|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 5, 2018 14:49:07 GMT
phludowin Does Ezekiel begin his prophecy by stating that “ many nations” would come against Tyre or not? Does he not proceed to name Nebuchadnezzar referring to him in the singular “ he” or not? Does verse 12 shift pronoun from the singular “ he” to the plural “ they” or not? Predicting that ”they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters” or not? So based on the grammar and plain reading of the text does it not make more sense to interpret the action being shifted from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the “many nations” (they)? Especially since history can attest to the fact that many nations(Including Alexander the Great) have attacked Tyre since this prophecy was first revealed?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 5, 2018 15:06:34 GMT
As soon as anyone starts a thread about a prophecy (fulfilled or not), at least three materialists will swoop in to "debunk." It's what they do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 15:22:29 GMT
As soon as anyone starts a thread about a prophecy (fulfilled or not), at least three materialists will swoop in to "debunk." It's what they do. Three people will, anyway. They don't have to be materialists. And yes, why wouldn't they? Do you think the standard response to a dubious claim of fulfilled prophecy should be a round of nods and "yes, that's very true" from all concerned?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 5, 2018 15:26:08 GMT
phludowin Does Ezekiel begin his prophecy by stating that “ many nations” would come against Tyre or not? Yes. But that wasn't a prophecy; it was a statement of the situation of the time. Does he not proceed to name Nebuchadnezzar referring to him in the singular “ he” or not? He does. It is not necessary to not omit double negatives. Does verse 12 shift pronoun from the singular “ he” to the plural “ they” or not? Predicting that ”they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters” or not? The English translation, created long after the events took place, does. Whether Ezechiel did it... I don't know. So based on the grammar and plain reading of the text does it not make more sense to interpret the action being shifted from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the “many nations” (they)? Especially since history can attest to the fact that many nations(Including Alexander the Great) have attacked Tyre since this prophecy was first revealed? Another explanation: The English translation altered the pronoun, knowing well that the original prophecy failed, and wanting to give Bible apologists an opportunity to pretend that the prophecy was accurate after all. And stating that a prosperous city will be attacked in an hostile environment is hardly impressive. You choose what to believe; I choose what to believe.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 5, 2018 15:32:57 GMT
phludowin Does Ezekiel begin his prophecy by stating that “ many nations” would come against Tyre or not? Yes. But that wasn't a prophecy; it was a statement of the situation of the time. Does he not proceed to name Nebuchadnezzar referring to him in the singular “ he” or not? He does. It is not necessary to not omit double negatives. Does verse 12 shift pronoun from the singular “ he” to the plural “ they” or not? Predicting that ”they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters” or not? The English translation, created long after the events took place, does. Whether Ezechiel did it... I don't know. So based on the grammar and plain reading of the text does it not make more sense to interpret the action being shifted from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the “many nations” (they)? Especially since history can attest to the fact that many nations(Including Alexander the Great) have attacked Tyre since this prophecy was first revealed? Another explanation: The English translation altered the pronoun, knowing well that the original prophecy failed, and wanting to give Bible apologists an opportunity to pretend that the prophecy was accurate after all. You choose what to believe; I choose what to believe. Are you arguing that the prophecy was not correct because it was Alexander the Great, and not Nebuchadnezzar, who conquered Tyre? I haven't taken the time to read through the entire thread.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 5, 2018 15:36:12 GMT
Are you arguing that the prophecy was not correct because it was Alexander the Great, and not Nebuchadnezzar, who conquered Tyre? I haven't taken the time to read through the entire thread. That's one part. The other is that Tyre was in fact rebuilt.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 5, 2018 15:45:41 GMT
Are you arguing that the prophecy was not correct because it was Alexander the Great, and not Nebuchadnezzar, who conquered Tyre? I haven't taken the time to read through the entire thread. That's one part. The other is that Tyre was in fact rebuilt. Okay, it was rebuilt. Carthage was rebuilt too (but not exactly in the same place). AFAIK Tyre never again became the powerhouse that it used to be after Alexander brought it down. IIRC it was technically part of the Persian Empire but its unique and highly defensible location allowed it to be semi-autonomous. In my favorite Book (the Revelation, in case you didn't know), Christ makes reference to Jezebel, about how He will kill her children and cast her into her sickbed. Now, you could argue that Jezebel was already dead by that time (if she ever lived), and Christ (if He ever lived) was dead too when He said it, therefore the whole thing must be made-up. However, for someone like me who acknowledges the spirit as capable of surviving physical death, the Jezebel spirit continues to cause trouble in the world today. Was not Nebuchadnezzar very much a conqueror, not unlike Alexander the Great?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 5, 2018 15:51:31 GMT
In my favorite Book (the Revelation, in case you didn't know), Christ makes reference to Jezebel, about how He will kill her children and cast her into her sickbed. Now, you could argue that Jezebel was already dead by that time (if she ever lived), and Christ (if He ever lived) was dead too when He said it, therefore the whole thing must be made-up. However, for someone like me who acknowledges the spirit as capable of surviving physical death, the Jezebel spirit continues to cause trouble in the world today. Was not Nebuchadnezzar very much a conqueror, not unlike Alexander the Great? The bolded part is a baseless claim; unless you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Until then, speculating about whether Alexander was channeling the spirit of Nebuchadnezzar is pure fiction.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 5, 2018 15:59:52 GMT
In my favorite Book (the Revelation, in case you didn't know), Christ makes reference to Jezebel, about how He will kill her children and cast her into her sickbed. Now, you could argue that Jezebel was already dead by that time (if she ever lived), and Christ (if He ever lived) was dead too when He said it, therefore the whole thing must be made-up. However, for someone like me who acknowledges the spirit as capable of surviving physical death, the Jezebel spirit continues to cause trouble in the world today. Was not Nebuchadnezzar very much a conqueror, not unlike Alexander the Great? The bolded part is a baseless claim; unless you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Until then, speculating about whether Alexander was channeling the spirit of Nebuchadnezzar is pure fiction. Dude, I never said I could prove it. I never claimed it as fact. I said I believe it. Others believe it too. I also believe the people who wrote down this stuff believed it. If you don't want to believe it, no one is twisting your arm. And the Goalpost-shifting Award for today goes to...…. phludowin!
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 5, 2018 17:11:26 GMT
phludowin Does Ezekiel begin his prophecy by stating that “ many nations” would come against Tyre or not? Yes. But that wasn't a prophecy; it was a statement of the situation of the time. Does he not proceed to name Nebuchadnezzar referring to him in the singular “ he” or not? He does. It is not necessary to not omit double negatives. Does verse 12 shift pronoun from the singular “ he” to the plural “ they” or not? Predicting that ”they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters” or not? The English translation, created long after the events took place, does. Whether Ezechiel did it... I don't know. So based on the grammar and plain reading of the text does it not make more sense to interpret the action being shifted from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the “many nations” (they)? Especially since history can attest to the fact that many nations(Including Alexander the Great) have attacked Tyre since this prophecy was first revealed? Another explanation: The English translation altered the pronoun, knowing well that the original prophecy failed, and wanting to give Bible apologists an opportunity to pretend that the prophecy was accurate after all. And stating that a prosperous city will be attacked in an hostile environment is hardly impressive. You choose what to believe; I choose what to believe. In other words as an skeptical atheist you have a presupposition that the prophecy failed and no amount of evidence and reasoning to the contrary will sway you from the position even to the point of rejecting the blatant obvious? Gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 5, 2018 18:44:40 GMT
Are you arguing that the prophecy was not correct because it was Alexander the Great, and not Nebuchadnezzar, who conquered Tyre? I haven't taken the time to read through the entire thread. That's one part. The other is that Tyre was in fact rebuilt. Ancient Tyre has never been rebuilt, dummy.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 5, 2018 20:30:26 GMT
In other words as an skeptical atheist you have a presupposition that the prophecy failed and no amount of evidence and reasoning to the contrary will sway you from the position even to the point of rejecting the blatant obvious? Not quite. If there was good historical evidence for the events described exactly in the prophecy (and no linguistic games like altering a pronoun in a translation), I'd say that Ezechiel got it right. But he didn't. As explained above.
|
|