Talk:Biblical prophecies/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 April 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)


Needs some introduction and more examples for Rationalwikification. Keepgoats 07:29, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Thats on the agenda. ill get to it within two years. - Icewedge 14:05, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Fine, but that means you're on a schedule now! --Kels 14:14, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

It's a Revelation![edit]

Having never read it (& having no intent ever to), isn't Revelations bit prophetic? Keepgoats 15:44, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Reading it would be a good idea (along with, say, Leviticus), since understanding your adversary is always essential. But yeah, it's full of failed ones. Every few years, somebody will have claimed to decipher it as saying the apocalypse is imminent... but there still hasn't been an apocalypse. --ηοξιμαχονγ 15:47, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
I do read fiction, but not 2000 year old fiction. I don't particularly want to understand the adversary. I'd sooner read pictish runes. Keepgoats 15:57, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Geit.jpg! Not sure if that's Pict, but... --ηοξιμαχονγ 16:08, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Futhark, actually. That's the Nordic/Germanic system. Having access to the intertubes (and a bit curious anyhow), I looked up Pictish runes and discovered they're more inclined towards closed geometric shapes attached to lines. Like triangles, squares, etc. Interesting. --Kels 16:26, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Very nice, I haven't a clue. My pictish is slightly worse than my french & that's non-existent.

If I had to understand where every nut in the world "was coming from" I'd need an eight day week full of 48 hour days and probably a life with the duration of Noah's. You don't have to know the chemistry to know durian fruit smells bad. Keepgoats 16:22, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

I went of a C of E primary school, and I have two Bibles (and a Tao Te Ching, Dhammapada, Baghavad-gita and Aradia Gospel of the Witches, but my Quran, Origin of Species, and Popol Vuh seem to have wandered off). I'll have a look in Revelation to see what's useful here. Most of it is symbolic imagery rather than actual future-telling, so claiming its prophecies to be disproven would be a straw man. Totnesmartin 16:53, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
As a pagan, I prefer wicker men. --Kels 17:05, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Also as a pagan, I don't even need to ask which version... Totnesmartin 17:43, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
A new one every spring! --Kels 18:04, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Is that Wicca wicker or wicker wicker? Keepoff the grass 18:34, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Totnesmartin, where the heck is your Book of the Dead? --ηοξιμαχονγ 17:21, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Egyptian, Tibetan, or neil? Totnesmartin 17:43, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Ha! neil! - love it.Keepoff the grass 17:50, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Anyway, the reason I'm back instead of ploughing through The Apocalypse of John is this: Christians say that Chernobyl is Russian or Ukrainian for Wormwood, thus fulfilling this Revelation quote: And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as if it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; and the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter. the only problem being that Chernobyl literally means Black Grass, and is the local word for mugwort. Wormwood is polyn. see [this] for more.

Revelations is not a prophesy, it's apocalyptic literature, which is a very different thing. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:48, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Tell that to the literalists. Don't they know it has seven levels of interpretation, of which the literal is the most basic? I'm ahead of that and I'm not even a Christian! Incidentally AK, what's up with the Conservapedia Column? Totnesmartin 17:57, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, I'm still sort of on a CP boycot - plus I got a new job on the side that's taking a lot of time. But I'll see if I can get it revived again. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:38, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Updating section[edit]

I have accumulated a fair amount of information on biblical prophecies. I would like to expand this section with categories (retrodiction, self-fulfilled, vagueness, prophecies that weren't, etc.) and supporting arguments. Are there any objections? zieber 12:45, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Feel free to. This is a wiki, after all. Bastard stupid Phantom! 12:58, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Close to silver[edit]

With a few improvements like an image or two, this could easily be silver. Blue (pester) 21:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll look for some images. TyTy 21:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Got 'em. Tytalk 21:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Bump. Тytalk 01:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to bump something, don't bump it as a bot, no-one is going to notice that on RC. -- Nx / talk 09:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yet here you are. Тytalk 13:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

a BoN addition[edit]

A BoN stuck this in the "Failed to smite Jebus" section. I am still trying to figure out what it is actually saying. VOXHUMANA 05:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"15:63 Inhabitants of Jerusalem - For though Jerusalem was in part taken by Joshua before this; yet the upper and stronger part of it, called Zion, was still kept by the Jebusites, even until David's time; and it seems from thence they descended to the lower town called Jerusalem, and took it so that the Israelites were forced to win it a second time; yea, and a third time also: for afterwards it was possessed by the Jebusites, Judg 19:11 2Sam 5:6,7. Could not drive them out - Namely, because of their unbelief, as Christ could do no mighty work, because of the peoples unbelief, Mark 6:5,6 Matt 13:58, and because of their sloth, and cowardice, and wickedness, whereby they forfeited God's help. The children of Judah - The same things which are here said of the children of Judah, are said of the Benjamites, Judg 1:21. Hence ariseth a question, To which of the tribes Jerusalem belonged? It seems probable, that part of it, and indeed the greatest part, stood in the tribe of Benjamin; and hence this is mentioned in the list of their cities, and not in Judah's list; and part of it stood in Judah's share, even mount Moriah, on which the temple was built; and mount Sion, when it was taken from the Jebusites. To this day - When this book was written, whether in Joshua's life, which continued many years after the taking of Jerusalem; or after his death, when this clause was added by some other man of God. But this must be done before David's time, when the Jebusites were quite expelled, and their fort taken. ---> Bible Commenter Joshua 15 "

OK, I've figured it out. This text was cut and pasted from a Bible apologetics site. As per usual, it tries to dance around the contradiction using word salad. I've since rewritten the section to tighten it up. VOXHUMANA 05:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


Long time lurker, first time poster blah blah blah

It seems like Strand and Father Vivian O'Blivion have been adding some... interesting editorial comments on this. Can someone with more clout than me step in and clean up? — Unsigned, by: AlvidBarza / talk / contribs

I think I understand why Fr. Vivian did what he did, and for the moment it appears to be sorted. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
"Because he wasn't paying attention." Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Happens to the best of us, as you have just demonstrated. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The IP deletion was me, it occurred to me after I did it that I may have acted in bad form and rather than compound my error I made an account and posted here. Sorry for stirring my trouble, I hope I didn’t cause too much of it. AlvidBarza (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you stab someone? Because, after what happened yesterday, you would pretty much have to track down a user and stab him in order to get noticed as a troublemaker. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Opening salvo[edit]

This is kinda picky, but accuracy in an opening paragraph matters. The Watchtower publication is not a fundamentalist publication using prophecy to prove inerrancy. "inspired of god" is not the same as "literally true". If this is such a big deal in the fundamentalist circles, then there should be something off of AGI or ICR or CMI that would be a far better example.One tin soldier (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the claim that "this section shows prophecies that are claimed to have passed", doesn't mean anything unless you find someone saying "this prophecy was fulfilled". Otherwise it reads like heresay, or a strawman - for all i don't think it *is* heresay or a strawman.One tin soldier (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This article gets a few hits[edit]

In particular, it gets referenced a lot by readers on Twitter. What polishing could it do with further? - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The intro section could do with being a bit better: examples of the broader claims of accurate prophecy, notes on how mainstream these ideas are, specifics of narrower creationist claims, etc. - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of Tyre failed?[edit]

I fail to see how this prophecy is classed as failed,

Nebuchadnezzar II besieged the city. From a military standpoint, after many years it might have seemed futile to continue. But he persevered until Tyre fell at the end of 13 years, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that had named him as its conqueror.

It was completely destroyed, just because someone built/rebuilt a city with the name Tyre does not disprove this prophecy, it happened just as the Bible mentioned in this instance. -28th July 2014

It was not completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. And even if it had been, the prophecy stated quite clearly "you shall never be rebuilt; for I the Lord have spoken, says the Lord God" (Ez 26:14). Making the prophecy a double-fail. --Inquisitor (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
After looking into this more, it seems that there is a bit of misunderstanding as it's half taken out of context, and some missing points of the great detail that was foretold.
First of all, the first part of Ez 26:14 says 'I will make you a shining, bare rock, and you will become a drying yard for dragnets' then adds 'you will never be rebuilt'. The verses before go into detail about the destruction of Tyre, and mentions how the rubble and debris will be 'in the midst of the water.'(Ez 26:12). Which came true when Alexander built a causeway towards the island using all the rubble etc. That said, and considering the sentences directly above the words 'you shall never be rebuilt', you can see how this was true in this sense, as all the rubble and rock were taken away from the mainland and cast into the sea(so there was no basis for it to be rebuilt). It's also interesting that only that single sentence alone mentions Tyre to not be rebuilt, there are mainly two or more scriptures from separate books where prophecies, or in this instance sentences(on the same subject and related time frame), are to be taken as literal prophecies up to modern day or not(taking into account the information provided). Do you not think more harmonizing verses would also mention Tyre to never be rebuilt if it meant over a longer period of time(i.e. to nowadays)? Verses in a different alignment of context I of course mean.
In Ez 29:18 it mentions the same event, but more for Nebuchadnezzar's part. Tyre was a growing wealthy city at this time, and the latter part of that verse it mentions 'his army received no wages for the labor expanded on Tyre'. Now considering the context of that verse, and noticeably the following verse where it mentions God giving the wealth of Egypt to King Nebuchadnezzar, it's clear to make out that the 'wages' refer to the wealth or loot that raids would receive. So he was to receive nothing from his siege on Tyre(baring in mind this is a prophecy), and as prophecies genuinely have multiple verses to validate it, linking back to the COMPLETE destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, the destruction of Tyre to the extent of it all being destroyed is not what Ez 26:7-14 is prophesying. The island was where all the wealth of Tyre was, and Nebuchadnezzar didn't go to, and was never going to, capture the island to acquire the 'wage'.
Sorry for the long message, but I feel that this should be discussed properly with real insight, knowledge and meaning, and ultimately corrected via removal from the page. - 30th July 2014.
Sounds like your further research consisted entirely of reading Josh McDowell-esque apologetics. You're reading a lot into the text that isn't there. --Inquisitor (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? I do not know what you mean by 'Josh McDowell-esque apologetics' at all? My research was entirely from looking into the Bible, linking to other verses on the same subject, and it took me a fair amount of time to explain and put into words what I looked up. If the explanation above is a bit too much for you or a bit complex to ponder on, then simply do not make an unhelpful reply as you just did. If you are in question about it, the scriptures I use perhaps, then look it up and further carry on this discussion. Are the verses and reasoning I use incorrect? I use the Jehovah's Witnesses new NWT Bible, and have checked up older translations for clarification.
Please do not be rude again, I am quite surprised and offended at your claim of me, if you think I have missed something or not opened to another verse on this subject, then it would be helpful of you to reply with more depth and detail. Otherwise, I would advise you remove this from the 'failed' category or move it to a more suitable category. - 30th July 2014
Please do not feign umbrage with me again. I think that you may have the misunderstanding that I am not familiar with the Christian apologetics surrounding this topic. I am. As such, your line of reasoning appeared to me as very well-trodden ground. You have presented your arguments, and they are not persuasive. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You think I am faking my taking of offense? You fail to give me any points to reason regarding the prophecy being failed, so another non-helpful reply. By 'apologetics' I am not recommending my faith, a 'systematic' defense is definitely not a reason to brush aside a point, if you are familiar with the Scriptures I have raised, then tell me WHY it is in the wrong. This is not a defense, I am attacking this claim as it were. You mentioned it as 'well-trodden' but you still do not clarify or help my understanding of this, as you would have dealt with this plenty of times if that were the case? So it is not 'persuasive' enough for you - If you truly think that persuasiveness is the key in pointing an event to being factual or not, then the whole page declaring the prophecy as failed is just your own opinion on the matter.
Hopefully this time you will take this into account; if you cannot give me a reasonable explanation to my line of reasoning above, then do not reply. Let someone else do so. I am fed up of your ignorant remarks. I am open towards different views on my points, hence why I posted in this talk page for further points on this. But you on the other hand just seem to make short meaningless comments of your opinion and leave it as that, not providing any further evidence or proof. - 30th July 2014

Name change[edit]

I'd like to move this page to Biblical prophecies. First, because the Bible does accurately "predict" some things, and this way we don't need to inaccurately file them under "failed". Second, because renaming it makes the article appear less biased from the beginning. Third, because it fits with the rest of similar ideas that we rebut, such as Biblical scientific foreknowledge, Biblical inerrancy, etc. If nobody objects within a day or two, and I remember, I'll move the article. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a potentially excellent idea. How good a survey of prophecies in toto is it? It'd need to be a half-decent one - David Gerard (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as we only have 21 prophecies, and there are hundreds of claimed prophecies, this article isn't a good survey of all Biblical prophecies. However, seeing as many of the prophecies given here are pretty strong indictments of the Bible, this article makes a good case for the errancy of the Bible. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any lists of the most commonly-used ones. I have sat in a mainstream Church of England Christmas service and heard a lay reader seriously put forward Mark's point-by-point echoing of Isaiah as strong evidence of prophecy and thus the divinity of Jesus and not, e.g., the author of Mark sitting down with a copy of Isaiah to hand - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Isaiah predicts the Nile drying up, Sea draining[edit]

"In Isaiah 19:1-8 Isaiah tells us the Nile will dry up, ocean drains in the time of pagan Egypt." Ocean? It said sea. Then what sea is he talking about? Mediterranean? Red Sea? I guess if the waters failed from the sea the ocean would also have to have a low water level. User000name (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologist reply in the wild[edit]

[1] May be rubbish, but the claimed refutations are being used in the wild and need addressing - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Started on it. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 13:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel will be unbeatable[edit]

We say:

In Exodus 23:27 God tells Moses that he will defeat every enemy he encounters: I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. (NIV) However, history indicates many defeats suffered by the Israelites. Note that most believers will pull a no true Scotsman and claim that the defeats happened only at times when the Israelites weren't pious enough.

Oates says:

Exodus 23:27 says Israel shall never be defeated, but how does that explain Assyria and Babylon….. I do not even know what RationalWiki is talking about here. Just read the passage in question for yourself. It is a prophecy of the time when the Jews conquered parts of Canaan at the time of Joshua. This passage does not say anything LIKE Israel will never be defeated for all time. It is a prophecy that at the time Joshua and the Jews enter Canaan, God would send confusion into the Canaanites, allowing the Jews to conquer much of the area. Just read this passage. It says that the Jews only would conquer the Promised Land gradually. The very passage RationalWiki is claiming is a false prophecy that Israel will never be defeated implies that Israel would only conquer the Promised Land quite slowly, which clearly implies some defeats, which is in fact exactly what happened. This is further reason to take what RationalWiki is saying with a massive grain of salt. From here the supposed contradictions get even less believable.

Exodus 23:29-30 says:
I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.

Oates seems kind of right. Can we move the passage to a "fulfilled but really vague prophecies" section? Or could this section be changed to fit the actual passage? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Oates "forgets" some of the other promises in the same context which clearly didn't come true, e.g. Exodus 23:25-26 where YHWH promises to "take sickness away from the midst of thee. There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil." (KJV, in the NIV it's "I will take away sickness from among you, and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.").
I think the problem is that the current RW text extrapolates from YHWH's promise about (slowly) driving the Israelites' enemies out and promising the Israelites victory to YHWH promising that the Israelites will not suffer defeats.
Another bit of context that Oates conveniently "forgets" is the subsequent promise in Exodus 23:31 where Israel's borders is set at the Red Sea (which Israel has rarely reached) and the Euphrates river (in modern day Iraq, a border which Israel to my knowledge has never reached at any point in history).
So yes, I suggest changing the text to better match the promises and emphasise those that are categorically untrue, rather than the current version which is far too open to "gotcha criticism".
Also, if the Hittites in ExodusWikipedia are the same as the historical Hittites,Wikipedia then YHWH didn't drive them slowly from the Levant - instead the Hittite Empire rather suddenly disappeared in the Bronze Age collapse.Wikipedia ScepticWombat (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Virgin birth[edit]

My major question is how we use Isaiah 8:3. We say:

Per Isaiah 7:14-16: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. (NIV) Could this passage have been intended to refer to Jesus? It appears merely to be about people living at the time, and in fact in Isaiah 8:3 a male child is born.

But Isaiah 8:3 doesn't seem to fit. The kid's name is Mahershalalhashbaz, not Immanuel. The kingdoms aren't destroyed before curds. Is it wrong? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the argument being made. But as Jesus pretty obviously wasn't the result of a virgin birth isn't arguing about what the prophecy "really means" a bit of a waste of time?
On the other hand, if the argument is that the prophecy is that a young woman will give birth then you've got to hand it to them. That prophecy certainly came true. Indeed young women continue to give birth to this day.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This one's interesting, because Isaiah as true prophecy is quite commonly used today. So find good citable examples of people who do so in practice, and refute their claims. (The objection linked above tends to the sophisticated theology rather than the stuff people actually use.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The virgin birth article's been updated, and I think it does a decent job, will add more later.
My question here is, is (as we say) Isaiah 8:3 truly the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14-16? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The version by Oakes is so hilariously "have your cake and eat it too" in its argumentation in favour of both the reference to a virgin birth and that Isaiah 7:14-16 being a genuine prophecy that I think it merits repetition here:
The virgin (literally young woman, almah) will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (literally God among us). It is true that the Hebrew here is alma which means young woman, and not necessarily a virgin. However, for a married woman to give birth to a son is certainly not a sign. The prophecy states that this birth will be a miracle. Given that a miracle is prophesied, the most reasonable interpretation of the Hebrew is a virgin, not simply a married young woman. Add to this the fact that when the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek about 250 years before Christ, they used a Greek word which is definitely for a virgin. This proves that the Jews understood this to be a prophecy of a virgin birth before Jesus was born. Either way, in what way is this evidence that the Bible has an error? Even if the prophecy is not of a virgin birth, in any case, Jesus was born of a young woman. So, how does this prove that the Bible cannot be trusted? Why do these critics even mention this when in absolutely no way does this undermine biblical accuracy? Hmmm…
Oakes being unintentionally funny
Note the logic here:
  1. Oakes agree that the Hebrew actually refers to a(ny) "young woman", not necessarily a "virgin", and
  2. Oakes agrees that a young woman giving birth is not an earth shattering miracle, but then that must mean that it can't just refer to such a mundane event, and that
  3. the authors of the Septuagint must have been divinely inspired to choose the Greek word "virgin", which means that
  4. the Jews realised that this really was a prophecy (but just forgot to tell anyone, apparently...), and anyway
  5. even if the correct translation is "young woman", the bible isn't technically] wrong. So there...
Just, wow! You've gotta hand it to biblical inerrantist literalists that they perform some impressive mental gymnastic to make the evidence fit the interpretation. Anywho, contrary to Oakes' claim, no Jews claimed that Isaiah 7:14-16 was a prophecy about anything else than Isaiah 8:3 prior to the advent of Christianity (and those who remained Jews have stuck to this straight forward interpretation). That Christians started claiming that Isaiah predicted the birth of Jesus is yet another example of the reinterpretation/retconning of Old Testament texts by Christians (I think Muslims have done similar things with both the OT and NT) who suddenly found all kinds of prophecies post facto. It's a sort of "If you squint in just the right way you can almost make it look like a deformed elephant"-approach which also involved the gospel writers (who got the ball rolling by relying on the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew versions of the OT and invented spotted the "prophecy" in the first place). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice review. I might steal it... 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Is done[edit]

All the criticisms have been largely responded to. What to do now? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It kind of bothers me that the article entitled "Can you explain all the unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies listed at RationalWiki?" doesn't actually explain all the unfulfilled prophecies, just 10. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
What to do now? Take a well deserved rest! :-)
As for your second observation, given how Oakes messed up his attempt to rescue the 10 failed prophesies, I think he should count himself lucky that he didn't try to tackle any more of them. Still, if Oakes returns to his hilarious efforts, I suggest creating a separate page for RW rebuttals and link to it from this article to avoid it ending up being as long as LogicMaster's talk or user page... ScepticWombat (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're feeling super-restless, email Mr Oakes, tell him we took his critiques seriously and attempted to address them, and ask him if he has any further concerns - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia page Failed Bible prophecies needs your brilliant minds[edit]

If you participate, please try to follow the current format and try to avoid the kinds of edits that happen here at RationalWiki. Y'all know what I'm talking about. However, it's people like you that, when serious, come up with the best stuff. (under the Polyglot Bible) is a good way to check the translation of the Bible, word for word. I've got the failed destruction of Tyre and Jesus being Emmanuel there. RationalWiki has a good list on the page Biblical prophecies, that I'd like to see copied over to Wikipedia. I think more people would see them, that way. Knowledgebattle (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This page was mentioned[edit]

at /r/Christianity. Some responses to the article include:

A lot of these seem reasonable when you come at them in a list, but having studied with an Old Testament professor, a lot of prophecies in the Old Testament can't just be plucked out - many of them end up being conditional, there are many that God changes his mind about. I haven't gone through the list, but heres the thing, God sometimes changes his mind - he's allowed to do that :) They are the ones saying that it must all come true exactly as they expect or they don't believe God.

It seems the prophecy about Tyre being destroyed, is similar to Mystery Babylon from book of Revelation which a great city, whose end is similar to destruction of Tyre there. There are towns called both Babylon and Tyre in New York.

It is known that after the siege the importance of Tyre faded, so it seems a large part of its surrounding territories were destroyed.

"The prosperity of Tyre attracted the attention of King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon who lay siege to the city for thirteen years in the 6th century BCE without breaking their defenses. During this siege most of the inhabitants of the mainland city abandoned it for the relative safety of the island city. Ushu became a suburb of Tyre on the mainland and remained so until the coming of Alexander the Great. "

So it seems the main city of Tyre was destroyed, what remained was the island part.

People read what they want to read in scripture. If you want to find problems, you'll find them. It's called faith for a reason.

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Tyre was rebuilt[edit]

(26:14, 21) "Thou [Tyrus] shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD." Ezekiel prophesies that Tyrus will be completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar and will never be built again. But it wasn't destroyed, as evidenced by the visits to Tyre by Jesus and Paul (Mt.15:21, Mk.7:24, 31, Acts 21:3)

Is this truly the case though?

But Isaiah had already prophesied (Is. 23:15) that Tyre would be rebuilt. Therefore, as John Gill comments, this should not be understood as if Tyre would never be completely rebuilt, but it should be understood as not rebuilt in the same grandeur and occupy the same position among the nations. But there are more layers in this prophesy. Tyre was also destroyed by Alexander. And it was he who destroyed the city completely. And by founding Alexandria he changed the track of commerce forever.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Good ol' Christian Apologetics at work, attempting to rewrite history to fit the bible. However, just as with the other anonymous users who have attempted this with Tyre here before in the Talk Page, you still have some major problems. First, the passage specifically states that Nebuchadrezzar would be the one to destroy Tyre completely and that it would never be built again. As history tells us, however, this never happened and he was forced. Unlike your source which tries to claim the capitol of Tyre was on the mainland, historically it was always the island - as various writings, such as those of the greeks, I believe, attest to - which was never destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. He never tore down its walls, or marched his horses in, or slaughtered all of its inhabitants as the prophecy states, and was instead forced to agree to a peace treaty. Not even Alexander did so, and in fact after conquering it, he even spared the king and most of its citizens, with the only executions mostly being performed as vengeance for his own men lost. This would contradict your other source, which claims at the end that these prophecies were "duly fulfilled to the letter". Now for claiming that it says that Tyre would never reach the grandeur it once held, that's a new one, but also false. After being restored by its own people, the city still stands to this day and, being essentially a modern city now, is far more grande than it ever was. Also to claim that the rebuilt Tyre isn't the same as the old one because it's not in the same exact place is a fairly weak argument at best, seeing as the city was rebuilt by the inhabitants of the original one.
Also, you're forgetting this little line from Ezekiel 26:21 which completely destroys your arguments:
"I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord."
As one can see, even the bible claims that it would never again be found... which wouldn't really work if the city was rebuilt. Now I await you to find some other vague, unfounded claim made by some other apologetics site so that you can attempt to poorly refute this. Nergali (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

apologetic for Tyre[edit]

I have faced an apologetic for the Tyre. I know how to refute it and do not buy that type of story. but it worth mentioning I guess since it has textual support, unlike others. Here I will quote and I hope it will qualify to be added and responded. I am quoting:

"Eze 26:3 NIV "therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves." The term Adonai, Soverign Lord, places God in charge of this move against Tyre. He is the one who cause "many nations" to come up.

Vs 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." We see again the same pairing of God and the nations: "they" and "I." The nations will scrape Tyre off, destroy the walls, and break down the towers. ANY nations are eligible for this action. Vs 5: "Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations." Once again, the I/nations pair is still in view here. Vss 6-7 "and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD. For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army." Adonai now brings on a specific attacker - Nebuchadnezzar. This brings on the first of "the nations" against Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar comes WITH all these things, and now note how the pairing changes: Vs 8: "He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you." Notice how the pairing I/they is not used, but it is now "he" -Nebuchadnezzar who is "in charge" of the scene. And of course "he" personifies his own army here, and those things with him (horses, etc) This language continues in verses 9-11, personifying his troops and horses under him: the horsemen, chariots and wagons are all "his." "His" horses will trample, "he" will kill; but note the change in verse 12. Vs 12: "They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea." We return to "they" for the first time since v. 4. And: Vs 13: "I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more." We also now return to "I": Adonai, the Soverign Lord. Then it continues: Vs 14: "I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD." Ezekiel gives us two pairings: the I/they of Adonai the sovereign, leading the nations; and the he/personified-possession army of Nebuchadnezzar. Ezekiel therefore indicates that Nebuchadnezzar will do specific actions, and that "nations" will perform certain actions. Nebuchadnezzar brings one of those nations on the scene, but the language tells us that the actions of 3-5 and 12-14 may be performed by any nations God brings against Tyre and need not be the actions of Nebuchadnezzar.

Verses 3-5 and 12-14 are "I/they" verses -- and form a minor chiastic structure around the central core of verses describing Nebuchadnezzar's actions alone. The linguistic pattern of this passage indicates that the "they" of v. 12 are the nations of v. 4. Not only is the pronoun ("they") the same, but in addition, only in these verses is Adonai the sole leader, and two unique actions -- net spreading, scraping -- are the same as those ascribed to the nations in 3-5. So "they" in v. 12 does not refer to Nebuchadnezzar and his army; they, as "nations" brought by Adonai not only before but AFTER the attack by Nebuchadnezzar, are different nation brought against Tyre in its history following. Therfore, I contend that this passage does not teach that Nebuchadnezzar would be the one to destroy the city; that was the job of "the nations," and it was Alexander the Great and his army which qualify to be among them who would conquer it. But its final destruction would be the result of more than "

one enemy invasion and not Nebuchadnezzar alone.

Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon was the first of the nations to come against Tyre. Alexander's forces were put together from a coalition of Greek city-states. Each of these was an independant nation unto itself. Alexander's father, Philip II, unified through war these city-states,as well as the regions of Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece proper under his rule - giving his son the unified force he needed to complete his conquest. This was a coalition composed of many nations - and thus fulfills the prophecy that "many nations" would come upon Tyre to seige her. Alexander also got help from his friends in Macedon and from the Phoenician city-states Aradus, Byblos, and Sidon; ships also came from Enylos, Soli, Mallos, Rhodes, Lycia, and Cyprus to help Alexander overcome Tyre. (Wallace B. Fleming, The History of Tyre. New York: Columbia U. Press, 1915, p.58) With the exception of Macedon, each of these was an entirely separate nation from those in Alexander's land forces.
What about the claim the city would never be rebuilt? Compare this to an inscription by the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III: "I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore." (Moshe and Trude Dothan, Peoples of the Sea, p.27) Cleary when Ramsses tells us his enemies were "made non-existent," he was not meaning this literally, since he goes on to indicate they were captured. In the Victory Stele of Merneptah, we have more trash talk like, "Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent..." Literal descriptions (conquered, seized) are mixed with clearly metaphorical ones (made non-existent), and that is what we have here. "Never be rebuilt" is trash talk like that of Ramesses speaking of his non-existent, captured people, so common in the ANE.
Even if we take "never be rebuilt" literally, its very possible that the final nation in "they" ("the nations") prophesied to ruin Tyre is yet to come. The last nation that would finish off Tyre (rather literal or metaphorical) isn't named in this prophecy, but it certainly was not intended to be Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar.

end quote. --Sir artur (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems like they're quoting some other source, like Apologetics Press or something similar. Here's a nice rebuttal to this from here, I hope it helps: Nergali (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
the link you gave talked about many things that were in my mind. one more thinh I wanna add is : even if we assume so, that is still unfullfilled. OK, let us say when Bible says he it refers to Nebuchadnezzar, when it says they it refers to many nations. then, Nebu failed to break through into the walls of tyre, he did not penetrate the city so that he shall trample the streets with the hooves of his horses. He did not make pillars fall to the ground. Tyre sucessfully withstood the siege of him. That is still unfulfilled. but I still think it is worth mentioning since it relies on text rather thab silly way arguing.

was Nebu given Egypt as a gift?[edit]

Ezekiel 29 prophecies that God will give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as a payment for he worked for Yahweh (even though failed). as far as I know, Nebu defeated the egyptians but that was before the failure of Yahweh's Tyre mission, Ezekiel 29 was prophecied after that failure. was he given egypt after that? or Did Yahweh made him disappointed for being made disappointed by Nebu due to his failure? --Sir artur (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Another Tyre response[edit]

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And a very solid rebuttal of the response: FuzzyCatPotato of the Egregious Cakes (talk/stalk) 02:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sign of Jonah and what was the sign of Jonah[edit]

Jesus says "adulterous generation asks for sign, no sign shall be given to them except the sign of Jonah. as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish, so shall the son of man be in the belly of the earth". Not verbatim but I write as I recall. was this fullfilled? Let us look at christian attempts, actually the following are all part of 1 arguement:

1. "Yes he did since he died and stayed in the belly of the earth until the third day and then came out of it as Jonah came out of the fish." when, especially muslims say so, they are said that Jonah was alive compared to Jesus was dead christians have second attempt.

2. "Time factor was the criteria. he stayed there 3 days as Jonah stayed in the belly of the fish." Again, the answer usually comes from muslims. Considering he died just before the sabbath, he died on Friday and woke up just after the sabbath or the morning comes just after the sabbath, he stayed in the belly of the earth for 2 nigjts and 1.5 days. in Total, it is about 36 hours which means 1.5 days. Now comes the 3rd pard of christians.

3. Jesus was a jew, he was referring to the jews and was talking from their perspective, to their perspective. Jews considered any part of the day as a whole day, thus Friday is 1 day and that night is one night = 1 day. saturday day and night is second one, and the sunday morning will count as the 3rd day. he fullfilled it. (for this apologetics, good source is: "what indeed was the sign of Jonah", John Gilchrist. can be viewed in


A) if we are going to base the criteria on the jewish perspective, then: with their perspective, day starts in the friday evening and ends at saturday evening. from friday to saturday evening that is first day, from satirday evening till sunday evening that is the second day and Jesus resurrected durng the second day, not third one (talkinh from the point of view of the jews). so, he did not fullfill this prophecy no matter even if we count time factor.

b) if we were to determine the messiah via this prophecy only (Jesus' logic) , then everyone can fullfill the prophecy that was the only prophecy to be given. just stay at your home for 3 days or (36 hours like jesus did), play fifa or pes or GTA, eat, have a party, dance, watch and e.t.c You have stayed in the belly of your house just like Jonah stayed in the belly of the fish for 3 days and 3 nights. Christians may say "but you have to die and resurrect", but wait that is not the sign of Jonah, time factor is the main thing. hmmm, Jesus stayed in the belly of the earth? Jesus himseld determined the place he is gonna fullfill the sign, why cant others appoint a place for themselves to fullfill the sign just like Jesus did?— Unsigned, by: Sir artur / talk / contribs

is this a worth mentioninh prophecy? can we add it to the article? I think it is far more important than the current ones because: according to the main guy of christianity, this was the only sign with which the adulterous generation could have found their christ or the only sign for the messiahship of his messiahship and it failed in his self-assigned sign. and moreover, the apologetic for this failure is very tricky (e.g: defence of John Gilchrist) , many people do not realise the trick christians use to defend it. After all, this was a self-assigned sign, with this logic anyone or any jews could have claimed to be the christ and prve it. from the point of view christians, even non-jews women can claim and prove. all they need is to stay at the belly of their house for 36 hours and then claim to fullfill the remaining in their second coming as a jew guy. (assuming the messiah wi be a male, not female)--Sir artur (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Facebook reader[edit]

But I still have a question. I think although the prophecies weren't fulfilled literally some are amazing. For example, Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyros but at least he attacked it and of course the debris wasn't thrown into the sea as foreseen but Alexander did it later. And of course Egypt has never been desolate for 40 Years but it was attacked by the people the prophecy foresaw and it was weakened. It was not the lowest kingdom like written in the prophecy but it was weaker then before. And one I find funny: At one point in the Bible it's foreseen that one day, Israel will be full of green plants and give fruits to while world. Of course it wasn't fulfilled literally but in fact the citrus fruit export of Israel is very high these days:)

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to troll or so... And I read in your article that you need very good evidence to proof that claim. But I think Christians would argue that the Bible was written by humans and humans make mistakes. What do you think about that? As I said I'm just confused as some (or more) prophecies were not "fulfilled" but parts were predicted right I think... I'm looking forward to hearing from you!

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)