False Prophetic Claims

[Joshpantera]

You can try to shut them down, but they'll likely shut you out. 

 

What's important is not whether some christians concede the argument, but how others viewing the argument will perceive it. If they're reduced to bumbling idiots in plain sight of everyone considering the issue, then that's all you can hope to achieve. It's more about cutting them off from persuading people with their lies than it is making them see the light of day and changing their ways. 

 

And that's what MWC's direction will do. He's holding their noses in it. Leaving no wiggle room. And it's really no different than any number of false prophetic claims. They'll jump through all kinds of hoops for modern Israel as fulfilled prophecy, but it isn't either. It's the same picking and choosing, and taking out of context that they're doing with Tyre. And logically, that's all they can do with it. There's obviously no magical powers of accurately and concisely visualizing a future that hasn't yet taken place......

[readyforchange]

 

 

Oooh good point here. The problem I'm currently facing is I have said the prophesy says Neb will do the destroying, but I know the counter that will come will be the "They nations" in the verses preceding and after the Neb part. If they argue that your point above is a very good point because it shows at that point we are talking semantics not facts. +1 for good point.

 

 

LogicalFallacy, FYI:  The Names of God (NOG) translation translates Ezekiel 26:12 as "His troops will loot your riches and take your goods as prizes. They will destroy your walls and tear down your delightful homes. They will throw your stones, wood, and soil into the water."  The verse begins with "His troops" and not "They" - as in Nebuchadnezzar's troops. 

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel+26&version=NOG

[readyforchange]

 

 

Oooh good point here. The problem I'm currently facing is I have said the prophesy says Neb will do the destroying, but I know the counter that will come will be the "They nations" in the verses preceding and after the Neb part. If they argue that your point above is a very good point because it shows at that point we are talking semantics not facts. +1 for good point.

 

 

 

 

Also, if the subject of Ezekiel 26:12 is Nebuchadnezzar and his troops, there appears to be a contradiction later in Ezekiel.  In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel proclaims judgement against Egypt, prophesizing in Ezekiel 29:19 that Yahweh will give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar.  However, one verse earlier, Ezekiel 29:18 states:  "Son of man, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon made his army fight hard against Tyre. Every soldier’s head was worn bald, and every soldier’s shoulder was rubbed raw. Yet, he and his army got no reward for their hard-fought battle against Tyre". (NOG)   Here, writing after Nebuchadnezzar's siege against Tyre, Ezekiel stated that he and his army got no reward for their battle against Tyre.  However, in Ezekiel 26:12, Ezekiel indicated to Tyre that Nebuchadnezzar and his troops would "loot your riches and take your goods as prizes...".  How do the individuals you are debating interpret Ezekiel 29:18?  I know there is also considerable debate over whether Nebuchadnezzar ever conquered Egypt after his siege against Tyre. 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

Also, if the subject of Ezekiel 26:12 is Nebuchadnezzar and his troops, there appears to be a contradiction later in Ezekiel.  In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel proclaims judgement against Egypt, prophesizing in Ezekiel 29:19 that Yahweh will give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar.  However, one verse earlier, Ezekiel 29:18 states:  "Son of man, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon made his army fight hard against Tyre. Every soldier’s head was worn bald, and every soldier’s shoulder was rubbed raw. Yet, he and his army got no reward for their hard-fought battle against Tyre". (NOG)   Here, writing after Nebuchadnezzar's siege against Tyre, Ezekiel stated that he and his army got no reward for their battle against Tyre.  However, in Ezekiel 26:12, Ezekiel indicated to Tyre that Nebuchadnezzar and his troops would "loot your riches and take your goods as prizes...".  How do the individuals you are debating interpret Ezekiel 29:18?  I know there is also considerable debate over whether Nebuchadnezzar ever conquered Egypt after his siege against Tyre. 

 

Their whole debate hinges on the prophesy being about "many nations" not only about Neb. Therefore Ezekiel 29:18 has little impact on them because of the shift in chapter 26 verse 13 from "He" to they. So the claim is that the "riches" in verse 14/15 is for the many nations - (They will do x, they will destroy, they will take you as a spoil for nations)

 

So its a case of asking them how to they justify the "they, and many nations" as referring to anyone other than Neb.

 

Asking why wasn't the main destroyer Alexander the great mentioned by name, and why wasn't it mentioned that he would bring ships from other nations which was critical to his victory seems to have little impact. A bit of hand waving seems to be satisfactory to them.

[mwc]

 

 

Their whole debate hinges on the prophesy being about "many nations" not only about Neb. Therefore Ezekiel 29:18 has little impact on them because of the shift in chapter 26 verse 13 from "He" to they. So the claim is that the "riches" in verse 14/15 is for the many nations - (They will do x, they will destroy, they will take you as a spoil for nations)

 

So its a case of asking them how to they justify the "they, and many nations" as referring to anyone other than Neb.

 

Asking why wasn't the main destroyer Alexander the great mentioned by name, and why wasn't it mentioned that he would bring ships from other nations which was critical to his victory seems to have little impact. A bit of hand waving seems to be satisfactory to them.

     The previous chapter talks of the two adulterous sisters.  These are metaphors for Samaria and Judea.  And the following verses say:

 

²² “Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will stir up your lovers against you, those you turned away from in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side— ²³ the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses. ²⁴ They will come against you with weapons,^[d] chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards.

     This is literally about the army of nations that appears in the next chapter.  I understand these two places aren't Tyre but we know Nebby started in the North and worked South.  He didn't go get a new army, of a single nation, along the way.  It was this army.  It has to move from Tyre downwards into Samaria and Judea.  This solves our problems with the many nations issue.  Here they are listed by Ezekiel himself as coming to attack.  It's not one nation, Babylon, but many nations.

 

     The waves is the destructive nature of the army as I mentioned.  Ezekiel (and many other OT authors...use Google) use water/wave/flood metaphors when talking about this sort of thing.  Ezekiel talks about this in chapter 1 with some creatures having a roar like rushing waters and in chapter 26 with flood waters overtaking the city entirely and I think another reference later as well (not to mention the waves).  These are all war/battle metaphors in one way or another.

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

Thanks @readyforchange. I should have pulled the NOG translation earlier, like I did with Genesis. It obviously brings more clarity of context. 

 

 

Ezekiel 26Names of God Bible (NOG)

Judgment on Tyre

26 On the first day of the month in the eleventh year, Yahweh spoke his word to me. He said, ² “Son of man, Tyre said this about Jerusalem: ‘The city that was the gateway for the nations is destroyed, and its doors are swung open to me. I’ll get rich now that it’s ruined.’ ³ So this is what Adonay Yahweh says: I am against you, Tyre. I will bring many nations against you as the waves on the sea rise. ⁴ They will destroy the walls of Tyre and tear down its towers. Then I will sweep up the dust and turn Tyre into a bare rock. ⁵ It will become a place by the sea where people spread their fishing nets. I have spoken, declares Adonay Yahweh. It will become a prize for the nations. ⁶ The people in the villages and on the mainland will die in battle. Then they will know that I am Yahweh.

⁷ “This is what Adonay Yahweh says: From the north I’m going to bring King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon against you, Tyre. He is the greatest king. He will bring horses, chariots, war horses, many people, and many troops. ⁸ He will destroy the villages on your mainland. He will set up blockades, put up dirt ramps, and raise his shields against you. ⁹ He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and he will cut down your towers with his axes. ¹⁰ He will have so many horses that their dust will cover you. The noise from the war horses, wagon wheels, and chariots will shake your walls when he enters your gates. He will enter as people enter a conquered city. ¹¹ With his horses’ hoofs he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people in battle, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. ¹² His troops will loot your riches and take your goods as prizes. They will destroy your walls and tear down your delightful homes. They will throw your stones, wood, and soil into the water.

¹³ “I will put a stop to your noisy songs, and the music from your harps will no longer be heard. ¹⁴ I will turn you into bare rock. You will become a place to spread fishing nets. You will never be rebuilt. I, Yahweh, have spoken, declares Adonay Yahweh.

¹⁵ “This is what Adonay Yahweh says to Tyre: The people who live on the coast will shake with fear when they hear about your defeat. They will groan when your people are wounded and slaughtered. ¹⁶ Then the princes from the coast will come down from their thrones. They will remove their robes and take off their embroidered clothes. Dressed in terror, they will sit on the ground. They will tremble constantly and be shocked at you. ¹⁷ Then they will sing this funeral song for you:

Tyre, you famous city, you have been destroyed.
    You have been shattered by the sea.
        You and your people ruled the sea.
            All your people terrified those who lived by the coast.
¹⁸ Your defeat will make the people who live by the coast tremble.
    Your end will terrify the islands in the sea.

¹⁹ “This is what Adonay Yahweh says: I will turn your city into ruins like cities that have no one living in them. I will bring the deep ocean over you, and the Mediterranean Sea will cover you. ²⁰ I will bring you down with those who descend to the grave to join the people of long ago. I will make you live below the earth among the ancient ruins with those who go down to the grave. You will never return or take your place in the land of the living. ²¹ I will turn you into a terror, and you will no longer exist. People will look for you, but they will never see you again,” declares Adonay Yahweh.
 

 

Ruins with no one living in them? The Mediterranean covered up the Island of Tyre? Everyone will die? Tyre will NEVER RETURN among the land of the living? Tyre will NO LONGER EXIST? No one will EVER SEE TYRE AGAIN? 

 

This is not a prophecy about a long period of time. It doesn't even appear to be a prophecy at all.

 

It's about the immediate time in question where Nebby will sweep through and desolate Tyre, make it barren, kill everyone, and the "princes of the coast" will watch in terror. Tyre will never be rebuilt. Doesn't this sound like a guy spouting off about Israel's national god taking revenge on a city who thought to take advantage of Israel and get rich?

 

And doesn't it sound like one big metaphor? 

 

The real kicker here is that it's not even presented as literal. So these dumbass christians must also think that Yahweh took the city of Tyre, literally, and placed it below the earth in a realm of the dead, literally. And that Tyre will never again be seen among the land of the living. And that the Island literally went below the sea. This sounds like some crack pot prophet yelling about California falling into the sea. And then if it partially happened, being inevitable, taking credit for a true prophecy. And since it didn't happen, I assume the Rabbi's took it as metaphor any ways. How else would these writings pass along if they're not literally true?  

 

 

I will make you live below the earth among the ancient ruins with those who go down to the grave. You will never return or take your place in the land of the living.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

duplicate

 

[MOHO]

From @JoshPantera's original post: " "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth...." To John, the stars are just little lights a few miles away that can easily fall to the earth. 6:13 "

 

Proof that the bable was written by humans with little or no knowledge of the universe or planetary bodes. It's difficult to explain this one away as a translation error or just a parable. It states what it states - flatly!

 

This one stuck out to me because I found it a few weeks ago and wrote "WTF" in big, black, incky letters at the top of the page with an arrow running down the page to it.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

From @JoshPantera's original post: " "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth...." To John, the stars are just little lights a few miles away that can easily fall to the earth. 6:13 "

 

Proof that the bable was written by humans with little or no knowledge of the universe or planetary bodes. It's difficult to explain this one away as a translation error or just a parable. It states what it states - flatly!

 

This one stuck out to me because I found it a few weeks ago and wrote "WTF" in big, black, incky letters at the top of the page with an arrow running down the page to it.

 

I've seen this used against the bible many times. However I was brought up with a different interpretation. We believed that the Bible was a book of symbols and types - thus everything could have a second meaning that needed to be revealed.

 

Thus Stars weren't actually referring to Stars, they were references to Angels. So this type of Christian would not be fazed - they would look at you and say don't be stupid, "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth" is referring to fallen angels. From memory Trees were types for men.

 

Except of course when they were literal. So in Genesis stars were stars (He made the stars also). The Tree of Knowledge of Good an evil was not a tree though, and not a man, it was carnal knowledge.

 

Actually in hindsight I think my church just made shit up.... they seemed to have changed their types around whenever they felt like it. In one verse stars mean star, in another stars is metaphor for angel. However, given our own accepted view of heavy use of metaphor in the bible this might be correct? John actually is referring to angels? Or maybe not. Hmmmm

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Actually in hindsight I think my church just made shit up....

 

Either that or they just swallowed someone else's shit sandwich. Regardless, it's clearly shit.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

Actually, I should acknowledge that the specific "stars" reference that was quoted above is from Revelation, which I think we can all agree contains a lot of symbolism. However, the Gospels have Jesus predicting that the stars would fall from the sky, and I see no way to justify twisting that into symbolism. Also, even with Revelation, the imagery of stars falling to the earth was probably a symbol of choice precisely because the author did believe that it was possible for stars to fall to the earth.

 

[readyforchange]

 

 

Their whole debate hinges on the prophesy being about "many nations" not only about Neb. Therefore Ezekiel 29:18 has little impact on them because of the shift in chapter 26 verse 13 from "He" to they. So the claim is that the "riches" in verse 14/15 is for the many nations - (They will do x, they will destroy, they will take you as a spoil for nations)

 

So its a case of asking them how to they justify the "they, and many nations" as referring to anyone other than Neb.

 

Asking why wasn't the main destroyer Alexander the great mentioned by name, and why wasn't it mentioned that he would bring ships from other nations which was critical to his victory seems to have little impact. A bit of hand waving seems to be satisfactory to them.

 

Yeah, it seems like a case of stretching the context to make the prophecy still work.  I may be missing something there, but I think in a plain reading of the NOG translation, the "His troops" at the beginning of 26:12 is the plural "they" referenced afterwards in verse 12.  In order to be consistent with the "his" references in 26:7-11, this has to be Nebuchadnezzar, because he is named in verse 7 and no other individual is named afterwards (as the "he" referenced in verses 7-11).  So in the NOG translation, "His troops" in verse 12 refers to Nebuchadnezzar's troops. 

 

But in the apologetic explanation from your earlier post (below), it says that this part of the prophecy (verse 12) was fulfilled by Alexander.  To make this explanation work (at least with the NOG translation), this has to mean Nebuchadnezzar's troops did the "plunder all your riches and merchandise and break down your walls" part and Alexander the Great's army did the "destroy your lovely homes and dump your stones and timbers and even your dust into the sea" part.  I suppose that could be possible, but hard to see that this is what Ezekiel would have meant.  But again, this is the NOG, so not sure if any other Bible translations have a similar translation of verse 12. 

 

 

¹² And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

 

Alexander the great filled this part of the prophesy when he used stones from the mainland city to build a causeway out to island Tyre. He then proceeded to break down the walls and destroy the island city.

[Joshpantera]

That's every bit as stupid as suggesting that ancient writers were referring to the post WWII Israel of today....

[reverendturmoil]

 

Actually, I should acknowledge that the specific "stars" reference that was quoted above is from Revelation, which I think we can all agree contains a lot of symbolism. However, the Gospels have Jesus predicting that the stars would fall from the sky, and I see no way to justify twisting that into symbolism. Also, even with Revelation, the imagery of stars falling to the earth was probably a symbol of choice precisely because the author did believe that it was possible for stars to fall to the earth.

 

It could also be both literal and figurative.  The phrase, "and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken," indicate something in the heavens is literally shoken up if the moon doesn't give light and other things are disrupted.  It could also have something to do with the latter stages of a blood moon.  At the beginning of tribulation, the moon is red especially when it first rises.  Probably due to so much crap being emitted into the atmosphere.  Toward the end of tribulation, there will be so much shit in the atmosphere that the moon will appear as a dim glow as though light clouds.  This could also cause us from earth to NOT see the stars.  This could also imply meteors etc.  This may even imply that certain stars from the constellations fall. Just my thoughts 

[Joshpantera]

 

It could also be both literal and figurative.  The phrase, "and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken," indicate something in the heavens is literally shoken up if the moon doesn't give light and other things are disrupted.  It could also have something to do with the latter stages of a blood moon.  At the beginning of tribulation, the moon is red especially when it first rises.  Probably due to so much crap being emitted into the atmosphere.  Toward the end of tribulation, there will be so much shit in the atmosphere that the moon will appear as a dim glow as though light clouds.  This could also cause us from earth to NOT see the stars.  This could also imply meteors etc.  This may even imply that certain stars from the constellations fall. Just my thoughts 

 

We're talking about what Jesus, a character in a mythological story written by unknown authors around 2,000 years ago, said concerning a time which they perceived as short at hand. What crap was being emitted into the atmosphere 2,000 years ago during the time outlined by these anonymous authors? What crap made the moon dim that these ancient authors would know anything about? You have to put on your thinking cap a little tighter, reverandturmoil. 

 

Especially as concerns (1) your own claim to be "DONE w/christians and then (2) speaking of the christian concept of the tribulation in ways that would lead one to think that you believe in the christian concept of the tribulation. 

 

Care to try again? 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

It could also be both literal and figurative.  The phrase, "and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken," indicate something in the heavens is literally shoken up if the moon doesn't give light and other things are disrupted.  It could also have something to do with the latter stages of a blood moon.  At the beginning of tribulation, the moon is red especially when it first rises.  Probably due to so much crap being emitted into the atmosphere.  Toward the end of tribulation, there will be so much shit in the atmosphere that the moon will appear as a dim glow as though light clouds.  This could also cause us from earth to NOT see the stars.  This could also imply meteors etc.  This may even imply that certain stars from the constellations fall. Just my thoughts 

 

As Joshpantera pointed out, that doesn't work. The Bible has Jesus saying this stuff would happen before their generation died out, so any current pollution is completely irrelevant.

 

Also, there is nothing there suggesting that the "stars" were meant figuratively. Besides, even you say "both literal and figurative," but the literal side of it is completely absurd. Stars can't fall from the sky to the earth. We know that now, but they didn't know that then, so the prophecy would've sounded plausible to them.

 

[reverendturmoil]

 

 

As Joshpantera pointed out, that doesn't work. The Bible has Jesus saying this stuff would happen before their generation died out, so any current pollution is completely irrelevant.

 

Also, there is nothing there suggesting that the "stars" were meant figuratively. Besides, even you say "both literal and figurative," but the literal side of it is completely absurd. Stars can't fall from the sky to the earth. We know that now, but they didn't know that then, so the prophecy would've sounded plausible to them.

 

The generation Jesus was talking about is the one that witnesses the events he described in Mathew 24.  NOT the one he was talking to.  Also, the stars mentioned in Mathew 24:29 are not said to fall to earth, only that they fall.

 

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the starsshall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

The generation Jesus was talking about is the one that witnesses the events he described in Mathew 24.  NOT the one he was talking to.

 

Part of what is described in Matthew 24 is the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and Jesus said that that generation would not die until ALL THESE THINGS (everything he had been talking about) took place. The temple was destroyed in 70 CE, and from then until now is a hell of a lot more than one generation.

 

 

Also, the stars mentioned in Mathew 24:29 are not said to fall to earth, only that they fall.

 

To them, the stars were dots of light above the earth, so what else could falling from the sky mean but to the earth? Besides, even Revelation uses the imagery of stars falling to the earth, which would seem to be a reasonable possibility within their misunderstanding of the universe.

 

[reverendturmoil]

 

 

Part of what is described in Matthew 24 is the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and Jesus said that that generation would not die until ALL THESE THINGS (everything he had been talking about) took place. The temple was destroyed in 70 CE, and from then until now is a hell of a lot more than one generation.

 

 

To them, the stars were dots of light above the earth, so what else could falling from the sky mean but to the earth? Besides, even Revelation uses the imagery of stars falling to the earth, which would seem to be a reasonable possibility within their misunderstanding of the universe.

 

Mathew 24 is not only about the temples destruction, but more about the conditions and events that take place before, "the end of the world" as that was part of the question the disciples asked.

 

1. When will these things be. (not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.)

2. What will be the sign of thy coming.

3. What will be the sign of the end of the world. (consummation of the age)

 

What most people don't know is that there are three different words for WORLD and three different words for END in Mathew 24.  The temple was destroyed in 70AD, but you would have a difficult time convincing people how all of the events described in the chapter actually took place in 70AD. The chapter is full of "the signs of his coming and end of the world.."  One guy tried telling me that the earthquakes mentioned in verse 7 are the "earth shaking events of Jerusalems destruction.

 

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

 

Mathew was written in 67AD.  Some books after that.  How can the gospel be preached throughout the world in 3 years?

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Mathew 24 is not only about the temples destruction

 

I never said it was ONLY about the temple's destruction. I said that it INCLUDES the temple's destruction. That is part of the "all these things" that were supposed to happen before "this generation" passed away.

 

And it's not just Matthew 24. The NT is rife with predictions of the imminent return of Jesus, yet it didn't happen.

 

 

The temple was destroyed in 70AD, but you would have a difficult time convincing people how all of the events described in the chapter actually took place in 70AD.

 

I never said those things all happened in 70 AD. Of course they didn't, nor did they happen within the lifetime of the people of that generation. Therein lies the problem, Mr. Turmoil. What the passage has Jesus predicting would happen did not happen. That generation died off, as did many others over the past couple millennia, and yet the prophecies attributed to Jesus have not happened.