Search This Blog

Friday, December 01, 2006

Prophecy addendum

It was suggested that Tyre, as mentioned previously in the Bible Prophecy post that Tyre had not been destroyed because it was obviously still there.

Okay, Tyre is now a tourist city in Lebanon. Rome is now a big city in Italy. But the kingdom that was the city-state of Tyre was totally destroyed and all of its buildings torn down. The empire that was Rome has left behind artifacts, but no longer is an empire at all. If you wish to claim that Tyre is still the powerful city-state of Biblical times, have a nice day...Just as it would be foolish to say that modern Rome is still that empire that ruled the "civilized" Western world for hundreds of years. I can look in a phone book and find a guy named Robert E Lee but it won't be the same person as the civil war-era General of the Confederate Armies. Both those cities have the same names as the empires they replaced but are not the same at all.

It would make no sense for Ezekiel to predict the downfall of Tyre if Amos had already done so almost two hundred years earlier, because it hadn't yet happened yet and why repeat another's unfulfilled prophecy? Yet he was inspired by God to write "... they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea." That is precisely what happened. Specifics point to foreknowledge.

Isaiah didn't simply predict the downfall of Babylon, he named the very conqueror generations before he was even born! Specifics point to foreknowledge again!

By the way, there are plenty of clues in the Bible that point out knowledge beyond that of mankind at the time of the writing. How about in Isaiah 40:22 when it is said of God that "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth...?" Chuwg, pronounced "khoog" means a circle or a roundness. In other words, God is mentioning the fact that the earth is round a couple of thousand years ahead of many secular thinkers and well ahead of the scientists of the day. In Psalms 19 we are told that the "speech" of the heavenly bodies goes everywhere and transmits heat. These are properties of light that we understand today that a Jewish prophet could not comprehend without the inspiration of God.

There was a claim that Ezekiel 29:10-13 was never fulfilled, which had never been presented to me before now, so I will have to do some research. We certainly know that the Northern Kingdom of Egypt was conquered more than once within two hundred years of the writing of those words. Stay tuned for more there. That passage is the only reasonable answer I have yet received and is worth my continued attention.

14 comments:

lava said...

Psalms 93:1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Psalms 104:5 He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever.

To me, this seems like the bible is saying the earth is stationary- not moving- Oh wait? What's that? You interpret it differently? Really? So some of the passages of the bible or open to interpretation- to the point where 2 rational people could come up with plausible interpretations of the same passage that are completely opposed?

So- what happens when(or "if" if you prefer) there is an inaccuracy in a prophecy in the bible? Does that mean the Bible is no longer the word of god--because how could the word of god be fallible?

lava said...

one more thing-

is the fall of an empire that bold of a prophecy? I mean, really- It is kind of like saying the sun will set at some point during the day.

scohen said...

"So- what happens when(or "if" if you prefer) there is an inaccuracy in a prophecy in the bible? Does that mean the Bible is no longer the word of god--because how could the word of god be fallible?"

Lava,
In radar's case, that means we need to start playing with the meanings of words in order to make the prophecy true. It means we have to start limiting the scope of the prophecy to align with reality.
From: "Tyre shall be built no more" we get: "Tyre, [not the city, but the powerful kingdom by the sea] shall be built [by the phoenicians] no more".

"Tyre shall not be found" becomes "Tyre [well, not really tyre, but its ruins, because anyone with google maps can find tyre] shall not be found [easily, unless you want to do a little digging]."

I'm eagerly awaiting to see how he wiggles out of the prophecy that egypt will be uninhabited for 40 years. This should be fun --if Radar deigns to visit the comments section. He also glossed over the fact that Ezekiel and Nebuchadnezzar were contemporaries --and that ol' Neb never sacked Tyre.

"is the fall of an empire that bold of a prophecy?"

No, it's not. In fact, it's a pretty safe one to make. But this bible stuff gets old. We were supposed to be talking about science, but somehow our conversation turned to the comfort zone of bible prophecy and terrible statistics.

Radar, I read the original article, and i still can't figure out where those 'probabilities' came from --the author doesn't say anything about them. How are they trustworthy? Furthermore, why do you so readily believe this dreck? You do know that they're counting on you being cowed by their big numbers, right? Personally, I don't like it when someone assumes I'm a rube.

creeper said...

"ow about in Isaiah 40:22 when it is said of God that "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth...?" Chuwg, pronounced "khoog" means a circle or a roundness. In other words, God is mentioning the fact that the earth is round a couple of thousand years ahead of many secular thinkers and well ahead of the scientists of the day"

Every depiction of a flat earth I've ever seen was round. A circle is flat, too. Think pancake: round and flat at the same time.

You're really straining to make yourself believe that this circle is meant to refer to a sphere.

"In Psalms 19 we are told that the "speech" of the heavenly bodies goes everywhere and transmits heat."

Wouldn't simple exposure to the sun's rays allow you to come to those conclusions pretty quickly?

radar said...

scohen, the odds were explained, if you read the entire post. I actually think he was too conservative and that the odds were hardly high enough to overwhelm anyone, just compelling as a sidebar.

The sun hitting your face is an example of a figure of speech that isn't literal. There are such figures in the Bible and one must use common sense to sort them out, in case you guys really want to study...lava is touching on this subject but I suspect he knows better. Bible scholars have no difficulty understanding either figures of speech or descriptions common to man. We all say "sunrise", for instance, when it is actually earth revolvement that does the trick. It doesn't mean we think the sun actually is lurking out there to the East somewhere and then begins moving overhead.

Yes, that the sun's rays emit heat seems obvious. That such rays, along with heat, are able to keep going to the very ends of the universe are not.

The downfall of a civilization is a common occurrence from our viewpoint. In 500 BC some of these civilizations had been going for as long as anyone could remember. Also, as I said it is specifics that really matter here - the stones and rubble being cast into the sea, the very name of Cyrus, etc.

Not sure why Ezekiel and Nebuchadnezzar being contemporaries to an extent has anything to do with anything. Tyre was destroyed in about 332 BC, long after both were dead.

As to Egypt, I already mentioned that I hadn't noticed or thought about that one and have to poke around to find out the time frame involved. Was it during the first or second Persian invasion? Not certain right now.

cranky old fart said...

"There was a claim that Ezekiel 29:10-13 was never fulfilled, which had never been presented to me before now, so I will have to do some research"

Research what? The book is inerreant and the reading is supposed to be literal.

"As to Egypt, I already mentioned that I hadn't noticed or thought about that one and have to poke around to find out the time frame involved."

Poke around all you want. I can't what to hear what "time frame" Egypt was EVER devoid of people and animals.

Maybe you should just admit you're "in water over your head here" radar.

radar said...

Not deep water to me, brutha, I like looking into Bible stuff! Plus I have the advantage of being a true believer, so I figure either it did happen or it was a future prophecy not yet fulfilled. This one looks like it was an "already happened."

The research has to be historical, since it is far easier to research things that happened rather than things that were not (such as a lack of people and animals). I can only find what is recorded, but I am going to be looking.

scohen said...

"Not sure why Ezekiel and Nebuchadnezzar being contemporaries to an extent has anything to do with anything"

It's relevant because it renders your earlier statement:

"Isaiah didn't simply predict the downfall of Babylon, he named the very conqueror generations before he was even born! Specifics point to foreknowledge again!"

completely wrong.

"scohen, the odds were explained, if you read the entire post."

I read the entire post, and there were no explanations of where he got the initial numbers, how he made his calculations or what his assumptions were. Here's a typically bad quote:

"Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10."

So he just pulled that one out of the air --much like the rest of the numbers. Again, we're getting into the whole 'stun them with a bunch of zeroes' argument.

radar said...

scohen, the conqueror of Babylon was Cyrus and it was predicted by Isiah, which has nothing to do with the two people you mentioned (Ezekiel and Nebuchadnezzar), so you are completely confused there.

Ross wrote: "(*The estimates of probability included herein come from a group of secular research scientists. As an example of their method of estimation, consider their calculations for this first prophecy cited:

* Since the Messiah's ministry could conceivably begin in any one of about 5000 years, there is, then, one chance in about 5000 that his ministry could begin in 26 A.D.
* Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10.
* Relative to the second destruction of Jerusalem, this execution has roughly an even chance of occurring before or after that event, that is, one chance in 2.

Hence, the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 10 to the 5th.)"


Well, the 1 in 10 factor is the only arbitrary number. How do you determine the likelihood that God in the flesh can be killed??? Nothing else is in any way "pulled out of the air." Hyperbole, tsk tsk.

On the other hand, he forgot the one chance out of two (conservatively) that there would even be a Messiah. I think that should have been included.

scohen said...

"Well, the 1 in 10 factor is the only arbitrary number. How do you determine the likelihood that God in the flesh can be killed?"

I can't believe you're making that claim. You're citing the only numbers in the document that make even a modicum of sense.

Pray tell, where does this number come from?

"Jeremiah predicted that despite its fertility and despite the accessibility of its water supply, the land of Edom (today a part of Jordan) would become a barren, uninhabited wasteland (Jeremiah 49:15-20; Ezekiel 25:12-14). His description accurately tells the history of that now bleak region.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)"


Where's the math? I don't see it --and you don't either, it's just not there.

Even the answers you cite don't make sense. He's assuming a short age for the earth, multiplying numbers together for no reason (why have that extra 1/2 probability? I don't know, why not?) and then comes up with a very low 1/100,000 probability at the end --and this is supposed to prove that Jesus is the messiah? Hilarious.

Again, I implore you, take a stats class and you will no longer be impressed with this junk.

creeper said...

"Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10."

Since, as the story goes, God put the Messiah on Earth in human form and surely must have been aware of how that was going to end up, I'd say it was inevitable, i.e. a chance of 1:1.

Or is God now capable of being surprised?

Just another piece of mental gymnastics trying to make the whole thing coherent.

loboinok said...

Since, as the story goes, God put the Messiah on Earth in human form and surely must have been aware of how that was going to end up, I'd say it was inevitable, i.e. a chance of 1:1.

"the possibility of his being killed" such as the several attempts by Satan to kill Him before His time.

He wasn't "killed" per se, He voluntarily layed down His Life

creeper said...

"He wasn't "killed" per se, He voluntarily layed down His Life"

And what were the odds that He wouldn't do that?

loboinok said...

And what were the odds that He wouldn't do that?

Zip.