C
Cristian_B
Guest
I was talking about the prophecies that are in Revelation that were fulfilled after hundreds of years after Revelation was written by John.
- Status
C
Cristian_B
Guest
About hte destruction of Jerusalem. There are warnings that if the Jews will abandon God ‘terrible things’ will happen to them and their city [Jerusalem] and all that happened.
H
hellopeople
Guest
That is a main theme in the whole OT. If you disobey God, bad things will happen. I don’t see that as a prophecy though.
S
spockrates
Guest
S
spockrates
Guest
Hello again, Hello!
I think you are (unintentionally, of course) creating a straw man that is easily knocked down instead of addressing the real premise. Please let me ask you this: Do houses a city state make?
S
spockrates
Guest
Sorry for being so cryptic, Hello. Please allow me to ask the question differently. Would you say that the word ***building ***in the following commentary by Laura Ingraham is speaking of constructing architectural structures, or does the word ***building ***carry a different meaning?… Do houses a city state make?
America must be defended, and vigorously. While it may be impossible to prevent every future attack, Americans must have confidence that our government is doing all it can to protect the homeland. That means that we should not squander our military power on what are largely humanitarian (a.k.a. nation-building) missions. The interests of America and our own security must always come first and guide our foreign policy. Our military is overstretched, underfunded, and approaching the breaking point. And not to ruin your day, but China is well on its way to being the next global superpower.
The context is here:
74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:YLNKs62mXf8J:nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/20727934/+nation+building+site:msnbc.com&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
P
patg
Guest
The prophecy against Egypt shows a clear awareness that he had botched his prediction that Nebuchadnezzar would decimate Tyre:
“Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it. Therefore thus says Yahweh God: `Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army’” (29:18-19).
S
spockrates
Guest
I’d like to look under that rock with you, next, Pat.
But it would be wise, I think, to finish what we started, first. What do you think of Ezekiel’s predictions about Tyre?
K
kepha1
Guest
Tyre is a person connected to his city, centre of the Babylonian religion. The city alone is not the focus of the prophecy. In order to support your claim that the city has been rebuilt thereby proving the Bible is wrong, then the burden of proof rests with you to provide the name of the Babylonian king that resides there.
Ez 26:
7 “For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar a] king of Babylon,…”
- 19* “This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I make YOU a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over YOU and its vast waters cover YOU, 20 then I will bring YOUdown with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make YOU dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and YOU will not return or take your place **(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eze 26&version=NIV#fen-NIV-21121b”)] in the land of the living. 21 I will bring YOU to a horrible end and YOU will be no more. YOU will be sought, but YOUwill never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD.”
The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE.
S
spockrates
Guest
Not sure I understand what you are saying, Kepha.
P
patg
Guest
I don’t see any reason not to think that he was wrong.
We didn’t even discuss the dating of his “prophecies”. For example, the statement about Tyre was made in “the eleventh year, on the first day of the month,” (26:1). If, then, the prophecy against Egypt in chapter 29 was made in the 27th year, about sixteen years separated the two.
Ezekiel’s statements concerning the destruction of the surrounding nations were motivated by the fall of Jerusalem, which occurred in 587 B. C. He mentions this as the reason why Yahweh was pronouncing judgment against them (25:3-4, 6, 8; 26:2). Obviously, then, these doom’s-day prophecies had to have been made after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B. C., and thus his prophecy against Egypt, which came 16 years later, could not have been made before 571 B. C. By then, Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Tyre, which lasted from 585-572 B. C., was over, and Ezekiel would have known that his prediction had failed.
The admission of failure in 29:18-19 referred to Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Tyre as a done deal, which of course by this time it would have been (as the dating by Ezekiel indicates). That being true, it necessarily follows that the book of Ezekiel could not have been written, at least not in its entirety, until after the siege of Tyre was over. This raises at least a few questions about Ezekiel completing his book after the events he had prophesied about.
K
kepha1
Guest
Do you think Ezekiel should have written his book *before *the events?
P
patg
Guest
Yes, if one is trying to prove that he was an inspired prophet and prove that he is evidence for the divine inspiration of the bible.
S
spockrates
Guest
And don’t forget this prediction of Ezekiel:
I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets.
(Ezekiel 26:14)
Not only was the island fortress still standing, but the city on the coast was by no means a bare rock. It was a pile of ruins. So Ezekiel’s prophecies about the demise of Tyre failed. Didn’t they?
K
kepha1
Guest
In your context, a legitimate prophet is one who flawlessly predicts the future. This is not what a prophet does. A prophet speaks for God, usually in the first person, and has little or nothing to do with predicting the future. Prophets would speak for God, which MAY be followed by certain predicted events, but not always, and after that it was written about. There is nothing sneaky or sinister going on here. If you read the headlines of a newspaper, the article does not make the event happen, the event happens first, then it is written about in the newspaper.
K
kepha1
Guest
No. Hyperbole is a literary form found all over the bible. It’s exaggeration to make a point. Jesus used hyperbole as a literary form when He said, “…call no man father…teacher…”And don’t forget this prediction of Ezekiel:
I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets.
(Ezekiel 26:14)
Not only was the island fortress still standing, but the city on the coast was by no means a bare rock. It was a pile of ruins. So Ezekiel’s prophecies about the demise of Tyre failed. Didn’t they?
K
kepha1
Guest
*To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) *
For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
**
*But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. *
It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
**
13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.
please read more at: DEI VERBUM
For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
**
*But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. *
It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
**
13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.
please read more at: DEI VERBUM
K
kepha1
Guest
I have noticed that the supposed 143 contradictions can in essence be classified according to the erroneous assumptions or methodologies that they employ.
A popular mistake is to take things out of context. It is easy to “create contradictions” when there are none by violating the context of the passage(s) in question.
More significant, though less mentioned, is violating the context of belief. Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant.
When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien concepts into the text as if they belong. This error is common when the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the nature of God. For example, orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided by the Christian’s background belief.
Or consider a mundane example. Say that Joe is recorded as saying that Sam is not his son. But elsewhere, he is recorded as saying that Sam is his son. An obvious contradiction, right? But what if one’s background belief about Joe and Sam includes the belief that Sam is Joe’s adopted son? By ignoring the context this belief provides, one perceives contradictions where there are none.
The critic sometimes assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive in all details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such, the critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions where none exist.
Also related to the context problem: Let’s say that the only records of Joe speaking about Sam are the two cases where he affirms and denies that Sam is his son. Certainly Joe said many other things in his life, but they were not recorded – including the fact that he adopted a boy and named him Sam.
Countering Bible Contradictions
A popular mistake is to take things out of context. It is easy to “create contradictions” when there are none by violating the context of the passage(s) in question.
More significant, though less mentioned, is violating the context of belief. Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant.
When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien concepts into the text as if they belong. This error is common when the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the nature of God. For example, orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided by the Christian’s background belief.
Or consider a mundane example. Say that Joe is recorded as saying that Sam is not his son. But elsewhere, he is recorded as saying that Sam is his son. An obvious contradiction, right? But what if one’s background belief about Joe and Sam includes the belief that Sam is Joe’s adopted son? By ignoring the context this belief provides, one perceives contradictions where there are none.
The critic sometimes assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive in all details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such, the critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions where none exist.
Also related to the context problem: Let’s say that the only records of Joe speaking about Sam are the two cases where he affirms and denies that Sam is his son. Certainly Joe said many other things in his life, but they were not recorded – including the fact that he adopted a boy and named him Sam.
Countering Bible Contradictions
S
spockrates
Guest
How do you know, Kepha that God was not saying to Ezekiel that Tyre would literally become a bare rock?
K
kepha1
Guest
JA: Errantist: As another example, they need to explain why Ezek. 26:7-12 predicts that Tyre would be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, and that Nebuchadnezzar would enter the city, plunder it, and slay its citizens. As historians know (and as Ezek. 29:18-20 admits), Nebuchadnezzar’s thirteen-year siege of Tyre failed. No ancient historian, and no modern historian of any credibility, has ever claimed that Nebuchadnezzar defeated, plundered, and destroyed the city of Tyre. The city of Tyre was not taken until hundreds of years later (by Alexander the Great), and no Nebuchadnezzar was involved.
RS: Ezekiel is already aware of the less-than-successful campaign of Nebuchadnezzer against Tyre by showing us that the attack on Tyre was in two stages, first by Nebuchadnezzer and then by Alexander. Ezek. 26:3-4 says that “MANY nations would come against Tyre,” meaning more than Nebuchadnezzer. Ezek. 26:7-11 refers to Nebuchadnezzer’s campaign, while 26:12 refers to an unspecified new attacker by the plural “they,” most likely referring to Alexander.
JA: Errantist: Also, Ezek. 26:14, 21 and 27:36 predict that the destroyed city of Tyre would never be rebuilt and re-inhabited. But you can see from Matthew 15:21, Mark 3:8, Mark 7:24, Mark 7:31, Acts 12:20, and Acts 21:3,7, that Tyre was a city in NT times, and it is still a city. The island (which had contained the walled city) became attached to the mainland after silt deposited around the remains of Alexander’s wooden mole [there is some debate over the actual mechanism], but all the original land of Tyre is inhabited today. If you wish to check it out, you can fly to an airport just outside the city.
RS: Tyre had a mainland city and an island city. Ezekiel is referring to the island city, which was never rebuilt after Alexander destroyed it.
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/bible/inerrancy-print.htm
Joe is recorded as saying Sam is not his son. Fascinating!
RS: Ezekiel is already aware of the less-than-successful campaign of Nebuchadnezzer against Tyre by showing us that the attack on Tyre was in two stages, first by Nebuchadnezzer and then by Alexander. Ezek. 26:3-4 says that “MANY nations would come against Tyre,” meaning more than Nebuchadnezzer. Ezek. 26:7-11 refers to Nebuchadnezzer’s campaign, while 26:12 refers to an unspecified new attacker by the plural “they,” most likely referring to Alexander.
JA: Errantist: Also, Ezek. 26:14, 21 and 27:36 predict that the destroyed city of Tyre would never be rebuilt and re-inhabited. But you can see from Matthew 15:21, Mark 3:8, Mark 7:24, Mark 7:31, Acts 12:20, and Acts 21:3,7, that Tyre was a city in NT times, and it is still a city. The island (which had contained the walled city) became attached to the mainland after silt deposited around the remains of Alexander’s wooden mole [there is some debate over the actual mechanism], but all the original land of Tyre is inhabited today. If you wish to check it out, you can fly to an airport just outside the city.
RS: Tyre had a mainland city and an island city. Ezekiel is referring to the island city, which was never rebuilt after Alexander destroyed it.
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/bible/inerrancy-print.htm
Joe is recorded as saying Sam is not his son. Fascinating!
- Status