Failed Biblical Prophecies

[Drich]

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?

No it is not dummy. It is in the sea, it is what made the Port Island of tyre into the pensula or current city of trye. What is there has been built on what was left of the Island sea port and the new formed sand bar connecting the mainland to the island. Read the artical you quoted from! "OLD Tyre originally called Ushu or Palaetyrus, by the Greeks" is what has been left in ruins and or is what formed the causway at the bottom of the sea!

---

If that is true, then why didn't it use any of those words?

Holy Crap! IT DID!!! In the HEBREW! Word for freaking word! The bible was not written in the English! You are reading a literal translation. Not a commentary. If you want more meaning then you will either use a commentary bible that explains stuff like this or you will have to learn to translate this stuff for yourself by properly using the correct reference material. That is why only an idiot would take a translation of another culture in another language, and look for inconsistencies. This is impossiable to do from modern Japanese to Modern English. So why would any educated person look to do this from Modern/western english soceity to ancient Hebrew?

An

d you have yet to explain why Judah couldn't defeat those with iron chariots.

I did. you brushed it off. Go back and reread.

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

Same word. Again the Judeans failure was not God's failure. Go back and reread what has already been written here.

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.

The 'assertion' was backed by actual reference material, and not a commentary.

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.[

So what would the Jewish word for president be? Oh, that's right it would literally be "par-oh" Meaning simply "Great house." Or LEADER So as We live in a time after Neb's fortold victory, and in a time of "Par-oh's" then I'd say we are still in line to possiably see this one through.

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.

All you have to do here is put this on in context and do a google search on agression from sidon against Israel.

20 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 21 “Son of man, set your face toward Sidon, and prophesy against her, 22 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God:


“Behold, I am against you, O Sidon;
I will be glorified in your midst;
And they shall know that I am the Lord,
When I execute judgments in her and am hallowed in her.
23 For I will send pestilence upon her,
And blood in her streets;
The wounded shall be judged in her midst
By the sword against her on every side;
Then they shall know that I am the Lord.

24 “And there shall no longer be a pricking brier or a painful thorn for the house of Israel from among all who are around them, who despise them. Then they shall know that I am the Lord God.”

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.

Yeah right what? When the people of Israel listen to God they enjoyed peace, when they did not they were turned over to those who hated them

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

I did. Feel free to do the same.

[FallentoReason]

Interesting response Drich. Thanks for that.

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?

If it sounds like X, looks like X and acts like X, it must be X. The Jews thought it was Y, and apparently God was ok with that. That's not very efficient, just like 99.99% of all "creation" being extinct (but that's another story altogether).

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.

For me personally, I'd still be waiting for a messiah figure to come along and be a part of the history of humanity, if ya know what I mean

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.

As a framework for understanding why "GOD" doesn't seem to be reacting the way we think he should, I can accept this. The thing is though that this argument can apply to any of the 3 000+ gods ever imagined. For all you know, your experiences might look like X, but in fact they're classified as a Y because the one true god is Sol Invictus.

[Ryantology]

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.

Where did pride come from?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

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?...

Amen, Drich! When the Bible seems to be wrong, the fault is not with the Bible but with us for not reading it the right way. When fully appreciating the miracle of Biblical prophecy and how inerrant it is, one must look at it in terms of events that have unfolded and fit the words to what has happened.

Now some godless heathen trash might call this "confirmation bias applied to a post hoc analysis of the outcome in order to find a justification for a conclusion you'd already made" but I call it following the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Now, the pagans also use this kind of thinking to justify their Horoscopes but we both know that's silly because the Holy Spirit isn't leading them. But when you look at Biblical prophecy, that's the real thing.

[Drich]

As a framework for understanding why "GOD" doesn't seem to be reacting the way we think he should, I can accept this. The thing is though that this argument can apply to any of the 3 000+ gods ever imagined. For all you know, your experiences might look like X, but in fact they're classified as a Y because the one true god is Sol Invictus.

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find God, as God promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

[Darkstar]

If that is true, then why didn't it use any of those words?

Holy Crap! IT DID!!! In the HEBREW! Word for freaking word! The bible was not written in the English! You are reading a literal translation. Not a commentary. If you want more meaning then you will either use a commentary bible that explains stuff like this or you will have to learn to translate this stuff for yourself by properly using the correct reference material. That is why only an idiot would take a translation of another culture in another language, and look for inconsistencies. This is impossiable to do from modern Japanese to Modern English. So why would any educated person look to do this from Modern/western english soceity to ancient Hebrew?

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.

The 'assertion' was backed by actual reference material, and not a commentary.

What 'reference material'? I provided two links of translations from Hebrew straight to English that do not say 'dispossesed' and you provided no links. Here's something:http://biblelexicon.org/judges/1-19.htm

but could not
lo' (lo)
not (the simple or abs. negation); by implication, no; often used with other particles (as follows)

---

drive out
yarash (yaw-rash')
to occupy (by driving out previous tenants, and possessing in their place); by implication, to seize, to rob, to inherit; also to expel, to impoverish, to ruin

This says that they couldn't drive them out has the same meaning as the driving out you spoke of before, as in they could not seize, rob or inherit. Note, this is the commentary you asked for, in leiu of a literal translation.

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.

So what would the Jewish word for president be? Oh, that's right it would literally be "par-oh" Meaning simply "Great house." Or LEADER So as We live in a time after Neb's fortold victory, and in a time of "Par-oh's" then I'd say we are still in line to possiably see this one through.

Just like we might see the rapture too, even though it is arguably uncanonical... And again, should I take your word for it, or will you show me the evidence, as I have done with the lexicon commentary page I gave above?

---

---

Zechariah 14: 10-11 10 The whole land, from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem, will become like the Arabah. But Jerusalem will be raised up high from the Benjamin Gate to the site of the First Gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the royal winepresses, and will remain in its place. 11 It will be inhabited; never again will it be destroyed. Jerusalem will be secure.

---

Jerusalem was not secure; it was not to be never again destroyed.
Siege of Jerusalem (70)

The siege ended with the sacking of the city and the destruction of its famous Second Temple. The destruction of both the first and second temples is still mourned annually as the Jewish fast Tisha B'Av. The Arch of Titus, celebrating the Roman sack of Jerusalem and the Temple, still stands in Rome....Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, of which a majority were Jewish, and that 97,000 were captured and enslaved, including Simon bar Giora and John of Giscala.

Not very secure, is it? "But you're taking it out of context!"
Book of Zechariah

Some scholars accept the book as the writings of one individual. For example, George Livingstone Robinson's dissertation on chapters 9-14[4] concluded that those chapters had their origin in the period between 518 and 516 BCE and stand in close relation to chapters 1-8, having most probably been composed by Zechariah himself. However, most modern scholars believe the book of Zechariah was written by at least two different people.[5]

Zechariah 1-8, sometimes referred to as First Zechariah, was written in the 6th century BCE.[6] Zechariah 9-14, often called Second Zechariah, contains within the text no datable references to specific events or individuals but most scholars give the text a date in the fifth century BCE.[7] Second Zechariah, in the opinion of some scholars, appears to make use of the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, the Deuteronomistic History, and the themes from First Zechariah. This has led some to believe that the writer(s) or editor(s) of Second Zechariah may have been a disciple of the prophet Zechariah.[8] There are some scholars who go even further and divide Second Zechariah into Second Zechariah (9-11) and Third Zechariah (12-14) since each begins with a heading oracle.[9]

Look at the dates. The passage was written well before Jerusalem was destroyed.

[Drich]

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.

Where did pride come from?

From the freedom to be apart of the known Glory of God. Because we are not born without the knoweledge of God's glory. we tend to want to do what we wish to and then justify our actions through our own version of righteousness (morality) it is from this 'morality' or Self Righteousness that our Pride is rooted, and grows.

[FallentoReason]

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find God, as God promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find Sol Invictus, as Sol Invictus promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find Ra, as Ra promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find Dionysus, as Dionysus promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find Ixchel, as Ixchel promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

Uh-oh.

[Ryantology]

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find God, as God promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

That's why being an atheist is so awesome. You can still find nothing and you don't have to enslave yourself to some jealous bitch to do it.

[Drich]

What 'reference material'? I provided two links of translations from Hebrew straight to English that do not say 'dispossesed' and you provided no links.

No I cut and pasted from the strongs which is what your link is based on.http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3423&t=KJV

So what would be the more accurate material to use? The lexicon based on what the orginal says or the orginal itself?

Here's something:http://biblelexicon.org/judges/1-19.htm

but could not
lo' (lo)
not (the simple or abs. negation); by implication, no; often used with other particles (as follows)

---

drive out
yarash (yaw-rash')
to occupy (by driving out previous tenants, and possessing in their place); by implication, to seize, to rob, to inherit; also to expel, to impoverish, to ruin

Ok, Do you remember the example I gave of Rome Occupying Israel? They "Yaw-rash" the Holy Land but could not drive out it's inhabitants till 70AD.

This says that they couldn't drive them out has the same meaning as the driving out you spoke of before, as in they could not seize, rob or inherit. Note, this is the commentary you asked for, in leiu of a literal translation.

I have not asked for a commentary I pointed out you are attacking actual reference material with commentary. Which is foolishness.

Just like we might see the rapture too, even though it is arguably uncanonical... And again, should I take your word for it, or will you show me the evidence, as I have done with the lexicon commentary page I gave above?

Done:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...6547&t=KJV
did you honestly think I was making this up as I went? That I was not actually using a legit source material?

Anytime you want to compare 'notes' just ask and I will be glad to fill in the blanks with book chapter and verse or a link to a lexicon's defination.[/quote]

---

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find God, as God promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find Sol Invictus, as Sol Invictus promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find Ra, as Ra promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find Dionysus, as Dionysus promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

Except for one distinct difference. One can yeild to X and find Ixchel, as Ixchel promised. while if one yeilds to the x of any of the other 3000+ gods mention they will find nothing.

Uh-oh.

only, one thing. where are these gods now? Where are the worshipers of these god now? Uh-Oh I guessed they died with the people who worshiped them did.. Which would lead me to believe them to be false gods.