presence at the island. If that is true, the prophecy definitely failed for the following reasons:

The island did not look anything like a bare rock at that time. Alexander left the fortress largely undamaged, and Arrian says that very little damage was done to the wall that faced the causeway, and Arrian implies that no breaches were made from the causeway, and that only a few breaches were made. There is no way that a largely undamaged fortress can look like a bare rock that has been scraped clean.

The island was useful for much more than just the spreading of nets since Alexander left the fortress largely undamaged, and it was rebuilt.

It was quite absurd that you asked me to predict when an earthquake would cover part of an island with water when there were not any recorded earthquakes in Lebanon within your brief time frame, and there is not any credible evidence that the majority of the island has ever been covered by water since Ezekiel's time, and today, the majority of the island is covered by modern buildings, not by water.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

I appreciate it.

Argument 1



Been there, done that. I said:

You never even attempted to. We were specifically discussing a island fortress predicted to be significantly covered by the sea without any geological process being apparent to enable that prediction. I gave you all of time and all of humanity. You did not post a single example.

As I showed, I will be happy to do what Ezekiel did if you will provide some circumstances that are similar to the mainland settlement, and the island fortress. If you cannot provide any, then your argument was obviously not valid.

What? I did so over and over again. I asked you to even give me the next battle we would fight and we have the internet and TV and are fighting tow wars. You did not even try that and it had but one requirement and you are not a slave.

#1 was a completely failure.

Argument 2

You claimed that the time limit was only until Alexander defeated the fortress, and that after that, there was no Phoenician presence at the island. If that is true, the prophecy definitely failed for the following three reasons for which I will use three numbered arguments:

The island did not look anything like a bare rock at that time. Alexander left the fortress largely undamaged, and Arrain says that very little damage was done to the wall that faced the causeway, and Arrian implies that no breaches were made from the causeway, and that only a few breaches were made. There is no way that a largely undamaged fortress can look like a bare rock that has been scraped clean.

Consider the following:

Ezekiel 26:4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.



Alexander did not make the island like "a bare smooth rock, as it was at first." In addition, Alexander did not cause anywhere near the "utter destruction" of the island.

At Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre, Arrian gives a lengthy description of the battle. He says that the wall that faced the causeway was damaged very little, and that Alexander had to go elsewhere to breach the walls.

Prophecies, especially prophecies with analogies must be read with common sense not the intent to deny. I have already shown over and over that Tyre's destruction was extreme. Alexander built a causeway for the largest siege engines ever constructed, brought in two Navies, hired a third and strapped the first rams to ships in history. I also showed he was out for annihilation not victory because of the way his messengers were treated and because he could not leave an intact military in his rear once he saw they were insincere. He gave up quickly getting them to surrender and set about exhaustive siege practices larger than any known before. he could not breach a single place and hope to win, he had to reduce the place to rubble. That rubble is now in building foundation for hundreds of miles around. The only question remains if the damage reasonably equaled an analogy with a rock. It is hard to tell at this point but there exists no evidence to suggest the metaphor was inapplicable. That city does not exist, even much of the island was submerged. I think the prophecy only indicates something unusually sever and that is a historical fact, concerning what occurred. BTW my time frame did not end with Alexander, but only with the invention of gun powder. It does not describe anything consistent with gun powder tactics but older siege engine methods.

Argument 3

The issue of the spreading of nets complements, and works with Ezekiel's descriptions of the widespread destruction of the fortress, and the rest of the island. The island was useful for much more than just the spreading of nets since the fortress was rebuilt. Since nets were spread before, and after Alexander defeated the fortress, Ezekiel must have meant that the island would be useful only for the spreading of nets, which did not happen until 1291A.D., when the fortress was completely destroyed.

That part of the prophecy concerns the immediate aftermath not anytime from hen on. You consistently apply the prophecy to times, people, and places that no justification can be given for. IN general the prophecy indicates that what the Phoenicians had so much confidence in would utterly fail. It uses apocalyptic language to indicate not catalogue details to indicate the level of destruction. The fortress was no longer a fortress immediately after Alexander was done with it, it was only used for spreading nets. Anyone later building there has no relevance whatever if they were not Phoenician. You include the Islam destruction which may very well have been intended but I and most see no need to go past Alexander if simple literary exegesis is used.

Argument 4

The island was certainly not largely covered with water at that time, and probably not even 25%, especially since the causeway would have helped to prevent erosion.

You said that earthquakes covered part of the island with water, but no recorded earthquakes occurred by that time.

I said the prophecy indicated a significant portion would be inundated and I said earthquakes are simply how that took place, and they did do just that. I showed you the far more relevant accounts from very early periods which record the older fortress lying in ruins underwater. The account said that is the only place it could be seen but that is not required by the prophecy. This is an extremely uncommon events, People do not build expensive fortresses on unstable island and that islands history was well known and solid.

I have no problems with the possibility that verse 19 is a metaphor, and I quoted a Bible commentary that says that the verse is a metaphor, but I do have some problems with your claim that the verse is also literal, primarily because you have not provided any scientific, or historical evidence that the water level of the island rose at all by the time that Alexander left Tyre, and because no recorded earthquakes occurred by that time.

I don't know that it is but double meanings and intents are so frequent in prophecy that I have perfect justification for finding it here.

As far as metaphors are concerned, I doubt that they make any Bible prophecy more believable.

They most certainly do if they represent unlikely events. If I said tomorrow fort knox would disappear like (any given metaphor) it would be extremely unlikely regardless of he metaphor used. Metaphors are not supposed to add to believability (no need) they are designed to convey significance or extent.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Nebuchadnezzar got to Tyre in 586 B.C., which is the same year that one of your sources says Ezekiel wrote the Tyre prophecy. Alexander left Tyre in 332 B.C. That means that there were only 254 years for the island to be partly covered by water, for the island to be useful only for the spreading of nets, and for the island to look like a bare rock. Even many conservative Christians reject that, including at least two of your own sources, and John A. Bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is a colleague of William Lane Craig at Biola University.

I can't believe either of us used a guy with a masters in theology for history. I have given so many historians who agreed with me that I can't see how any more would help. I am at an impasse if historians and exegesis was not acceptable. There are no other relevant sources and saying other disagree is not persuasive as others disagree about virtually everything.

Argument 5

Even if you changed your date to 1291 A.D., when the fortress was finally completely destroyed, that would not be reasonable evidence that it is probable that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

I'm am not doing so but why in the heck not? It was still extraordinarily improbable.

Argument 6

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible says:



Almost all Christian defenders of the Tyre prophecy misinterpret verse 12, and claim that Alexander fulfilled part of it when he built the causeway. You said that it doesn't matter if verse 12 refers only to the island fortress, but it matters a great deal to the many conservative Christians who claim that Alexander's building of the causeway fulfilled part of verse 12. You said that Alexander's damage to the walls, which by the way was only moderate, would have fulfilled verse 12, but that is not likely since chapter 26 describes far great destruction to the fortress than Alexander caused.

At the very least, you cannot provide any credible evidence that Alexander's damage to the walls probably fulfilled verse 12.

If you wish, I can explain why verse 12 refers only to the island fortress.

Every single interpretation I have seen suggests that between the two of them the stones of both cities would be cast into the ocean. Maybe not in the same event, maybe not in the same amounts, maybe not at the same time, but both were perfectly accomplished. Both attackers left stones from the island on the sea bed, but not in the same amounts or in the same way so you showing it only meant the fortress does not help you. Nebuchadnezzar beats stones off the walls and towers into the water with his minor siege attempts, Alexander left heaps of them there in his massive siege attempts.

Argument 7

Surely few historians would be impressed by an ancient prophecy that predicted that a fortress on an island would be largely destroyed within 1700 years.

I would think they would be absolutely astounded if a few of the significant details were included. In fact I cannot think of a similar attack ever having occurred in ancient history. Even landlocked destruction of this magnitude was very rare. Just about ever similar fortress in the same area survived without even a fraction as much damage during the period before gun powder and even after. Even much later crusader year long sieges did not destroy the fortresses.

Argument 8

Surely very few historians, including those who know that Ezekiel was a slave in Babylon, would say that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned by ordinary means about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement. William Lane Craig, and Ravi Zacharias are not historians, but I assume that they would not claim that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned about the plans by ordinary means even if they believe that God told him about the plans. Logically, it would not be possible for anyone living today to adequately estimate the odds that Ezekiel learned about the plans by ordinary means. It doesn't matter how you reply to these arguments since you will never get anywhere with them with any skeptic, most liberal Christians, and even some conservative Christians.

It certainly is unlikely but it is not impossible. This remains your only point that has any teeth in my opinion but it has very few of them.

Do you know of any historians who claim that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned about the plans by ordinary means?

Can't remember but I have never read a historian who suggested it as the best explanation. Probably are some but I have never read them.

Argument 9

You said that is was very unusual that Alexander attacked the island fortress, and that the only reason that he attacked it was because the Tyrians hung his messengers from the walls. However, Arrian shows that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers. In addition, Arrian says that Alexander had some strategic reasons for attacking the fortress. Further, some modern sources say that Alexander had some strategic reasons for attacking the fortress.

Not exactly. It is always better to have opposition simply agree to support you than spend energy attacking them. Alexander was initially told the Tyrian's would not interfere and would align themselves with his efforts. He decided to test them by asking to worship in their temple, They refused and made his suspicious, so he sent messengers. They hung hem on the walls, this infuriated him so he invested the place. This combined with their attacking his camp while he was away and the failures of the causeway made him madder still and he resolved to annihilate the place which was not his preference. In general Alexander was merciful to anyone who surrendered but he had to make an example of anyone who stubbornly held out so as to limit future resistance. It was not one moment or event but steady escalation of events. Every aspect and stage of this is proven reliable and militarily sound.

Argument 10

You said that Alexander's use of certain naval equipment was unprecedented, but it was plausible, if not probable that someone would defeat the fortress within 1700 years. You said that it was very unusual that Alexander killed, or enslaved many thousands of Tyrians, but Ezekiel did not say anything about how many people would be killed, and he did not say anything about slavery.

Of course it was plausible he had them. You don't invent implausible things. It was the rams that were so extraordinary, it was the destruction that made them a necessity. It is not miraculous to put a ram on a ship, it is to suggest damage only a never before seen ram on a ship cool accomplish. You keep confusing the details I mention about mechanism with the events. Earthquakes were not predicted, rams were not predicted they just happened to be the extreme means by which very rare things occurred. I also mention details to indicate the extremity of things such as total slavery or death, the size of his land based siege weapons, the causeway they necessitated not as a prediction themselves but as the very rare necessities required to accomplish it.

Please reply to my previous post.

I isn't done with this one yet. Even being optimists your counter claims are only arguments for a natural explanation for the most part but this surely is not reasonable looking at this probabilistically.

You cannot divide and conquer even with additive claims, like the moon is made of igneous, basaltic, or sedimentary rock. But Ezekiel's claims are multiplicative. So he says that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer the mainland, AND fail to reach the island, AND fail to secure enough loot to pay for his troops, AND combined with another attacker they would defeat an impregnable fortress, AND it would be used for spreading nets, AND it would never be rebuilt, etc.......

There can be no possible claim hat Ezekiel was not close even if not perfect and the probability to even explain getting close gets exponentially smaller with each AND. That is why the bible says it takes the supernatural to even get close but God himself to be perfect. Cayce was not even close constantly, Nostradamus was so vague he was close to everything so in effect he was close to nothing, even among the most accurate pal readers, etc..... they are perfectly wring more than even close.

It is silly to suggest Ezekiel picked an island that just happened to be partially flooded, that he just happen to pick one of the strongest fortresses of it's day and it's improbable defeat, he just happen to guess that Nebuchadnezzar would not find enough loot in Tyre, that his military genuine knew he would not take he city, that his access as a slave meant he knew his destination, that he was just lucky in saying Phoenicia would never rebuild Tyre, etc.... Because every single one would have to have an improbability just happened to be true without any agency. You must provide and explanation for the whole that is better than mine. You don't you give (with a single exception) differing reasons that each one is inaccurate or knowable. I asked you to repeat that performance on either a sinking island or our next battle using anything in history or in technology as and and you did not even attempt it. Imagine if I asked you to predict the next massive city that would be destroyed, AND the next fortress that would be annihilated, AND he next Island that would be partially submerged, AND a half dozen more details from only yourself. You would not get a single one right or probably even close.

Anyway enough with Tyre. I will next post some prophecies about Christ.

 

[Agnostic75]

You did not do what you said Ezekiel did despite me giving you massive, gargantuan, and enormous advantages in every way possible.

If you can find similar circumstances today regarding Nebuchadnezzar, and the mainland settlement, I will be happy to predict that the attacker will severely damage a fortress.

In addition, if you can find similar circumstances today regarding the island fortress, I will be happy to predict that it will be largely damaged within 1700 years.

As I showed, I will be happy to do what Ezekiel did if you will provide some circumstances that are similar to the mainland settlement, and the island fortress. If you cannot provide any, then your argument was obviously not valid.

What? I did so over and over again. I asked you to even give me the next battle we would fight and we have the internet and TV and are fighting two wars. You did not even try that and it had but one requirement and you are not a slave.

But as I have told you many times, it is plausible that Ezekiel knew by ordinary means that Nebuchadnezzar had planned to attack the mainland settlement, which hundreds, or thousands of other people knew.

As I told you in part of Argument 8, "surely very few historians, including those who know that Ezekiel was a slave in Babylon, would say that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned by ordinary means about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement." You need support from a consensus of historians, and you do not have it. The only historians in the world who would agree with you would be some conservative Christian historians, and even some of them would not say that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned by ordinary means that Nebuchadnezzar planned to attack the mainland settlement.

General, or usual modern military secrecy is not relevant to the specific example of ancient Babylon since each kingdom had its own military secrecy characteristics. In order to adequately discuss the situation, we would have to know how much, and which kinds of military preparations went on inside the city walls of Babylon, how many people knew about the preparations, what the odds are that Ezekiel saw some of the preparations, and what the odds are that someone told Ezekiel about the preparations if he did not see any of the preparations, and we do not have and of that information.

Do you know of any historians who claim that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned about the plans by ordinary means?

Can't remember but I have never read a historian who suggested it as the best explanation. Probably are some but I have never read them.

I said "plausible," not "the best explanation." All that I need is plausibility, not probability.

It is silly to suggest Ezekiel picked an island that just happened to be partially flooded, that he just happen to pick one of the strongest fortresses of it's day and it's improbable defeat, he just happen to guess that Nebuchadnezzar would not find enough loot in Tyre, that his military genuine knew he would not take he city, that his access as a slave meant he knew his destination, that he was just lucky in saying Phoenicia would never rebuild Tyre, etc.

There is not any historical, scientific, or biblical evidence that the water level of the island rose at all within your time limit of 500 years, and no recorded earthquakes occurred during 500 years. Regarding your 500 year time limit, I will quote you later in this post.

As I have told you, some Bible commentaries say that the island becoming covered by water is a metaphor.

It was not improbable that the island fortress would be defeated, and largely destroyed during 1700 years, and it was defeated twice within 20 years after Alexander died.

Regarding the loot, Ezekiel wrote about that many years later, in chapter 29, about the time that Nebuchadnezzar left Tyre. At that time, it was already obvious to many people that Nebuchadnezzar did not get any loot.

Ezekiel did not claim that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the island fortress since he knew that Nebuchadnezzar did not have a navy.

Historically, it has been common for cities to never be rebuilt to their former glory.

Ezekiel did not predict anything that was unusual, and was not suspected by many other people.

Prophecies, especially prophecies with analogies must be read with common sense not the intent to deny.

No, prophecies should be read with the intent to deny since God did not inspire any of them.

I have already shown over and over that Tyre's destruction was extreme. Alexander built a causeway for the largest siege engines ever constructed, brought in two navies, hired a third and strapped the first rams to ships in history. I also showed he was out for annihilation not victory because of the way his messengers were treated and because he could not leave an intact military in his rear once he saw they were insincere. He gave up quickly getting them to surrender and set about exhaustive siege practices larger than any known before. He could not breach a single place and hope to win, he had to reduce the place to rubble. That rubble is now in building foundation for hundreds of miles around. The only question remains if the damage reasonably equaled an analogy with a rock. It is hard to tell at this point but there exists no evidence to suggest the metaphor was inapplicable. That city does not exist, even much of the island was submerged. I think the prophecy only indicates something unusually severe and that is a historical fact, concerning what occurred.

What historical evidence did you provide that says that Alexander reduced the fortress to rubble? Arrian's detailed description of the battle does not indicate anything like that.

I quoted some Bible commentaries that indicate that the island did not look anything like a bare rock after Alexander defeated the island fortress.

BTW my time frame did not end with Alexander, but only with the invention of gun powder. It does not describe anything consistent with gun powder tactics but older siege engine methods.

Consider the following:

Even if you changed your date to 1291 A.D., when the fortress was finally completely destroyed, that would not be reasonable evidence that it is probable that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

I'm am not doing so but why in the heck not? It was still extraordinarily improbable.

That just happened today, and you said that you would not change your date to 1291 A.D. except for the purpose of claiming that even with that much time that it was still improbable that the fortress would be defeated by that time.

Over five months ago, you said:

No weapon that existed more than 500 years later nor tactic was mentioned. Every tactic, methodology, and weapon existed pre 1st century.

Even the Romans stopped using axes to break down towers long before that.

So I was wrong that you limited the time frame to 254 years since you limited it to 500 years, but even that is way too short since the fortress was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D.

It was I who first brought up the issue of gunpowder in my post 182 when I mentioned cannons, and now you are finally using my argument. I said that the prophecy had at least until the invention of cannons to be fulfilled, and you objected, but now you have changed your argument and agree with me.

Consider the following from your post 245:

Nonsense, it is probable that someone would have conquered the island fortress by 1200 A.D.

The prophecy was against the Phoenicians and what they had built. Their rule over Tyre came to an end in BC and was barely a memory in 1200 AD. The Hellenistic period of the city has nothing to do with the prophecy.

You would not agree with a date of 1200 A.D. in that post, but now you agree with the date of when gunpowder was invented, and cannons were not used in the vicinity of Lebanon until after 1200 A.D.

That part of the prophecy concerns the immediate aftermath not anytime from then on. You consistently apply the prophecy to times, people, and places that no justification can be given for.

But that is what you are doing by limiting the spreading of nets issue to just after Alexander defeated the fortress, and without any justification for doing so. Ezekiel plausibly, or probably meant that the island would become a place that was only useful for the spreading of nets after it was completely destroyed, which did not happen until 1291 A.D.

You argument is also not valid since any party who defeated the fortress within 1700 years would have temporarily made the island only useful for the spreading of nets. I doubt that very many ancient military historians would say that Ezekiel meant that every time that anyone conquered the fortress was a fulfillment of what the prophecy says about nets. I assume that most historians would say that the final destruction of the island in 1291 A.D. was more likely the kind of total destruction that Ezekiel meant regarding nets, and like a bare rock.

 

[1robin]

But as I have told you many times, it is plausible that Ezekiel knew by ordinary means that Nebuchadnezzar had planned to attack the mainland settlement, which hundreds, or thousands of other people knew.

As I told you in part of Argument 8, "surely very few historians, including those who know that Ezekiel was a slave in Babylon, would say that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned by ordinary means about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement." You need support from a consensus of historians, and you do not have it. The only historians in the world who would agree with you would be some conservative Christian historians, and even some of them would not say that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned by ordinary means that Nebuchadnezzar planned to attack the mainland settlement.

General, or usual modern military secrecy is not relevant to the specific example of ancient Babylon since each kingdom had its own military secrecy characteristics. In order to adequately discuss the situation, we would have to know how much, and which kinds of military preparations went on inside the city walls of Babylon, how many people knew about the preparations, what the odds are that Ezekiel saw some of the preparations, and what the odds are that someone told Ezekiel about the preparations if he did not see any of the preparations, and we do not have and of that information.





I said "plausible," not "the best explanation." All that I need is plausibility, not probability.



There is not any historical, scientific, or biblical evidence that the water level of the island rose at all within your time limit of 500 years, and no recorded earthquakes occurred during 500 years. Regarding your 500 year time limit, I will quote you later in this post.

As I have told you, some Bible commentaries say that the island becoming covered by water is a metaphor.

It was not improbable that the island fortress would be defeated, and largely destroyed during 1700 years, and it was defeated twice within 20 years after Alexander died.

Regarding the loot, Ezekiel wrote about that many years later, in chapter 29, about the time that Nebuchadnezzar left Tyre. At that time, it was already obvious to many people that Nebuchadnezzar did not get any loot.

Ezekiel did not claim that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the island fortress since he knew that Nebuchadnezzar did not have a navy.

Historically, it has been common for cities to never be rebuilt to their former glory.

Ezekiel did not predict anything that was unusual, and was not suspected by many other people.



No, prophecies should be read with the intent to deny since God did not inspire any of them.



What historical evidence did you provide that says that Alexander reduced the fortress to rubble? Arrian's detailed description of the battle does not indicate anything like that.

I quoted some Bible commentaries that indicate that the island did not look anything like a bare rock after Alexander defeated the island fortress.



Consider the following:





That just happened today, and you said that you would not change your date to 1291 A.D. except for the purpose of claiming that even with that much time that it was still improbable that the fortress would be defeated by that time.

Over five months ago, you said:



So I was wrong that you limited the time frame to 254 years since you limited it to 500 years, but even that is way too short since the fortress was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D.

It was I who first brought up the issue of gunpowder in my post 182 when I mentioned cannons, and now you are finally using my argument. I said that the prophecy had at least until the invention of cannons to be fulfilled, and you objected, but now you have changed your argument and agree with me.

Consider the following from your post 245:





You would not agree with a date of 1200 A.D. in that post, but now you agree with the date of when gunpowder was invented, and cannons were not used in the vicinity of Lebanon until after 1200 A.D.



But that is what you are doing by limiting the spreading of nets issue to just after Alexander defeated the fortress, and without any justification for doing so. Ezekiel plausibly, or probably meant that the island would become a place that was only useful for the spreading of nets after it was completely destroyed, which did not happen until 1291 A.D.

You argument is also not valid since any party who defeated the fortress within 1700 years would have temporarily made the island only useful for the spreading of nets. I doubt that very many ancient military historians would say that Ezekiel meant that every time that anyone conquered the fortress was a fulfillment of what the prophecy says about nets. I assume that most historians would say that the final destruction of the island in 1291 A.D. was more likely the kind of total destruction that Ezekiel meant regarding nets, and like a bare rock.

If I responded I would only be furthering that which I wished to conclude, even though there are some targets so easy I can hardly restrain myself, I will. Anyway on to some Christ verses.


There are over 350 that he perfectly fulfilled but I can't debate that many. The number one argument against them is not that they are untrue but that Israel it's self fulfilled them so I will only post those that Christ alone met.

Psa. 22:8 "He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him"
Psa. 22:16 They pierced His hands and His feet
Psa. 22:17, 18 Stripped Him before the stares of men
Psa. 22:18 They parted His garments
Psa. 22:22 His Resurrection declared
Psa. 38:11 His friends stood afar off
Psa. 38:12-13 Silent before His accusers
Psa. 38:12 Enemies try to entangle Him by craft
Psa. 40:14 Confronted by adversaries in the Garden
Psa. 41:9 Betrayed by a familiar friend
Psa. 45:6 To own the title, God or Elohim
Psa. 45:7, 8 Called the Christ (Messiah or Anointed)

This is going to get out of hand quick. It is hard to find a place to stop.

Start with this one.
Psa. 69:21 Given vinegar in thirst

The one argument that is a waste of time is concerning when written. I have only included a small part of just what was stated in Psalms. David wrote most of the psalms and they are well known to have been written long before Christ existed.

 

[Agnostic75]

You did not do what you said Ezekiel did despite me giving you massive, gargantuan, and enormous advantages in every way possible.

That was an absurd request since there are not any conditions today that are similar to ancient Tyre, and Babylon. The issue is obviously not what anyone could predict today, but what people other than Ezekiel had the capacity to predict if they had wanted to. Hundreds, or thousands of Babylonians plausibly, more likely probably knew about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement. When Nebuchadnezzar left Tyre, everyone knew that he was going somewhere, and people all over Babylon must have been discussing where he was going. Even with tight security, all that it would have taken would have been one person to tell someone else, and the news that Nebuchadnezzar had left for Tyre would have quickly spread all over Babylon.

Surely very few historians would be impressed with an ancient prediction that a fortress on an island would be largely destroyed within 1700 years.

Do you know of any historians who claim that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned about the plans by ordinary means?

Can't remember but I have never read a historian who suggested it as the best explanation. Probably are some but I have never read them.

I said "plausible," not "the best explanation." All that I need is plausibility, not probability.

Plenty of historians would say that it is the best explanation when given the choice of a divinely inspired prophecy, and ordinary guesswork by Ezekiel.

BTW my time frame did not end with Alexander, but only with the invention of gun powder. It does not describe anything consistent with gun powder tactics but older siege engine methods.

That is just one of your deceptive tricks that you used since you know that I told you that there were not any recorded earthquakes in the vicinity of Lebanon within your time fame of 500 years, which you defended for months, that you did not provide any evidence that the water level of the island rose at all within 500 years, and that you did not provide any evidence that later earthquakes cased the water level of the island to rise, and by how much.

Consider the following:

Even if you changed your date to 1291 A.D., when the fortress was finally completely destroyed, that would not be reasonable evidence that it is probable that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

I'm am not doing so but why in the heck not? It was still extraordinarily improbable.

You said that just a day or so ago, and you said that you would not change your date to 1291 A.D. except for the purpose of claiming that even with that much time that it was still improbable that the fortress would be defeated by that time, but now you decided to change your argument for the reasons that I just stated.

Over five months ago, you said:

No weapon that existed more than 500 years later nor tactic was mentioned. Every tactic, methodology, and weapon existed pre 1st century.

Even the Romans stopped using axes to break down towers long before that.

So I was wrong that you limited the time frame to 254 years since you limited it to 500 years, but even that is way too short since the fortress was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D.

It was I who first brought up the issue of gunpowder in my post 182 when I mentioned cannons, and now you are finally using my argument. I said that the prophecy had at least until the invention of cannons to be fulfilled, and you objected, but now you have changed your argument and agree with me.

Consider the following from your post 245:

Nonsense, it is probable that someone would have conquered the island fortress by 1200 A.D.

The prophecy was against the Phoenicians and what they had built. Their rule over Tyre came to an end in BC and was barely a memory in 1200 AD. The Hellenistic period of the city has nothing to do with the prophecy.

You would not agree with a date of 1200 A.D. in that post, but now you conveniently agree with the date of when gunpowder was invented. Cannons were not used in the vicinity of Lebanon until after 1200 A.D.

If I responded I would only be furthering that which I wished to conclude, even though there are some targets so easy I can hardly restrain myself, I will.

On the contrary, you did not make any important arguments that would be supported by a consensus of historians, or even by a consensus of theologians. All that you did was preach to a certain segment of conservative Christians since everyone else in the world rejects the Tyre prophecy. I even used some your own sources to refute some of your arguments, and I used some Bible commentaries to refute some of your arguments.

You are still confused since you recently used two very different time frames within the past several days, and your new time frame is what I already told you over five months ago, and you rejected it then.

You are merely being evasive since this is the fifth topic that we have discussed that you have refused to discuss any more. You cannot get away with claiming that you vacated those topics because I was repetitive since I can provide the numbers of some posts from various threads that prove that I was not repetitive on certain occasions where you did not reply to my arguments.

Anyway on to some Christ verses. There are over 350 that he perfectly fulfilled but I can't debate that many. The number one argument against them is not that they are untrue but that Israel it's self fulfilled them so I will only post those that Christ alone met.

Psa. 22:8 "He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him"
Psa. 22:16 They pierced His hands and His feet
Psa. 22:17, 18 Stripped Him before the stares of men
Psa. 22:18 They parted His garments
Psa. 22:22 His Resurrection declared
Psa. 38:11 His friends stood afar off
Psa. 38:12-13 Silent before His accusers
Psa. 38:12 Enemies try to entangle Him by craft
Psa. 40:14 Confronted by adversaries in the Garden
Psa. 41:9 Betrayed by a familiar friend
Psa. 45:6 To own the title, God or Elohim
Psa. 45:7, 8 Called the Christ (Messiah or Anointed)

Start with this one.
Psa. 69:21 Given vinegar in thirst

The one argument that is a waste of time is concerning when written. I have only included a small part of just what was stated in Psalms. David wrote most of the psalms and they are well known to have been written long before Christ existed.

I told you in my post 360 that I was not going to discuss any new topics with you until you had discussed five topics with me a lot more than you have, including homosexuality, and that if you wanted to discuss messianic prophecies, a number of Jews and skeptics would be happy to discuss them with you.

Anyway, this thread is not the place to discuss messianic prophecies. You need to start a new thread for that topic, and a good title would be "Messianic prophecies." Your arguments about messianic prophecies could all be easily refuted by adequately prepared Jews, and skeptics. If you start a new thread, and post what you just posted about messianic prophecies, I might change my mind and discuss some of them, although I have already reasonably proven that the God of the Bible does not exist, and that if a God inspired the Bible, it is plausible if not probable that he is an imposter, reference some of the topics that I mentioned in my post 360.

Our debates on homosexuality were my easiest victories. Your two main arguments were:

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

You said that you did not make some composition fallacies, but those are two provable composition fallacies since a composition fallacy is judging a whole based upon some of the parts. Even most sixth graders know that nowhere near all homosexuals cause massive increases in suffering, death, and cost, and any reasonable person knows that homosexuality is justified for long term monogamous homosexuals who have proven that they are strongly committed to monogamy. You are so biased, and so prejudiced by your religious beliefs that you do not want to admit that any homosexuals in the entire world are better off practicing homosexuality than they would be if they practiced long term abstinence, which has proven health risks.

Item 1 is merely a statement of a problem, with no recommended solutions. From a secular moral perspective, no action is wrong unless there are better alternatives. I told you that I agree with you that homosexuals who practice unsafe sex should practice abstinence, but that surely nowhere near all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

I told you a number of times that you do not have a secular moral basis for criticizing homosexuality since you said that some other high risk groups of people should not practice abstinence, and especially since you said that any deaths at all from AIDS is too many. It was hypocritical for you to say that some other high risk groups of people should not practice abstinence.

It is no wonder that you refused to discuss homosexuality any more since it is obvious that I easily refuted your two main arguments.

 

[1robin]

That was an absurd request since there are not any conditions today that are similar to ancient Tyre, and Babylon. The issue is obviously not what anyone could predict today, but what people other than Ezekiel had the capacity to predict if they had wanted to. Hundreds, or thousands of Babylonians plausibly, more likely probably knew about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement. When Nebuchadnezzar left Tyre, everyone knew that he was going somewhere, and people all over Babylon must have been discussing where he was going. Even with tight security, all that it would have taken would have been one person to tell someone else, and the news that Nebuchadnezzar had left for Tyre would have quickly spread all over Babylon.

That was not in my previous post which was my final post concerning Tyre.

Surely very few historians would be impressed with an ancient prediction that a fortress on an island would be largely destroyed within 1700 years.

repeat.

I said "plausible," not "the best explanation." All that I need is plausibility, not probability.

All you need for what, denial.

Plenty of historians would say that it is the best explanation when given the choice of a divinely inspired prophecy, and ordinary guesswork by Ezekiel.

History does not assume the divine. I would be surprised if most do not deny it before hand.

That is just one of your deceptive tricks that you used since you know that I told you that there were not any recorded earthquakes in the vicinity of Lebanon within your time fame of 500 years, which you defended for months, that you did not provide any evidence that the water level of the island rose at all within 500 years, and that you did not provide any evidence that later earthquakes cased the water level of the island to rise, and by how much.

Motivational guesses are rubbing me raw.

Consider the following:

Nope.

You are merely being evasive since this is the fifth topic that we have discussed that you have refused to discuss any more. You cannot get away with claiming that you vacated those topics because I was repetitive since I can provide the numbers of some posts from various threads that prove that I was not repetitive on certain occasions where you did not reply to my arguments.

That is not evasion, it is exasperation, and a logical necessity. It is very telling every assumption you make about my motivation is constant with your ego.

I told you in my post 360 that I was not going to discuss any new topics with you until you had discussed five topics with me a lot more than you have, including homosexuality, and that if you wanted to discuss messianic prophecies, a number of Jews and skeptics would be happy to discuss them with you.

I think you have flip flopped so many times on that I can no longer recall the last gyration. Then we are done here.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I suggested to you that you start a new thread that is titled "Messianic prophecies," and use the arguments that you stated in your post 371. You have a good opportunity to discuss messianic prophecies at this forum since there are a number of Jews here, and a number of skeptics, who would probably like to discuss messianic prophecies with you.

Are you going to start a new thread on messianic prophecies? You have been boasting about them for weeks, or months, and you said that you are through with this thread.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: I suggested to you that you start a new thread that is titled "Messianic prophecies," and use the arguments that you stated in your post 371. You have a good opportunity to discuss messianic prophecies at this forum since there are a number of Jews here, and a number of skeptics, who would probably like to discuss messianic prophecies with you.

Are you going to start a new thread on messianic prophecies? You have been boasting about them for weeks, or months, and you said that you are through with this thread.

I said I was through with Tyre. I have no idea if I will make a thread. I have discussed messianic prophecy's quite a bit with Jews previously. Jews are the most formidable debaters I run across but there are not many of them. The best on I ever saw challenged me to a moderated debate. I accepted and never heard from them again.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have no idea if I will make a thread. I have discussed messianic prophecies quite a bit with Jews previously.

You have said for some time that you wanted to discuss messianic prophecies. You recently posted a lot of them is this thread, which was off topic for this thread. If you want to discuss messianic prophecies, why don't you start a new thread?

You have been boasting about Bible prophecy for months, and recently about messianic prophecies, and you recently posted a lot of messianic prophecies in this thread, so I thought that you wanted to discuss them, but apparently you don't unless you only wanted to discuss them with me, which if so would be quite strange. It would be far better to include any other interested people at this forum, and surely there are some. I would never want to limit a topic that I am interested in to just two people. One of the main benefits of a public forum is that many people can participate in discussions, and share their knowledge, and opinions with each other.

Jesus could not possibly be the messiah, as an article by a Jew at Judaism 101: Mashiach: The Messiah shows.

Micah 5:2 says that the predicted person would become ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. I told you that even if Jesus performed miracles, and rose from the dead, he was an imposter since the Old Testament predicted a powerful ruler, not a peaceful spiritual leader. I also told you that God might be an imposter. We need to include that topic in any discussions about Bible prophecy.

What Jesus did is a very complex topic since biblical textual criticism is vast, and very few amateur Christians, and skeptics know enough about it to have informed opinions about it.

Anyway, I will only discuss messianic prophecies with you in detail if you start a new thread on them, and include what you recently posted about them in this thread.

 

[1robin]

You have said for some time that you wanted to discuss messianic prophecies. You recently posted a lot of them is this thread, which was off topic for this thread. If you want to discuss messianic prophecies, why don't you start a new thread?

Because I never get to all the threads I am already active in. I thought you were not interested anyway. Why are you so interested in what your not interested in?

You have been boasting about Bible prophecy for months, and recently about messianic prophecies, and you recently posted a lot of messianic prophecies in this thread, so I thought that you wanted to discuss them, but apparently you don't unless you only wanted to discuss them with me, which if so would be quite strange. It would be far better to include any other interested people at this forum, and surely there are some. I would never want to limit a topic that I am interested in to just two people. One of the main benefits of a public forum is that many people can participate in discussions, and share their knowledge, and opinions with each other.

I can't be boasting because I did not write them. A work of God is not grounds for my boasting. I only had you in mind when I posted them but that is mere coincidence. I did not exclude anyone, I just have not decided to act as you instructed me to. What do you care?

Jesus could not possibly be the messiah, as an article by a Jew at Judaism 101: Mashiach: The Messiah shows.

That is not a refutation of the prophecies it is a refutation of the conclusion from the prophecies which were not the issue. I know all the major arguments against messianic prophecy and I selected only ones that they do not apply to. Your trying to declare victory without engaging in battle. I can show that that conclusion is absurd buy that is not really the issue. Can you imagine the chances that 350 prophecies applied to a person and yet he was not the intended fulfillment of them? That would be millions to one. It is somewhere north of 350!.

Micah 5:2 says that the predicted person would become ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. I told you that even if Jesus performed miracles, and rose from the dead, he was an imposter since the Old Testament predicted a powerful ruler, not a peaceful spiritual leader. I have also told you that God might be an imposter, and we need to include that topic in any discussions about Bible prophecy.

I did not use Micah.

What Jesus did is a very complex topic since biblical textual criticism is vast, and very few amateur Christians, and skeptics know enough about it to have informed opinions about it.

History is not that complex but can agree that it is not certain.

Anyway, I will only discuss messianic prophecies with you in detail if you start a new thread on them, and include what you recently posted about them in this thread.

Let me think on it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Because I never get to all the threads I am already active in.

Does that mean that you only want to discuss messianic prophecies with me? If so, I am not interested in that.

I thought you were not interested anyway. Why are you so interested in what your not interested in?

I originally told you that I was not willing to discuss any new topics with you unless you were willing to first discuss a number of other topics a lot more than we have discussed them. Later, I told you that I might change my mind if you started a new thread on messianic prophecies. I started this thread on the Tyre prophecy because I knew that you are interested in Bible prophecy.

I can't be boasting because I did not write them. A work of God is not grounds for my boasting. I only had you in mind when I posted them but that is mere coincidence. I did not exclude anyone, I just have not decided to act as you instructed me to. What do you care?

That is not a refutation of the prophecies it is a refutation of the conclusion from the prophecies which were not the issue. I know all the major arguments against messianic prophecy and I selected only ones that they do not apply to. You're trying to declare victory without engaging in battle. I can show that that conclusion is absurd but that is not really the issue. Can you imagine the chances that 350 prophecies applied to a person and yet he was not the intended fulfillment of them? That would be millions to one. It is somewhere north of 350!.

History is not that complex but can agree that it is not certain.

You do not have any idea what you are talking about regarding messianic prophecies, and the complexity, and vastness of biblical textual criticism. I am not foolish enough to debate biblical textual criticism. For that, I would appeal to skeptics who know far more about it than I do, such as the skeptics at http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=d807cf9146ce6d45ba01f33498909e18. There are a few Christians there too. Most members there know much more about biblical textual criticism than you and I do. At least one of them has a Ph.D. in philosophy, and another has a degree in theology. Many of the members are fluent in New Testament Greek. I am pretty sure that you would not be willing to debate those skeptics, in which case we would not be able to get anywhere regarding the topic of what Jesus did. However, I would be willing to discuss with you what the Old Testament says about the messiah, whether or not God is an imposter, and whether or not Jesus was an imposter.

The odds are far more than millions to one that the God of the Bible does not exist. It is a virtual certainty that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would not have free will, which means that the God of the Bible does not exist. That is because a moral God would not ask people to love a being who must always be good since that would be deceptive. As I have told you a number of times, without choice, morality has no meaning.

Let me think on it.

That is fine, the only reason that I wanted to discuss messianic prophecies with you is because you promoted them so much.

 

[1robin]

Does that mean that you only want to discuss messianic prophecies with me? If so, I am not interested in that.

I can never figure out what you want. You seem to oscillate quite a bit and quite radically. I have offered you two types of prophecy in addition to Tyre. After going back and forth you reject both. Are you done with prophecy or just those areas?

I originally told you that I was not willing to discuss any new topics with you unless you were willing to first discuss a number of other topics a lot more than we have discussed them. Later, I told you that I might change my mind if you started a new thread on messianic prophecies. I started this thread on the Tyre prophecy because I knew that you are interested in Bible prophecy.

You have said so many mutually exclusive things about what I should do, what you want to do, what you don't, under what conditions you will, etc..... I have no idea what you want. Homosexuality is not on the table, and I am done with Tyre. I will entertain other suggestions but not if they cannot be met in the time I have.

You do not have any idea what you are talking about regarding messianic prophecies, and the complexity, and vastness of biblical textual criticism. I am not foolish enough to debate biblical textual criticism. For that, I would appeal to skeptics who know far more about it than I do, such as the skeptics at Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View forum - Christian Texts and History. There are a few Christians there too. Most members there know much more about biblical textual criticism than you and I do. At least one of them has a Ph.D. in philosophy, and another has a degree in theology. Many of the members are fluent in New Testament Greek. I am pretty sure that you would not be willing to debate those skeptics, in which case we would not be able to get anywhere regarding the topic of what Jesus did. However, I would be willing to discuss with you what the Old Testament says about the messiah, whether or not God is an imposter, and whether or not Jesus was an imposter.

Says the person not interested in discussing them. I know very well what I am talking about. I have debated them for years and I have little regard for your opinions about a subject that has not even been began to be debated.

The odds are far more than millions to one that the God of the Bible does not exist. It is a virtual certainty that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would not have free will, which means that the God of the Bible does not exist. That is because a moral God would not ask people to love a being who must always be good since that would be deceptive. As I have told you a number of times, without choice, morality has no meaning.

That is pathetically silly, arbitrary, and contrived.

That is fine, the only reason that I wanted to discuss messianic prophecies with you is because you promoted them so much.

Why do you want a new thread to debate in? Why is the grass greener over there? I think I know but won't waste time guessing at your motivation.

 

[Agnostic75]

That is pathetically silly, arbitrary, and contrived.

On the contrary, you have not provided any good arguments against my post 3639, at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-364.html, which shows that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and perfect God could not have free will, and my post 3640 on the same page, which reasonably proves that God does not provide reasonable evidence to everyone who knows enough about the Bible to be accountable, and my post 3641 on the following page, which shows that it is plausible that God is an imposter.

I provided the thread, and post numbers for you, and you need to reply to those posts. We have much more to discuss about those issues. They are far too complex to conclude with the relatively few discussions that we have had about them.

Why do you want a new thread to debate in? Why is the grass greener over there?

First of all, this thread is about the Tyre prophecy, which means that few people would come here who are not interested in the Tyre prophecy. Second, surely a number of people other than you and me would be interested in discussing, or reading about messianic prophecies. As you know, there are a number of Jews at this forum. Surely some of them would be interested in discussing, or reading about messianic prophecies, not to mention a number of skeptics. Third, surely there are a number of people at this forum who know a lot of things about messianic prophecies that I do not know, which would obviously improve the quality, and usefulness of a new thread on messianic prophecies. I suspect that you do not want the extra competition from a number of Jews and skeptics.

You have promoted Bible prophecy in general a number of times at this forum, and messianic prophecies in particular. Do you wish to discuss Bible prophecy anymore? If so, please start a new thread. I started this thread to discuss only the Tyre prophecy. We are not getting anywhere having discussions in this thread since probably no one other than you and I visit this thread.