PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Why this whole debate is...

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

pointless.

Interesting read.  I think the last few lines pretty much sum it up.  No, not the footnote

Evolutionists Worry?
by Rev. Gise VanBaren



Would you really think so? Have they not, in effect, won the war concerning origins? The books of science, the museums of the land, the periodicals-all unabashedly promote and maintain evolution. There is simply no room for another view-at least not the view of Scripture. To prove that they are not scientific ignoramuses, many within the churches go along with these views, howbeit with an emphasis that it is "theistic."

An interesting article about this debate appeared in the Denver Post, July 2, 1998. It had the tongue-in-cheek title, "Creation debate continues to evolve." But the sub-heading was more telling: "Evolutionists worry Bible will veto science." Some remarkable claims were made in the article.


William Curtis worries that the teaching of evolution in schools is steering young people away from God and the Bible. So the Bible scholar is running an institute here to promote the literal biblical version of creation.
Meanwhile, professor Donald Wise fears that the growing influence of literal creationists like Curtis will deprive children of an understanding of contemporary science. Wise, who teaches geology at Franklin and Marshall College here, is using his science knowledge to debunk creationist views that man and the universe were created in six days, that Noah's flood killed the dinosaurs, and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Creationists "are a very powerful and influential group," said Wise. "The scientific community has to stand up and be counted."
For decades many scientists dismissed creationism as something that faded away not long after the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial. But now some see it as a renewed threat to the teaching of science, and they are jumping into the fray.
In April, the largest scientific society in the United States, the National Academy of Science, released a new guidebook for teachers explaining how to teach evolution.
...Stanford biologist Donald Kennedy, who headed the group that created the new guidelines, says that pressure from religious groups is having a "chilling effect" on elementary and secondary teachers, who feel pressured to steer clear of evolution.
At stake is far more than a child's understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution. The literal biblical version of creation contradicts most of geology, geochemistry, geophysics and paleontology, all of which hinge on the idea that Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
Creationism has a wide following. A 1993 Gallup poll showed that 47 percent of adults favor creationism over evolution and 35 percent agree that the Bible should be taken literally.

Professor Donald Wise decided he would put up a fight. But before doing so, he decided that he must learn something about creationism. He said, "As a geologist I had a great deal of trouble understanding it."

To help sort it out, he constructed the equivalent of a geologic time line according to the creationist 6,000-year framework, which assumes that most of Earth's mountains and canyons formed during the single year of Noah's flood.
For research materials, he turned to the Creation Resource Institute, which is run by Curtis.
Curtis, 68, spent the first half of his career as an aerospace engineer. Twenty-five years ago he enrolled at Capital Bible Seminary near Washington, where he earned degrees in Greek, Hebrew and theology....
...Curtis said he is not influenced by other religious scholars who have been willing to accept evolution, or even by the 1996 pronouncement by Pope John Paul II that evolution is compatible with Christian belief.
"Those people are neither educated nor Christian," he said. He argues that the central tenet of Christianity-that Christ died to redeem Adam's original sin-rests on the existence of Adam.
"If Noah isn't true, and Adam and Eve aren't true, then Christ is a liar," he said. Without Adam and Eve, he said, the whole picture falls apart.
Many scientists acknowledge that evolution can be hard to swallow.
In a recent talk in Philadelphia, Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould called evolution a threat to man's superior place in nature. It shows humans are not the crowning glory of creation, he said, but "a tiny, fragile little twig on this bushy, branching tree of life."
...The rise of literal creationism is a recent phenomenon, said historian Edward Larson, who won a Pulitzer Prize this year for his book, "Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trials and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion."

And so the debate goes on. The unbelieving scientist can find no other alternative to creation but evolution, which is itself hardly scientific and cannot be proven. The believing scientist seeks to prove from the realm of the natural that God did, after all, create as the Bible states it. Creationists continue to show the foolishness of the theory of evolution. Robert Doolan, in an article titled "Evolution's Three Dead Ducks" (Christian News, July 6, 1998), states:


What does a duck need to get off the ground? Well, it must at least have wings, and it must be alive.
If a majority of people think a dead duck can fly, it won't change the fact that it can't. Those who reject God's creation but accept the theory of evolution are putting their faith in dead ducks. At least three of them.
DEAD DUCK NUMBER ONE: If you reject God and miracles, you have no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there is no matter in the universe to start with, there is no universe; so nothing can happen to make anything appear. Juggle figures anyway you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.
DEAD DUCK NUMBER TWO: If you reject God and miracles, there is no scientific law that can account for living things' coming to life from non-living things. Evolutionists believe that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. But biology has no law to support this idea, and the invariable observation that only life begets life is overwhelming evidence against it.
DEAD DUCK NUMBER THREE: If you reject God and miracles, you have no scientific law that would allow one type of creature to turn into a completely different type of creature. Reptiles don't turn into birds, because reptiles don't have genes to produce feathers and wings. The theory of evolution teaches that simple life forms evolved into more complex life forms, which evolved into fish, which evolved into amphibians, which evolved into birds and mammals.
But there is no natural law that could allow this to happen. The best that evolution can do to explain how this might have happened is by mutations and natural selection. But mutations actually destroy genetic information, and natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures-it doesn't produce new kinds.
...All the evidence is on the side of the Christian who believes the Bible's account of creation-that God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce "after their kind."
Evolution truly is equivalent to a belief that dead ducks can fly. When you are talking to an evolutionist who rejects God and His creation, bring up the points mentioned above. …You will notice he ducks for cover when he finds his explanation can't get off the ground.

So the evolutionists are worried. They intend to carry on the battle against the creationists. And the creationist is ready to fight-often on the very ground of the evolutionist. Yet, when it comes right down to it, there is one reason why the evolutionist will never be convinced of the creationist's viewpoint, and one reason why the creationist must understand that he cannot succeed in persuading an evolutionist. That reason is put simply in Hebrews 11:3: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." So then, belief in the scriptural creation account requires first and above all a living faith. Without it, it is impossible to please God. Without it, it is impossible to believe the creation account given in Scripture.
[End]


This article is from the Standard Beraer, a reformed simi-monthly magazine, Vol. 74; No. 20; September 1, 1998. Rev. VanBaren is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church of Loveland, Colorado.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:12 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:12 PM on September 10, 2005 :
pointless.

Interesting read.  I think the last few lines pretty much sum it up.  . . .

. . .Hebrews 11:3: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." So then, belief in the scriptural creation account requires first and above all a living faith. Without it, it is impossible to please God. Without it, it is impossible to believe the creation account given in Scripture.


Nothing in these statements says that it is impossible to please God while holding the scientific view of the evolution of man or formation of the solar system.

Beware of false dichotomies.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:16 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not following.  If one believes Scripture then one believes that God created man.  One believes that the world was created in six days.  If one does not believe the Bible then one does not believe in God (Yaweh, Jehovah, etc... I'm not talking about Baal or Daagon here people).  You are asserting that it is possible to believe in the God of the Bible without believing in the Bible?  And that it is possible to please a God you don't believe in?   Do I follow this correctly?  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:59 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DEAD DUCK NUMBER ONE: If you reject God and miracles, you have no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there is no matter in the universe to start with, there is no universe; so nothing can happen to make anything appear. Juggle figures anyway you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.


Theories of the “Origin” have come to the point where most scientists agree there was no beginning in the first place. (ie: The Big Bang was not the start of the universe. It was merely the first step in a process that repeats itself for an infinite amount of times, and has been doing so for an infinite amount of times.)

DEAD DUCK NUMBER TWO: If you reject God and miracles, there is no scientific law that can account for living things' coming to life from non-living things. Evolutionists believe that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. But biology has no law to support this idea, and the invariable observation that only life begets life is overwhelming evidence against it.


Lack of evidence for Theory A is not “overwhelming evidence” against Theory A. Nor does it amount for evidence of Theory B.

DEAD DUCK NUMBER THREE: If you reject God and miracles, you have no scientific law that would allow one type of creature to turn into a completely different type of creature.


Wow… Mr. VanBaren reveals a profound lack of understanding for Evolution right here. Reading on, we can conclude that he’s really nothing short of a bona fide idiot.

Reptiles don't turn into birds, because reptiles don't have genes to produce feathers and wings.


Evidently, VanBaren prides himself on having never heard of Natural Selection. Originally, Change of Species over Timer’s stumbled upon this hole in their fledgling hypothesis: What caused these changes in organisms to occur?

Fortunately, a bunch of naturalists (Charles Darwin among them) were able to answer this agonizingly difficult inquiry. We now may behold the Theory of Natural Selection, which, with the additional knowledge of DNA, immaculately explains away the problem. Organisms, I’m sure you know, EMyers, do not themselves physically mutate; it is the offspring that inherit changes, and if the changes are beneficial, these offspring just may live long enough to reproduce with another surviving member of their population, and pass on even more differentiating phenotypic values. Over hundreds of thousands and millions of years, we come out with whole new species. Tada!

Reptiles don’t turn into birds—but we certainly see dinosaurs evolving into birds.

But there is no natural law that could allow this to happen. The best that evolution can do to explain how this might have happened is by mutations and natural selection.

…natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures-it doesn't produce new kinds.


Richtig.

But mutations actually destroy genetic information…


Falsch!

VanBaren is correct in stating that Natural Selection does not produce new species. (A misconception that plagues those who have yet to take a basic Biology course.) Be that as it may, Natural Selection certainly does compel Evolution along; in fact, it’s the very mechanism. By weeding out the disadvantageous organisms, Natural Selection paves the road for the auspicious. While we’re on the subject, might as well counter VanBaren’s assertion that DNA mutations produce no beneficial changes.

First of all, if this is so, why is it that the AIDS and Influenza viruses manage to evolve so bleeding quickly and efficiently? Truly, if DNA mutations produce no advantageous revisions to an organism or its population, should not the AIDS and Influenza viruses—as well as various super-deadly bacteria pathogens—immediately succumb to superior laboratory antibiotics and immunity treatments? Why is it that once we find a way to kill off 90% of a pathogen’s population that it bounces back so resourcefully? Could it be that DNA is the secret? Perhaps there are examples of beneficial mutations!

…like these ones:

•Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
•Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
•Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
•A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
•Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
•In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Beneficial Mutations in Humans

Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria

...All the evidence is on the side of the Christian who believes the Bible's account of creation-that God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce "after their kind."


Yeah… ALL the evidence

Again, Mr. VanBaren fails to grasp the concept of Burden of Proof. Lack of Evidence for one theory is not proof of the converse. As of yet, he hasn’t presented ANY evidence for nor against Evolution or Creationism/Intelligent Design.

Evolution truly is equivalent to a belief that dead ducks can fly. When you are talking to an evolutionist who rejects God and His creation, bring up the points mentioned above. …You will notice he ducks for cover when he finds his explanation can't get off the ground.


Am I correct in assuming that this whole time, VanBaren has been avoiding Theistic Evolutionism entirely?

So the evolutionists are worried. They intend to carry on the battle against the creationists. And the creationist is ready to fight-often on the very ground of the evolutionist. Yet, when it comes right down to it, there is one reason why the evolutionist will never be convinced of the creationist's viewpoint, and one reason why the creationist must understand that he cannot succeed in persuading an evolutionist. That reason is put simply in Hebrews 11:3: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." So then, belief in the scriptural creation account requires first and above all a living faith. Without it, it is impossible to please God. Without it, it is impossible to believe the creation account given in Scripture.


What a blatant antithesis! VanBaren first asserts that ALL the evidence is on his side… before cutting a sharp U-turn and assuring everyone that the evidence for or against the issue is irrelevant to begin with.

Rev. VanBaren is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church of Loveland, Colorado.


It was apparent from the point where he mentioned “dead ducks” that VanBaren is lacking in any and all scientific credentials. Why you chose the derisorily irrelevant title of “Why this whole debate is pointless” is far beyond any scope I can comprehend. The article by VanBaren didn’t prove anything apart from your own refusal to acknowledge the other side in this argument.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 02:00 AM on September 11, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 9:59 PM on September 10, 2005 :
I'm not following.  If one believes Scripture then one believes that God created man.  One believes that the world was created in six days.  If one does not believe the Bible then one does not believe in God (Yaweh, Jehovah, etc... I'm not talking about Baal or Daagon here people).  You are asserting that it is possible to believe in the God of the Bible without believing in the Bible?  


Which do you worship, God or "God of the Bible"?

And that it is possible to please a God you don't believe in?  Do I follow this correctly?    


Do you believe that God reveals himself through His Creation?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:18 AM on September 11, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yet, when it comes right down to it, there is one reason why the evolutionist will never be convinced of the creationist's viewpoint, and one reason why the creationist must understand that he cannot succeed in persuading an evolutionist. That reason is put simply in Hebrews 11:3: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." So then, belief in the scriptural creation account requires first and above all a living faith.

EntwickelnCollin, the entire point as I'm sure you missed was what I said at the beginning.  An evolutionist does not have the capacity to have faith in a greater being than himself.   Everytime anyone pokes a hole in the hypothesis of evolution one of two things happens.  1)  They are labeled a creationist and their whole argument is considered moot (regardless of whether the science involved was legitimate) since it is assumed they had personal bias going into the experiment.  Think about it for a moment.  If a scientist was an evolutionist and found a hole in the evolutionist hypothesis then by definition he could no longer be an evolutionist since he can no longer believe in what he has disproven.  Nice little fort to put yourself in.  2) If the evidence is out there and can't be ignore, do evolutionist's admit that the hypothesis is wrong (as many keep saying that they will if it is ever disproven)?  Hardly, they spend decades coming up with "plausible" answers that will still fit into evolution and ignore creation.   Comets?  Um, there is an Oort cloud, yeah that's it.  Haven't seen it.  Have no proof, but it's the only thing that makes sense.  (Before you start the Kuiper argument, my point is that scientists have spent fifty years or so looking for an Oort cloud so that they would have an answer to the question and still haven't found it).  What about spiral galaxies?  Um, density waves, yeah that's it.  Even though we can see M51 and have no indication of density waves, do evolutionist say "You're right, spiral galaxies do show that the universe could not be as old as we first thought"?  No, they'll spend the next half century trying to come up with a theory that fits.  The only argument that I've ever seen that will make an evolutionist believe is if he A) witnesses a bona-fide miracle (and I'm sure he'd doubt that) or B) meets God firsthand.  Problem is that the Bible already states that there would be no more miracles and that the next time we see God it'll be too late for the evolutionist anyhow.  Therefore there is nothing that I can say that will change the mind of an evolutionist.  I already posted an argument on the amazing foreknowledge that the Jews had of facts that "scientists" didn't discover for up to three thousand years later.  It is no secret that all of the prophecies (save those refering to the end of the earth) have been proven true.  Since the other two aren't going to happen and since any scientific argument against evolution will be ignored or "explained away" (proof or not) then, as I said, the whole argument is pointless.

Which do you worship, God or "God of the Bible"?



I'm not aware of any God not of the Bible.  Zeus?  Odin?  Daagon?   What god are you referring to?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:40 AM on September 11, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin, the entire point as I'm sure you missed was what I said at the beginning.


Save the suppositions, please.

An evolutionist does not have the capacity to have faith in a greater being than himself.  


So your aversion from Theistic Evolution is your position. Very well; here’s one of my favorite Evolutionists:

The devoutly-Catholic Evolutionist Dr. Kenneth R. Miller

He’s also the writer of Finding Darwin’s God, “A Scientists Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.” It’s a great book, truly. The way he disembowels Michael Behe’s arguments, for instance, is priceless.

Everytime anyone pokes a hole in the hypothesis of evolution one of two things happens.  1)  They are labeled a creationist and their whole argument is considered moot (regardless of whether the science involved was legitimate) since it is assumed they had personal bias going into the experiment.  Think about it for a moment.  If a scientist was an evolutionist and found a hole in the evolutionist hypothesis then by definition he could no longer be an evolutionist since he can no longer believe in what he has disproven.  Nice little fort to put yourself in.


You’re forgetting Dr. Stephen Gould (deceased, 2002). It was he, after all, who came up with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE). Although just an objective doing his research, this theory of his originally caused a tad of crisis within the scientific community, but within several years, it was apparent that PE actually assisted Evolutionary Theory. Before he died, Gould was possibly the world’s most accredited Evolutionist. Ironic that he’d first set out to disprove it.

Point in fact: scientists are constantly trying to disprove Evolution. Should you manage to do it, EMyers, I will be the first to congradulate you on your Nobel Prize.

2) If the evidence is out there and can't be ignore, do evolutionist's admit that the hypothesis is wrong (as many keep saying that they will if it is ever disproven)?


It’s a theory that’s been around for over 150 years; it’s so widely accepted and integrated into Biology that an alternative is virtually impossible; there is not yet any compelling evidence against Evolution whatsoever.

Hardly, they spend decades coming up with "plausible" answers that will still fit into evolution and ignore creation.


Again, to toss Gould and his annoying-at-the-time theory of Punctuated Equilibrium... The more these things are investigated, the more they’re found to support Evolution.

The only argument that I've ever seen that will make an evolutionist believe is if he A) witnesses a bona-fide miracle (and I'm sure he'd doubt that)


It wouldn’t be scientific to do any otherwise.

B) meets God firsthand.  Problem is that the Bible already states that there would be no more miracles and that the next time we see God it'll be too late for the evolutionist anyhow.


How convenient—almost as if it was worked up that way. Of course, if the Bible says there won’t be any miracles, then clearly, all presumed miracles that people claim have taken place within the last few hundred years haven’t taken place.

Therefore there is nothing that I can say that will change the mind of an evolutionist.


Evolution is science. Disproving Evolution by means exterior to science doesn’t work by its very definition. It’s absurd to think you could change the mind of an Evolutionist any other way.

I already posted an argument on the amazing foreknowledge that the Jews had of facts that "scientists" didn't discover for up to three thousand years later.  It is no secret that all of the prophecies (save those refering to the end of the earth) have been proven true.  Since the other two aren't going to happen and since any scientific argument against evolution will be ignored or "explained away" (proof or not) then, as I said, the whole argument is pointless.


This works both ways. You’ve demonstrated a very solid rejection of anything in the middle of Literal Extremism and Atheistic Evolution.

Which do you worship, God or "God of the Bible"?




I'm not aware of any God not of the Bible.  Zeus?  Odin?  Daagon?   What god are you referring to?


There’s a religion called Deism—that is, the belief that a supernatural deity exists, but one that doesn’t actually partake in our world anymore. The deity created the universe, perhaps sparked life, and that’s it. The following people were all deists:

Benjamin Franklin,
John Adams,
Thomas Paine (arguably an atheist, depending on which of his works you read)
Thomas Jefferson (arguably an agnostic or atheist)

The fact of the matter is, there are very few people on Earth who actually take a literal interpretation of the Bible. The entire Catholic sect of Christianity—that’s over one billion people, the vast majority of Christianity right there—for instance, has been told Evolution is possible. It doesn’t take a belief that Mary was a virgin to find that you can incorporate Evolution into Religion either. It takes only the acknowledgement that Genesis 1 is meant for metaphorical and philosophical value, not a literal interpretation.

Before I go, I’d like to back it up a couple paragraphs:

I’m not aware of any God not of the Bible. Zeus? Odin? Daagon?  What god are you referring to?


This could mean several things, but I’m willing to bet by a God not of the Bible, Apoapsis is referring to genuine religions that have a holy book not titled the Bible. Possible examples:

Buddhism
Islam
Judaism (we’re talking about the Torah, not the Bible…)
Hinduism
The thousands of Native African, Asian, and American religions


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/11/2005 at 11:38 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:37 AM on September 11, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Buddhism
Islam
Judaism (we’re talking about the Torah, not the Bible…)
Hinduism
The thousands of Native African, Asian, and American religions


1, um, the Torah is part of the Bible.
2, none of those other books have been proven true through direct fulfillment of their prophecies or by knowledge above and beyond what was readily accepted by their peers.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:22 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

2, none of those other books have been proven true through direct fulfillment of their prophecies or by knowledge above and beyond what was readily accepted by their peers

Neither has the Bible.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:12 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

denial doesn't look good on you...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:56 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just stating the facts.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:46 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Surely, if all these distinctly-proven prophecies exist in the Bible, EMyers would be more than willing to post a few examples. (I'd ask that you don't copy paste a 4,000 word-long essay. ) Iinstead, why don't you research these prophecies yourself and give us the examples in single paragraphs that don't take half an hour to break down? After all, if you're aware of these proven prophecies, you should be able to recite at least parts of them off the top of your head.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/12/2005 at 4:16 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:16 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

750 BC Micah 1:6 "For I will make Samaria a heap of ruins in the open country, planting places for a vineyard.  I will pour her stones down into the valley, and will lay bare her foundations"

AD 1265 Moslems defeated the Crusaders defending Samaria and totally destroyed it, and it has never been rebuilt.  All of its foundations were dug up and destroyed.  In its place, you will now find vineyards.



600 BC Ezekiel 25:13 "Thus says the Lord God, 'I will stretch out My hand against Edom and cut off man and beast from it.  And I will lay it waste; from Teman even to Dedan they will fall by the sword'"
Ezekiel 35:3,4,7,9 "Behold, I am against you, Mount Seir, and I will stretch out My hand against you, and will make you a desolation and a waste.  I will lay waste your cities, and you will become a desolation... And I will make Mount Seir a waste and a desolation, and will cut off from it the one who passes through and returns.... I will make you an everlasting desolation, and your cities will not be inhabited. Then you will know that I am the Lord"

AD 300 Traderoute through Edom (King's Highway) shifts north to a new highway.  No one any longer passes through and returns.
AD 632 Petra (city of Edom) conquered and destroyed by Mohammedans.  City destroyed so thoroughly that even its location was lost centuries.
AD 1188 Remaining orignal Edomite cities lying between Teman and Dedan fell to the armies of Arab Saracen Saladin.



800 BC Amos 1:8 "The remnant of the Philistines will perish, says the Lord God"
630 BC Zephaniah 2:4,6 "For Gaza will be abandoned, and Ashkelon a desolation; So the seacost will be pastures, with caves for shepherds and folds for flocks"

96 BC Philistines exterminated by Alexander Jannaeus.  From about twenty races that lived in the area at the time, the Philistines are the only one with no descendants still in the area.
AD 1270 Major coastal city of Ashkelon destroyed by Sultan Bibars.  Never rebuilt.  Major coastal port now used to harbor flocks of sheep.



700 BC Isaiah 13:19-22 "And Babylon, the beauty of kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldean's pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.  It will never be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation; nor will the Arab pitch his tent there, nor will shepherds make their flocks lie down there.  But desert creatures will lie down there, and their houses will be full of owls, ostriches also will live there, and shaggy goats will frolic there.  And hyenas will howl in their fortified towers and jackals in their luxurious palaces"
Isaiah 14:23 "I will also make it a possession for the hedgehog, and swamps of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction"
Jeremiah 51:36,37,42 "And I shall drup up her sea and make her fountain dry.  And Babylon will become a heap of ruins, a haunt of jackals, an object of horror and hissing, without inhabitants.  The sea has come up over Babylon; she has been engulfed with its tumultuous waves.  Her cities have become an object of horror, a parched land and desert, a land in which no man lives.

AD 100 Due to lack of rain over centuries, the Euphrates River become saline eventually destroying the fertility of the land around Babylon.
AD 412 Canals, due to lack of maintenance, start to become filled up causing the whole area to be swampy.
AD 460 Assyrians and Chaldeans had already left.  Last few Jews in area leave shortly.
AD 1000 Euphrates River changes course causing the man-made sea to dry up.
Today Arabs will not camp or graze flocks near the city.  Of the more notable people who have tried to rebuild Babylon (which would prove God wrong) Alexander the Great died on the night he announced his plan to rebuild Babylon.  Saddam Hussein spent more than a billion dollars to rebuild Babylon.  It is not rebuilt and he is not in a position to finish.



550 BC Ezekiel 26:3-5  "Thus says the Lord God, 'Behold I am against you, as the sea brings up its waves.  And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock.  She will be a resting place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,' declares the Lord God"
Ezekiel 26:12,14 "They will make spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water.  And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets.  You will be built no more, for I the Lord have spoken."

586 BC After 13 years of siege, the Phoenecians build a second, smaller city on an island one-half mile out in the Mediterranean Sea.  Ruins of "old" Tyre seem to thwart prophecy for who would bother to throw the remnants of the old city into the sea.
322 BC Alexander the Great conguered coastal cities to acquire their navies and sent them against "new" Tyre in waves.  This wasn't going fast enough so he had a causeway the width of two chariots built from the shore of "old" Tyre to the island where "new" Tyre was located.  When not enough stone and timber could be found, he had the ground scraped down to bedrock to provide fill dirt and finished his causeway.  All of "old" Tyre hand now been thrown into the sea.  He then defeated "new" Tyre.  
Today Neither Tyre has ever been rebuilt despite their location.  The location of "old" Tyre is now a large bare rock (due to the efforts of Alexander) and is used by fishermen in the area (and has been for centuries now) to spread and mend their fishing nets.



Now before one writes this off with a "all cities are destroyed eventually" comment, notice the specifics with which each of these cities/peoples/ were destroyed, often against all wisdom.  Any archaeologist will tell you that ancient cities were almost always rebuilt (easier to build on an old foundation with existant stones and timber than start from scratch).  All of these cities were major cities at the time and had not reason to believe that this would change.  Many other major cities that existed in this time that God did NOT speak against are still standing or have been rebuilt.  Especially consider Babylon.  Unlike the Colossus and Lighthouse (whose remnants have been completely destroyed or lost) Babylon, like the Pyramids still exists and could be rebuilt.  The Pyramids have had major measures take to preserve and/or restore them.  Why has no such preservation been attempted for the Hanging Gardens of Babylon?  Oh yeah, it has, but it always fails.  I'm sure some will go off on some tangent about how chance, circumstance, or chaos intervened, but the truth is, all of these prophecies HAVE been fulfilled.

I could mention the prophecy about the temple in Jerusalem, but everyone knows that one, so I figured it'd be overkill.



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:03 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

More nonsense!  

AD 1265 Moslems defeated the Crusaders defending Samaria and totally destroyed it, and it has never been rebuilt.  All of its foundations were dug up and destroyed.  In its place, you will now find vineyards.

Untrue, Samaria today is the West Bank.  From here:
Samaria
"It is now represented by the hamlet of Sebustieh, containing about three hundred inhabitants. The ruins of the ancient town are all scattered over the hill. The shafts of about 100 of what must have been grand Corinthian columns are still standing, and attract much attention, although nothing definite is known regarding them."
So you are wrong again, people still live their, many of the remains of great columns are still there.  Your prophecy is wrong.


What about the prophecies the bible got wrong!  Anything to say about them? This site deals with the illusion of fulfilled prophecies in general and some of your ridiculous claims in particular, From here:
BibleNonsense
"According to premise (2) of the Argument from the Bible, there are no unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible. We have already seen some counter-examples to that claim. Let us look at a few others, beginning with a type that is more like a Biblical contradiction:

1. According to Ge 2:17, Adam will die the same day that he eats the fruit, but that did not come about, since, according to Ge 5:5, Adam lived to age 930. [Note that the same Hebrew word for "die" is used as elsewhere in the Old Testament, standing for physical death.]

2. According to Ge 4:12,14, Cain will be a fugitive and a vagabond, and constantly subject to assassination, but that did not come about, for, according to Ge 4:16-17, Cain had a wife and family, and lived in the same area all his life, and built a city.

3. According to Jos 17:17-18, Ephraim and Manasseh will drive out the Canaanites, but according to Jg 1:27-29, they did not drive out the Canaanites.

4. Jer 34:5 prophesied that Zedekiah will die in peace, but according to 2Ki 25:7 and Jer 52:10-11, that did not happen. Instead, he saw his sons killed, was carried off in chains, blinded, and eventually died in prison.

5. Am 7:17 prophesied that Amaziah's sons will die by the sword, but according to 2Ch 26:1,21, Amaziah's son Uzziah died of leprosy.

6. According to Jon 3:4, Nineveh will be overthrown in 40 days, but then God changed his mind about having Nineveh overthrown. (See Jon 3:10.)

7. According to Mt 12:40, Christ will be buried for three nights, but he died on a Friday and by Sunday the tomb was empty. Between Friday and Sunday, there are just two nights, not three.

8. According to Mt 19:28 and Lu 22:30, all 12 disciples will sit on 12 thrones as judges. But actually, not all 12 disciples could reign, for Judas, who was one of them, was excluded. (See Mt 26:24-25.)

9. In Mt 26:34 and Lu 22:34, it is prophesied that before the cock crows, Peter will deny Jesus three times, but according to Mk 14:66-68, Peter denied Jesus only once before the cock crowed.

10. According to Lu 23:43, the thief will be with Christ in paradise on that very day. But Christ's body was buried that day and, according to Ac 2:27,31, his soul went to hell, not to paradise.

More will be said about Biblical contradictions in Sections D.4 and D.5, below. Some other examples that are a little more like unfulfilled prophecies are the following.

11. According to Ge 15:18, 17:3,8, and Dt 1:7-8, Abraham's descendants will own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River, but it never happened: they never owned all that land. God broke his promise, as conceded in Ac 7:5 and Heb 11:13.

12. According to Ge 49:13, the tribe of Zebulun will dwell at a seashore, but, instead, as may be gathered from various later verses as well as extra-Biblical sources, they dwelled inland, not at any seashore.

13. According to Jos 8:28, the city of Ai will be destroyed forever. In actuality, Ai did have later inhabitants. (See Ezr 2:1,28 and Ne 7:32.)

But these still look a little bit like Biblical contradictions. I think the very best examples of unfulfilled prophecies are ones like the following.

14. According to Ex 3:8, the Israelites will live in a large land, flowing with milk and honey, and according to 2Sa 7:10, they will not be disturbed anymore, but as a matter of historical fact Israel (and vicinity) has been a relatively small and mostly barren land, and the Israelites have been continually harassed from all sides.

15. Many verses prophesy that the throne of David will endure forever and that there will never be a time without a man upon that throne. But in point of historical fact, the Davidic line of kings ended with Zedekiah. 450 yrs. later, the Maccabeans had a brief reign. But for 2000 years, there has been no Davidic king.

16. According to Isa 14:23, Babylon will become wet, but that never happened. According to Jer 51:36, Babylon will become totally dry, but that never happened either. According to other verses, [11] Babylon will never be inhabited by people again, but in fact Babylon has been continually inhabited by people since that time. [Note 1Pe 5:13.] It is now part of Iraq.

17. According to Isa 17:1, Damascus will be destroyed, but in fact Damascus is one of the few ancient cities that has never been destroyed. [The fact that so many were destroyed makes prophecies of the future destruction of ancient cities rather unremarkable.] If Isaiah had predicted that Damascus would never be destroyed, then that would have been remarkable.

18. According to Isa 19:5, Eze 30:12, and Zec 10:11, the Nile River will dry up, and according to Eze 29:9-12, Egypt will become desolate for 40 years, with no man or animal passing through it and with all Egyptians dispersed, but as a matter of fact the Nile River has never dried up and in the whole history of Egypt no such calamitous events have ever occurred.

19. According to Isa 19:18, five Egyptian cities will speak the language of Canaan, but linguists and archeologists assure us that no Egyptian cities have ever spoken the language of Canaan.

20. According to Isa 29:17, Lebanon will become a fruitful field, but that has never happened to Lebanon!

21. According to Isa 34:9-10, Edom (the land between the Dead Sea and Gulf of Aqaba) will become burning pitch: no one will ever pass through it again. But in truth that has never happened to Edom. People have passed through it for thousands of years.

22. According to Isa 52:1, the uncircumcised and unclean will never enter Jerusalem, but in fact such people have continually entered Jerusalem for thousands of years.

23. According to Jer 42:17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria.

24. Zep 3:13 prophesied that the remnant of Israel will not sin or lie or be afraid, but in truth they were never so moral nor so fearless.

25. Many verses [12] prophesy that Christ's second coming will occur soon. Some of them specifically say that it will be within his listeners' lifetime, i.e., before that generation (there with Jesus) passes away. But in truth more than 19 centuries have elapsed since then and the event still has not occurred. Of all the examples of unfulfilled prophecies, this one strikes me as the one that is clearest and most powerful.

With all these unfulfilled prophecies, it is clear that premise (2) of the Argument from the Bible is false. It might be suggested that the argument dispense with its premise (2), but it serves an important purpose. With unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible, even if there had been some fulfilled ones, they would, in effect, have gotten "canceled out". The law of probabilities would allow some prophecies to come true, just as a matter of coincidence, provided that many of them do not come true. Thus, it is important for the advocate of the Argument from the Bible to insert premise (2). As it turns out, since in fact none of the alleged remarkable fulfilled Biblical prophecies really turn out to be that, all of the unfulfilled ones mentioned are a kind of "overkill". They could have been used for "canceling-out" purposes, but are not needed for that after all."

There are just so many WRONG prophecies and misinformation in the Bible, I could go on all day.  Of course, funamentalist zealots like you do your darned best to twist and change history in a vain attempt to make reality fit your refuted mythology, but it doesn't work, the Bible has made no specific prophecies that have come true, only vague generalities that people like you try to shoehorn into real history.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:04 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

7. According to Mt 12:40, Christ will be buried for three nights, but he died on a Friday and by Sunday the tomb was empty. Between Friday and Sunday, there are just two nights, not three.

7. According to Mt 12:40, Christ will be buried for three nights, but he died on a Friday and by Sunday the tomb was empty. Between Friday and Sunday, there are just two nights, not three.

Untrue, Samaria today is the West Bank.

The city of Samaria is not to be confused with the nation of Samaria anymore than the city of Rome is to be confused with the Roman Empire.  The original city of Samaria has not been rebuilt.

1. According to Ge 2:17, Adam will die the same day that he eats the fruit, but that did not come about, since, according to Ge 5:5, Adam lived to age 930. [Note that the same Hebrew word for "die" is used as elsewhere in the Old Testament, standing for physical death.]


And, as with any word that can have more than one possible meaning, one must use it in its context.  The meaning of the word "die" was defined.  I don't understand your confusion.

2. According to Ge 4:12,14, Cain will be a fugitive and a vagabond, and constantly subject to assassination, but that did not come about, for, according to Ge 4:16-17, Cain had a wife and family, and lived in the same area all his life, and built a city.


4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Cain repented, and begged for mercy.  He said his punishment was to great for him to bear.  God had mercy on him.  It's in black and white.  I don't understand your confusion.

3. According to Jos 17:17-18, Ephraim and Manasseh will drive out the Canaanites, but according to Jg 1:27-29, they did not drive out the Canaanites.



I'll take this answer straight from the skepticfiles... LOOK AT  Judges 1:27-29


"When the house of Joseph is shown as unfaithful, they are called  by the tribal names Manasseh and Ephraim." (jbj p.17)

    What is the compromise here?
         Canaanites lived among the Israelites

The Caananites were delivered into the hands of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.  They did not do as the Lord commanded them and the promise was not fulfilled by them.  If I promise you I will give you a gift and you refuse to accept it, am I the one at fault?  Hardly.  I don't understand your confusion.

4. Jer 34:5 prophesied that Zedekiah will die in peace, but according to 2Ki 25:7 and Jer 52:10-11, that did not happen. Instead, he saw his sons killed, was carried off in chains, blinded, and eventually died in prison.



It seems that Zedekiah was one of the most unfortunate kings in history. He is the third son of the great king, Josiah, who was a godly king who attempted to follow the Torah but was killed in battle at Megiddo. No other king in either Israel or Judah had the distinction of having three sons who each, in turn, followed in their father’s footsteps and sat on the throne. However, all three did not come close to their father’s love for God.

Jeremiah 34:8ff tells us about a covenant which Zedekiah convinced his leaders to make with the people. It was an agreement between the government and the people to follow the instructions found in the Torah about freeing Hebrew slaves and/or servants during the seventh year. The text does not furnish the reason why, and commentators guess about the king’s motives. Zedekiah’s move may have been defensive and strategic. Keil and Delitzsch see at least two possible motives for Zedekiah’s actions. They were, “…partly for the purpose of averting, by obedience to the law, the calamity now threatening the city and partly also to employ the liberated slaves in the defense of the city.” [1] These motives may be correct, because Jeremiah 34:21 informs us that this covenant apparently was made during a period when the Babylonians had gone away from Jerusalem but were threatening to return.

One thing is certain, that which Zedekiah and the people entered into was a genuinely binding agreement with each other and with God. Jeremiah 34:18-19 leaves us no doubt. These verses describe for us the ritual where the parties who made covenants ratified their covenants by sacrifices. Thus, with the making of this covenant to release the Hebrew bondservants in the seventh year, it looked like the people of Judah may have begun a spiritual revival that ultimately may even have spared them the horrors of the Babylonian invasion.

A Screeching Halt
Whatever spiritual revival may have been brewing come to a screeching halt, according to verse twelve. No sooner had they made the covenant to release servants than they went back on their word and made the people slaves again. In doing this, they violated several things. First, they went back on their own word. Second, they enslaved the people again. Third, God said in Jeremiah 34:16 they “profaned My name.” Fourth, they betrayed each other. Finally, they continued to break the Torah.

God’s promise to Zedekiah did not come to a halt. There seems to be evidence in the text that he attempted to remain faithful to the covenant into which he entered with the people. God tells him through the prophet that although he would be captured, he would not be put to death. Zedekiah’s death would come peacefully with people lamenting his passing (Jeremiah 34:4-5). History tells us that this is, indeed, what happened to Zedekiah.


5. Am 7:17 prophesied that Amaziah's sons will die by the sword, but according to 2Ch 26:1,21, Amaziah's son Uzziah died of leprosy.


Uzziah spent the early part of his kingship in service to the Lord and was spared the fate of his siblings.  His punishment by leprosy was directly related to his disobedience to God.  No record is made of his actual death.  It is only mentioned that he had leprosy until the day he died.  Not that he died from it.  Where do you get your information that he died from it?

6. According to Jon 3:4, Nineveh will be overthrown in 40 days, but then God changed his mind about having Nineveh overthrown. (See Jon 3:10.)



Finally, you see the light.  God often pronounced judgments that he recanted when people repented.  I don't understand your confusion.

7. According to Mt 12:40, Christ will be buried for three nights, but he died on a Friday and by Sunday the tomb was empty. Between Friday and Sunday, there are just two nights, not three.

[b]

Any biblical scholar will tell you that the Jews used "inclusive reckoning".  Any fraction of a time unit was often considered a whole unit.  This method of reckoning was common in ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, and is still found in the Far East today.  There was no doubt from other texts that he would rise on the third day.  Three days and three nights was used to tie into the example of Jonah.  Time and time again Jesus used words and phrases that any knowledgeable scholar of the Torah would've recognized.  For instance, on the cross he said "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?".  God did not forsake Christ.  Students of the scriptures would've recognized this as referring to Psalm 22:1 and would've recognized this moment as the fulfillment of the prophecy.  At any rate the Hebrew expression for three days and three nights was likewise used generally and indefinitely for three days simply. This is manifestly the case here. Jesus was dead part of the first, all of the second, and part of the third day. In the Jerusalem Talmud, it is said "that a day and a night together make up an ownah (nuchtheemeron in Greek), meaning "night" and "day", and that any part of such a period is counted as a whole." (See The Greek Testament, by Henry Alford, D.D., Vol. I, Chicago: Moody Press, p. 133.)   Again, he specifically used this wording to tie into Jonah 1:17.

8. According to Mt 19:28 and Lu 22:30, all 12 disciples will sit on 12 thrones as judges. But actually, not all 12 disciples could reign, for Judas, who was one of them, was excluded. (See Mt 26:24-25.)


Again, Judas Iscariat betrayed Christ.  His place in the apostleship was filled by Matthias.  Again, 12 apostles, 12 thrones, 12 tribes.  What confuses you?

[b]9. In Mt 26:34 and Lu 22:34, it is prophesied that before the cock crows, Peter will deny Jesus three times, but according to Mk 14:66-68, Peter denied Jesus only once before the cock crowed.


Too long to type.  Look here for a good example.

10. According to Lu 23:43, the thief will be with Christ in paradise on that very day. But Christ's body was buried that day and, according to Ac 2:27,31, his soul went to hell, not to paradise.

For pete's sake, at least get the quote right... "Because thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades, Neither wilt thou give they Holy One to see corruption."  The word in Greek was Hades, where souls go to await the judgment.  In Greek, Gehenna (hell) is the place where sinners go after the judgment.  We know from the scriptures that Hades is split, one side Paradise (Abraham, Lazarus, Christ, thief on the cross are all known to have gone here) and on the other side of the chasm Tartarus (the rich man was sent here).  So, what's the problem?

11. According to Ge 15:18, 17:3,8, and Dt 1:7-8, Abraham's descendants will own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River, but it never happened: they never owned all that land. God broke his promise, as conceded in Ac 7:5 and Heb 11:13.


Acts 7:5 states that Abraham didn't set foot in it, not sure what you're talking about.  The promise was given to Abraham's descendants and Hebrews pointed out that all of the previously mentioned people (including Abel, Noah, etc.) did not live to see the fulfillment of  all of the prophecies, but still believe they would be fulfilled..  Referring to Abraham, he did not live to see the great nation that his descendants would become.  As for your land comment, Abraham's descendants have at one point or another inhabited land from the Nile up to the Euphrates.  The reason their conquest was stopped was that they disobeyed God by bringing in foreign people and religions.  Again, Israel rejected God's gift by not adhering to their end of the covenant.  How does this confuse you?

12. According to Ge 49:13, the tribe of Zebulun will dwell at a seashore, but, instead, as may be gathered from various later verses as well as extra-Biblical sources, they dwelled inland, not at any seashore.

This prophecy was fulfilled in the allotment of land that the tribe of Zebulun received, which bordered the sea of Galilee. Thus, the ports of Zebulun were a "haven" for the boats from the sometimes fierce storms that would blow on the sea of Galilee.  Seems cut and dried to me.

13. According to Jos 8:28, the city of Ai will be destroyed forever. In actuality, Ai did have later inhabitants. (See Ezr 2:1,28 and Ne 7:32.)

Um, what are you reading?  "So Joshua burnt Ai and made it a heap for ever, even a desolation, unto this day."  At the time of the writing it was still desolate.  Is it the word for ever that confuses you?  The phrase "for ever" in the Hebrew meant for an indefinite period of time.  Kind of like you say you'll "love someone forever".  Do you mean for eternity or as long as you'll live?  For ever does not mean eternity in Hebrew.

14. According to Ex 3:8, the Israelites will live in a large land, flowing with milk and honey, and according to 2Sa 7:10, they will not be disturbed anymore, but as a matter of historical fact Israel (and vicinity) has been a relatively small and mostly barren land, and the Israelites have been continually harassed from all sides.


Milk and honey were dietary staples for the semi-nomadic Israelites of biblical times, so Palestine would indeed be a promising home, abounding in goats and swarming with bees. The soil would be fertile, too, nourishing grapevines and date trees, whose syrup was also called "honey" in Hebrew.  Don't understand your confusion.  As for the harassment, the Israel's often enjoyed great times of peace.  The only times they were harassed is when they turned to idolatry.  Do you know what the word covenant means?


15. Many verses prophesy that the throne of David will endure forever and that there will never be a time without a man upon that throne. But in point of historical fact, the Davidic line of kings ended with Zedekiah. 450 yrs. later, the Maccabeans had a brief reign. But for 2000 years, there has been no Davidic king.


Acts 2:29-36 "Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day.  Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; he forseeing this spake of the ressurection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.  This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses.  Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hat poured forth this, which ye see and hear.  For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself.
  The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of they feet.
  Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God hat made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified."

16. According to Isa 14:23, Babylon will become wet, but that never happened. According to Jer 51:36, Babylon will become totally dry, but that never happened either. According to other verses, [11] Babylon will never be inhabited by people again, but in fact Babylon has been continually inhabited by people since that time. [Note 1Pe 5:13.] It is now part of Iraq.


A) Draught and famine did occur to Babylon.  There used to be a sea that was manmade near the city.  It was so severe that this sea no longer exists.
B) On the other hand, eventually the canals that fed the city of Babylon fell into disrepair.  Most of the city is covered in what can only be described as a swamp.  Many structures can't be reached because the entrances are underwater.
C) The city of Babylon is not inhabited.  What moron told you that Iraq is the city of Babylon?
D) 1 Peter 5:13.  Don't be daft.  Babylon had not yet been destroyed at the time of this writing.  Sheesh.

It's after 10.  I'll get to the others tomorrow.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:04 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

17. According to Isa 17:1, Damascus will be destroyed, but in fact Damascus is one of the few ancient cities that has never been destroyed. [The fact that so many were destroyed makes prophecies of the future destruction of ancient cities rather unremarkable.] If Isaiah had predicted that Damascus would never be destroyed, then that would have been remarkable.


In 661 A.D., Damascus was made the capital of the empire by Muawiya Bin Abu Sufian, who founded the Umayyad Dynasty. This dynasty ruled Damascus for less than a hundred years, but made a significant contribution to the cultural and artistic heritage of the city. In 750 The Abbasids, an Arab family of Meccan origin that had settled in eastern Iraq, put an end to Omayad rule. They transferred the capital of the Islamic Empire to Baghdad, and Damascus became nothing more than a provincial town with a declining population and no political role to play. The Umayyad Dynasty escaped to Andalos (Spain) and rebuild Qutuba, their capital, to be very similar to Damascus. Latter on, Mongols destroyed Damascus while Spain remain on the Damascus's style. During the next three centuries from the Abbasids rule, the physical appearance of Damascus was further scarred by successive assaults and civil strife. Most of the city was burnt down, including the Omayad Mosque (Umawi Masjid).

There was no prophecy stating that Damascus, unlike the others, would not be rebuilt or that it would remain uninhabited.  At one point most of the city was burnt down.  What definition of "ruinous heap" are you requiring?

18. According to Isa 19:5, Eze 30:12, and Zec 10:11, the Nile River will dry up, and according to Eze 29:9-12, Egypt will become desolate for 40 years, with no man or animal passing through it and with all Egyptians dispersed, but as a matter of fact the Nile River has never dried up and in the whole history of Egypt no such calamitous events have ever occurred.


Isaiah's third event to look for in the days preceding Christ's Return--the complete drying up of the Nile river--is compared to 1991 satellite studies that show how changing North African wind patterns are inexorably drying up the Nile in our time.

19. According to Isa 19:18, five Egyptian cities will speak the language of Canaan, but linguists and archeologists assure us that no Egyptian cities have ever spoken the language of Canaan.


As with the proceeding argument, this prophecy was a foretelling of the "last times" and as yet has not been fulfilled.  No one thinks that it has.  I see no problem with scripture as many people still speak Hebrew to this day.

20. According to Isa 29:17, Lebanon will become a fruitful field, but that has never happened to Lebanon!


Explains it better than I can....

21. According to Isa 34:9-10, Edom (the land between the Dead Sea and Gulf of Aqaba) will become burning pitch: no one will ever pass through it again. But in truth that has never happened to Edom. People have passed through it for thousands of years.


Now you're stretching.  Let's look again at Edom's fulfillment or prophecy...

1) Edom was overthrown as a nation.
2) The nation and city have become a desolation, as Ezekiel 25:13; Ezekiel 35:4,7 and Isaiah 34:11-13 predicted.
3) It has never been populated again as Jeremiah 49:18 predicted.
4) It has had bloody history as Ezekiel 25:13 and 35:6,8 predicted.
5) Edom became populated with wild animals and birds (instead of people) as Isaiah 34:11, 13-15 predicted.

The likelihood that these prophecies came true by some random chain of events is all but impossible.  Edom was a main thoroughfare for trade.  In the original Hebrew (Lenetsach netsachim ein over bah {close as I can get without Hebrew font}) it says For ever no one shall move about (reside, or show evidence of residing).  No one resides there.  


22. According to Isa 52:1, the uncircumcised and unclean will never enter Jerusalem, but in fact such people have continually entered Jerusalem for thousands of years.


Taken in a literal sense, this prophecy was never allowed to be fulfilled.  Israel rejected the Messiah and salvation was opened to the Gentiles.  Once again, Israel did not accept the gift God have promised to them.
Most scholars consider this to be referring to the church (as Jersualem and Zion were symbols used to refer to his people (Israel) as a whole, so then they refer to his people (Christians) today.  Hence the promise of a "New Jerusalem" Rev 21:2.
Neither the literal or symbolic meaning of this verse provides any problems.

23. According to Jer 42:17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria.


The repetition of the adverb “there” in the translation of vv. 14, 16 is to draw attention to the rhetorical emphasis on the locale of Egypt in the original text of both v. 14 and v. 16. In v. 14 they say, “to the land of Egypt we will go…and there we will live.” In v. 16 God says, “wars…there will catch up with you…the hunger…there will follow after you…and there you will die.” God rhetorically denies their focus on Egypt as a place of safety and of relative prosperity. That can only be found in Judah under the protective presence of the Lord (vv. 10-12).

Additionally, Skeptic McKinsey complains that Jews lived and established a cultural center in Alexandria, and this was not fulfilled. But this passage is referring to the specific situation when Babylon was threatening Israel. (v.11) There is no basis for suggesting that this refers to all Israelites at all times as McKinsey seems to believe.

24. Zep 3:13 prophesied that the remnant of Israel will not sin or lie or be afraid, but in truth they were never so moral nor so fearless.


Keep reading "The King of Israel, the Lord, is in your midst"  Obviously this refers to the "New Jerusalem" in Revelations.  Why do people keep wanting to make "Second Coming" prophecies apply to the current earth?

25. Many verses [12] prophesy that Christ's second coming will occur soon. Some of them specifically say that it will be within his listeners' lifetime, i.e., before that generation (there with Jesus) passes away. But in truth more than 19 centuries have elapsed since then and the event still has not occurred. Of all the examples of unfulfilled prophecies, this one strikes me as the one that is clearest and most powerful.

What scriptures say Christ's second coming is coming soon?  There are many that say that the kingdom of God is at hand.  Israel was God's kingdom until he rejected them.  Christians are his kingdom today.  "My kingdom is not of this world."  It is not a physical kingdom.  If the Jews had been paying attention they should've realised that the promise of the kingdom to come was not of this world.  "For as the NEW heavens and the NEW earth, which I will make shall remain before me..." Isaiah 66:22.
If you are referring to the oft misquoted telling of the signs to come, you really need to do some reading.  Looking in Matthew 24 we see that Christ was asked a two part question.  When shall these things be? (Christ had just spoken of the destruction of the Temple) AND What shall be the sign of thy coming?  He spends verses 4 through 35 warning them of what was to come (this was all fulfilled in AD 70).  Of the second question he only says "But of THAT day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.  Many people get confused because of the wording of verses 29 through 31, but the Jews (of which his disciple at the time were) would've recognized it from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Joel.  These were words often used to describe the destruction of a nation and Israel as the nation it had been was destroyed in AD 70.  No current Jew can tell you from which tribe they came.  They have no king (even under Roman rule, they still had kings).  The fact that the current Israel nation even exists is by the attempt of some people to FORCE prophecies to come to fulfillment (usually people who don't understand those same prophecies).  It disappeared for nearly two millenia.

I hope I have cleared up some of your misconceptions.  It boils down to this..."At what instant I shall speak a sentence concerning a nation and kingdom, to pluck up and destroy; if that nation turn from their evil deeds, I also will repent of the evils, which I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and kingdom to build and to plant it; and if they do evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, I also will repent of the good, which I said I would do unto them." Jer. xviii. 7-10

In all of your examples, the recipient of the promises repented (either to or away from) God or your understanding of the prophecy was done in by your ignorance of the Bible.  God was either merciful or just as the moment required.  What father has not made a promise to their child that the actions of the child have not at some point invalidated,  either because they no longer deserve the gift, no longer accept the gift, or no longer deserve the punishment?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:00 PM on September 13, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All examples of special pleading and twisting the facts to force fit them into vague generalities that could mean anything.  i think it's obvious the Bible hasn't prophecisied anything!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:54 PM on September 13, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice generic answer to my specific facts.  Nice to see you couldn't actually come up with an argument.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:15 PM on September 13, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But you offered no facts, just your ignorant opinions...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:33 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.