Failed Biblical Prophecies

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Meh, Min you are using that logic again. You have to understand the power of faith. Consider this passage from another book, George Orwell's, 1984:

Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. 'If I wished,' O'Brien had said, 'I could float off this floor like a soap bubble.' Winston worked it out. 'If he thinks he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously think I see him do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.

In other words, "There is no Tyre! There is no Tyre! I'm not listening!"



That's why logical arguments and evidence bounce off the heads of men of faith like Drich and me. Faith is believing things without evidence and despite all evidence.

[Drich]

Darkstar, the problem is you and Min are reading the Bible with your sinful eyes.

Fuck the fucking bible, Yourway. I'm looking at a fucking photo of modern fucking Tyre after his fucking god said no one would ever fucking find it again and I fucking found it.

Fuck, exekiel and the rest of those phony con men.

The present-day city of Tyre covers a large part of the original island and has expanded onto and covers most of the causeway, which had increased greatly in width over the centuries because of extensive silt depositions on either side. The part of the original island that is not covered by the modern city of Tyre consists mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times.

Wiki.


I mean we can argue about a lot of things but the FUCKING CITY IS STILL THERE. At some point Drippy is going to have to face FACTS and understand that his fucking bible is fucking bullshit!

If you read the same wiki artical as I did Minnie you know that tyer was orginally a city divided into two parts. One of the main land and the second on an island (which was little more than a sea port at the time of the prophesy.) The Island which is now a pensula because of Alexander the great who destroyed the city and tore it and the cities great walls down to build a causeway across the sea to attack it. Which changed the tital currents enough for the sea to deposit sand on the debris of the old city causing the materials to be consumed by the sea.

(which by the way completely full fills this prophesy in that:12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God.)

Lookslike someone else has to 'face facts' and read the rest of the wiki artical a little more closly.

[FallentoReason]

The thing I don't get about prophecy and Jesus Christ supposedly being the answer to over 300 of them or w/e is the nature of Jesus himself. Christians take pride in that Jesus was supposed to be some sort of leader to the Jews but instead he's this criminal that gets executed in the end. So... why did YHWH describe the messiah to the Jews in one way but in "reality" it happens differently? Jesus completely failed because Jews won't accept that he is the messiah. Nice one God, why would you make Jesus act differently to how he was described? It's as if you wanted Christianity to be this religion that hijacked something completely unrelated!

[Minimalist]

The city is still there, shithead.

Your god fucked up.

Deal with it.


BTW, did you know that even your fucking "jesus" went there. Quite a trick for a city which was destroyed never to be found again, eh?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

BTW, did you know that even your fucking "jesus" went there. Quite a trick for a city which was destroyed never to be found again, eh?

Just goes to show you how anything is possible for Jesus. That's also how he was born before 4 BC and after 6 AD at the same time.

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus got himself crucified several years before John the Baptist's arrest and execution, which Matt, Mark and Luke all say happened prior to the kickoff of Jesus' ministry.

Time and space do not apply to matters of faith.

Glory!

[Darkstar]

Oh wait, "drive out" is a modern english idom,(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/drive+out) and the this part of the bible that you quoted was written 3500 years or so ago... So does that mean the term 'drive out.' has the same meaning as you understand it now?
Lets go back to the Hebrew and see what word "Drive out was translated from. The Hebrew word is: (ירש yarash) it means in this context:1) to seize, dispossess, take possession off, inherit, disinherit, occupy, impoverish, be an heir

If that is true, then why didn't it use any of those words? And you have yet to explain why Judah couldn't defeat those with iron chariots.

---

Judges 1:19 19 The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.

---

What, then, does 'drive from the plains' mean in this context if it does not mean 'drive out'?

---

Hebrew bible direct to English
Another such translation, with Hebrew text for comparison.
Still says 'drive out' in both cases. Literal translation in the second link says 'evict'. Please make your rebuttal more than an assertion next time.

---

Ezekiel 14: 9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. 10 They will bear their guilt—the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him.

---

Older translations used the word 'decieve' explicitly, rather than implicitly. Can god lie? (No, see first post)
(Note: I have done some research on the disposses/drive out thing and...am somewhat confused about the translations but the NIV may be incorrectly translated after all...maybe)

---

---

Here's another one:
Ezekiel 29:3 Speak to him and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt,
you great monster lying among your streams.
You say, “The Nile belongs to me;
I made it for myself.”

---

God is talking to the pharaoh

---

“‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will bring a sword against you and kill both man and beast. 9 Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

“‘Because you said, “The Nile is mine; I made it,” 10 therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush.[b] 11 The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries.

---

Yet, somehow, none of this happened, and since he said against you and he was talking to the pharaoh (and the rest of Egypt) we can believe this to be time specific. Yet, there are no longer pharaohs and this has not come to pass.

---

---

Ezekiel 28:24-26 “‘No longer will the people of Israel have malicious neighbors who are painful briers and sharp thorns. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign Lord.

25 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When I gather the people of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered, I will be proved holy through them in the sight of the nations. Then they will live in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. 26 They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their neighbors who maligned them. Then they will know that I am the Lord their God.’”

---

...uh yeah...riiiight.

---

---

I know this additional onslaught is a bit much; feel free to address them one at a time.

[Godscreated]

[quote='Drich' pid='350914' dateline='1350593026']

---

The jubusites and the hitites were essentially the same people (just a different region.) The hitites were destroyed completely. The Jubusites were conquored, just not wiped from exsistance. Just like when Rome occupied Jureslem during the time of Christ. The Jews were a conqured people even though they still occupied the land. In the case of the Jubusites the Jews occupied their former lands. making the tribes of juda and benjamin the conquors, and the Jubusites the conquored.

---

Le sigh. Let's look at what was actually written, shall we?

---

Joshua 3:7-10 And the Lord said to Joshua, “Today I will begin to exalt you in the eyes of all Israel, so they may know that I am with you as I was with Moses. 8 Tell the priests who carry the ark of the covenant: ‘When you reach the edge of the Jordan’s waters, go and stand in the river.’”

9 Joshua said to the Israelites, “Come here and listen to the words of the Lord your God. 10 This is how you will know that the living God is among you and that he will certainly drive out before you the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites.

---

Note the bolded. They were not to simply be conquered, but driven out. That means if they still occupied the land, this would be untrue.

---

Joshua 15:63 Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the people of Judah.

---

Lo and behold, they weren't driven out.

---

Just because "God is with someone" does not mean they use what is avaiable to them. Look at yourself. You have the same oppertunity to tap into God's resources as I do, and you have chosen not to. Does that mean God so loved me that He gave his only begotten Son, that if I believe I should not persih, and disregaurd you??? No of course not! You do not have access to God because you do not have faith in God even though God has faith enough in you to John 3:16

People do this all the time. We have access to God but do not take advantage of what has been offered. Can God be stopped by 'iron charriots?" No of course not. but the Judeans who fought this battle most certaintly could if they did not have faith in God. They like you simply saw the 'proof' of the opposition and followed the evidence off of the battle field. Then blamed God for their 'faith.'

---

"Just because "God is with someone" does not mean they use what is avaiable to them." Really? Let's again look at the actual text.

---

"This is how you will know that the living God is among you and that he will certainly drive out before you the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites."

---

Here god says he will certainly drive all of those people out to show that he is with him. Judah need not 'use' god, god had already said he would do it of his own accord.

You are a dishonest cherry picker who does not understand anything about scripture, you need to quit being a pretender, it makes you look foolish.

The verses you quoted are only a few of a series of verses about an event that has nothing to do with conquering those nations named, and in those verses you used you sealed your fate as to looking foolish.

1) The event was about crossing a raging river, each year the Jordan River floods and runs as a torrent. Go look up your geography, I'm not doing this simple task for you, it is you who's responsible for your facts.

2) Joshua tells the people that God is going to stop the flow of this raging river so that they can crossover to the land of promise.

3) God explained what He was going to do with the river to Joshua, and this event is the one that will establish God is still with His people and their leader.

4) God did as He said, He blocked the flow of the river when the priest carrying the ark stepped into the river. All the people crossed over, it was only when the priest came out of the river bed that the river returned to it's flood stage.

5) God did not tell Joshua in these verses that He would dispossess these other peoples, it was Joshua that said this is what God will do.

6) Joshua was getting ahead of God, as many do, and embellished what God was going to do, why Joshua did this is not explained, it is though written down that he did so. Did Joshua know that God was going to aid His people in dispossessing these people, yes, that is another matter altogether, it has no bearing on this part of the journey. The only thing that's important here, is that God did exactly what He said he would, to show His people that He was with their leadership and them.

7) You should try at least to be more accurate in your reporting of events, especially since it was already written for you, you make one lousy reporter of the facts even when they stare you in the face.

8) Now we have taken a look at what the verses really say!!

[Minimalist]

Just goes to show you how anything is possible for Jesus. That's also how he was born before 4 BC and after 6 AD at the same time.

I wasn't even going to go there, Chief....didn't want to be responsible for drippy's head exploding and messing up his carpet or something. But you're right. The asswipes who wrote this holy horseshit did a piss poor job of getting their story straight.

And poor little drippy has to tie his balls into a knot trying to pretend that it is all somehow true.

But I'll keep kicking the "tyres" for a while....a little British humour for our cousins across the pond!

[Drich]

So... why did YHWH describe the messiah to the Jews in one way but in "reality" it happens differently?

I think this question sums up 99% of the problems people have with God.

God describes something, and 'we' have an idea of how that something is supposed to play out or how God is supposed to make something happen like with Christ.

So what is the problem? Is it the fact that God has described something wrong? No! It is the pride that man has to think his understanding of anything is or should be the bench mark. Rather than say hey, God said X but I understand X to look like Y so when I see X rather than Y it is God (or the Lack of God) that has me experience X rather than the Y I was looking for. Why can 'we' admit when we are wrong that we do not always know how things are going to play out?

For instance the Jews were looking for a litteral savior to free them not from sin but from Rome. They were looking for the God version of King David. Did God promise this? No He promised a freedom that would set all of man kind free. But rather than keep an open mind and an open heart they were looking for Y. When X came along they could not accept that their expectation could possiable be wrong. So the denied X and are still waiting for Y.

Sound familiar? The majority of the questions and challenges I get from you people is because you like the Jews are expecting Y when God is offering X, and you can not be convinced otherwise that you in your rebellion against God and all of Creation may possiably be expecting the wrong things from what God has promised. This is why I have to spend the majority of my time trying to help you all redefine what you think you know of God. For bottom line if you are expecting Y and have not received it then know Y has not been offered no matter what you have been told or no matter what you think you know. I and millions like me know of the X God offers and can share it if you will only let go of the Y you think you are entitled to.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

So... why did YHWH describe the messiah to the Jews in one way but in "reality" it happens differently?

I think this question sums up 99% of the problems people have with God.

God describes something, and 'we' have an idea of how that something is supposed to play out or how God is supposed to make something happen like with Christ.
...

Perfectly reasonable. You come up with a hypothesis (God exists), you make predictions about what you would expect if the hypothesis were true, and if the predictions don't come true, you throw the hypothesis out.