The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

551. Comment #17204 by Mark Taunton on January 11, 2007 at 10:17 pm

(This will likely be my last substantial posting here for a while. I may make the odd short comment, but I have too much pressing upon me at the present time to write any more contributions at length.)

To J.C. Samuelson: (582)

Pardon my jumping in...
@ Mark Taunton # 556, # 563, # 576

No problem. Sorry to be slow responding. Thanks for your well-mannered and considerate tone – I appreciate that.

"The basic messages of the Koran and the Bible are incompatible with each other - only one of them can be true."
Then again, both of them could be false. Perhaps they each get some parts right and others wrong, making them complimentary at some points. Maybe the Hindu vedas get it right, or partly right.

You are correct that both being false, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, would be a logical possibility. If both are purely the work of human beings, then your suggestion of partial complementarity is as good as any other. However, I have been presenting in this thread one line of evidence, out of a rather larger collection of evidences, that the Bible is in fact true - all of it - and that therefore the God of the Bible exists and is the one true God. Then, on the basis of my conclusion that the Bible is true, it follows that the Koran cannot also be true, because it contradicts the Bible. The same goes for the Book of Mormon; other sacred texts I cannot comment on as I have not read them.

Of course, the intellectually honest theist must admit that, as a human, he cannot know with 100% certainty that any of them are anything more than historical fiction (defined as a fictional story set in an actual historical time period).

I would agree that, as a human, I cannot know with 100% certainty that the accounts in the Bible are altogether accurate. But the trend in archaeological discoveries in relation to Biblically-described historical contexts has consistently been in favour of the reliability of the Bible, and against the claims of critics who beforehand dismissed it as myth. And while it's not proof in an absolute sense, my own personal experience of places and objects has brought to me confirmation (in a small way) of the reality of the Bible's descriptions.

For example, the findings of both Nineveh and Babylon within the past couple of centuries – matching the Biblical accounts of those places, and the names and characters of their rulers – conform to this pattern: in previous generations, critics ridiculed them as pure fantasy. The discovery of hard evidence for Biblically identified and described individuals and political situations – likewise previously considered fanciful invention – stretching back at least as far as the 10th Century BC, also strengthens the basis of my faith, which requires the Bible to be historically accurate. An example is the Judean king Hezekiah, named by Sennacherib on the Taylor prism, on view in the British Museum, in a historical setting that precisely matches the Bible's record. I have also personally walked through the tunnel Hezekiah constructed to bring water into Jerusalem, as described in 2 Kings 20:20 (though it seems that that remarkable project was carried out in fear of an invading army, not out of trust in Yahweh: Isaiah 22:9-11).

Relatively recently, the work of David Rohl, refuting a conventional approach that largely disdains the Bible as irrelevant, has demonstrated the viability of a chronology for Egypt that accords with the Biblical framework. He treats the Bible as purely a collection of human documents – ignoring the supernatural elements in it – but still finds grounds for accepting its history, in respect particularly of the interactions between Israel and Egypt, as being substantially correct.

All these are but individual elements in relation to Biblical historicity, and many details of its accounts as yet lack a comparable degree of verification. But the raw assumption, made in past times, that the Bible is intrinsically untrustworthy, has been substantially weakened, not strengthened, as time and archaeological activities have gone forward.

As I said before, my faith is not of the type that RD describes as existing "in the absence of evidence". It is precisely because of many pieces of evidence, both within the Bible, and outside it but related to it, that I believe the Bible to be true. Like the scientist who – as RD recounts in TGD – is obliged to believe in quantum mechanics despite the huge intellectual challenge it presents, my faith is – indeed, must be – "evidence-based". It is thus like the faith of earlier Bible believers, in varying situations (e.g. John 21:24-31, linking with Acts 1:3; Acts 17:10-12 – though only the last of these is analogous to my experience), and not at all the "blind faith" that many seem content to accept for themselves.

"...avoid being caught up in other people's interpretations of the Bible by reading it for ourselves."

If I may, this is unavoidable. One of the reasons there are so many versions of the Bible is that there are so many possible interpretations. The product you have on your shelf is not necessarily the right one.

In respect of the various translations into English, you are right. The problem is clearly that uninspired human translators, such as those who produced the many versions in English, all have biases, some of which they are unable completely to suppress in doing their work. Nonetheless, the Bible text in its original languages is still available (I say more about this below), along with concordances and other tools – as you are clearly aware – that allow non-readers of those languages to access the original textual details and so avoid these potential problems. In any case, the best (most literal and direct) English translations are really pretty good. The KJV, for all its faults (of which I mentioned one example in my comment 639) is a work of remarkable integrity, even ignoring the purely aesthetic literary qualities it is widely admired for. It certainly includes examples of bias in translation, but not a great number, when compared to some more recent and supposedly more accurate versions.

Furthermore, the extant documents we have (from which all versions are derived) often show signs of alteration, which means that in order to approach a pure reading one would need to have the originals - which we don't. What we do have is several different "best guesses" of modern biblical translators, and there is no single manuscript tradition.

Here I part company sharply with you. I believe you greatly overstate the significance of the issues.

Firstly, there most definitely is a single manuscript tradition for the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts (i.e. the Old Testament). The Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries at Qumran, mainly dated at some time in the first century BC, have done much to substantiate the reliability of the Hebrew text, whose otherwise earliest known instance dates from about 1100 years later. Of all the OT books, only Esther is not represented in that remarkable collection, discovered only 60 years ago. (The background to my talk's flyer – visible at the head of this page – is a fragment from Qumran, including a number of short OT textual extracts.) The DSSs show that the mainstream Jewish tradition, of extreme care in copying and maintaining the scriptural text, has in fact been very effective.

Now the DSS scriptural texts do vary in small details from the mainstream "Masoretic text" (MT). But by far the most common variation is merely of a slight shift in spelling – of little more significance than differences such as "skeptic" vs "sceptic" or "colour" vs "color" in variants of English. It appears that the DSS texts were produced by Jews in a minority sect that didn't have the same attitude to textual accuracy as the mainstream Jewish copyists (who were, and still are, utterly rigorous about it). For example, the former avoided writing God's name YHWH, replacing it with four dots (this is illustrated towards the right hand end of the first line of the flyer background, see above), while mainstream Judaism retained it. Also it seems the DSS scribes adapted the text to conform to their specific Aramaic-influenced Hebrew dialect, as I already intimated, something not allowed in the "official" version. By far the most likely scenario is that the Masoretic text has been hardly changed at all in well over 2000 years, with the DSS texts representing a minor, and even then only very slight, divergence off that main line.

Early on in this thread (comment 153 on page 4), someone seemed to try to cast doubt on the reliability of the OT text by replicating a web-published article concerned with Isaiah 53 and the number of variations between the DSS ("Great Scroll") and MT texts of Isaiah, as compared with an alternative claimed number. What was most apparent, even from that critical perspective, is how little difference such minor variations actually make to the meaning!

For the New Testament, written in Greek, there is a somewhat wider spread – there is a large set of early manuscripts, mostly partial, not complete copies of the full text. Where they overlap, there are occasional differences. Sometimes a word or two is present in one and not another. Sometimes one word is replaced by another similar one. There are a couple of well-known instances where a section of a few verses is missing in some texts (the primary example is John 8:1-12). And in some cases it seems that (as with DSS texts), the spelling and grammar of the Greek were updated to accord with current practice at time of copying, in the centuries after the original writing. But overall there is again very little substantial variation. Certainly not at the level of change that means the basic meaning is in serious doubt.

Yet, even were we to have the originals there would still possibly be some diversity, because none of the languages used in the Bible translates directly into English (i.e., there is plenty of room for nuance - and error).

You are correct that most Bible readers must use translations. But by a combination of good translations and the relevant tools (I nowadays often use the Online Bible, making detailed research very much quicker and easier than it was for my forbears), it is still perfectly possible for a non-reader of the original languages, in a modest timescale, to determine what the original text actually says and means (for in the Bible, as in language generally, usage defines meaning). Thus can be avoided any errors or biases on the part of the translator.

Not only that, but in order to understand the Bible in its proper context, you need additional information; language resources for literary and linguistic context, history resources for cultural context, and so on.

Are such things not available? I don't understand what you are trying to argue… Even so, I suggest the Bible doesn't actually need a lot of human explanation, and can be understood in its own context.

To put all that another way, if your study of the Bible occurs more or less in an intellectual vacuum (self-interpretation) you are almost certainly going to reach the wrong conclusion several times. This is just simple common sense.

The Bible is a coherent and consistent book. In many places one part refers to and elaborates upon another. By paying attention to it, one can reach a coherent and consistent understanding of the whole. If I merely think thoughts to myself from within myself, that would be "an intellectual vacuum". But there are two elements in the case in point: a book, and its reader. The honest and diligent Bible reader can learn from that book what its author intended (just as I can learn from reading "The God Delusion" what Richard Dawkins intended, though I dispute some of his rationale, and utterly reject his conclusion). That is not "self-interpretation"!

"That's simply not true. Two examples:

Example A: the treatment of Israel by Rome...Example B: the return of the Jews to the land Israel to form a nation there again."

I would be impressed by these so-called prophecies if they actually identified the antagonists and predicted the dates they would occur.

From the evidence of this thread, it is clear that an atheist such as yourself will always demand more than is offered. Because of your underlying assumption that the Bible is not and cannot be true and hence that its prophetic power must be disputed, whatever level of detail I provide to substantiate the correctness of Biblical prophecy will never be enough for you!

Even so, in respect of my example of Deuteronomy 28:49-57, you are wrong in the first aspect: the parties prophesied about are identified unambiguously. The first is the people of Israel, to whom Moses' words are addressed, and the setting is their land. The second – the nation of Rome – is also identified, even though it is not named, by the unique combination of features described for it, that no other invader meets in toto. I can bring a name to the mind of most readers of this comment, without actually writing it, using very few words – e.g. "car maker, blue oval". In a similar way, the details Moses gave, taken together, pin-point Rome precisely, without needing an explicit name. A scripturally-aware Jew of Jesus' day, on seeing the eagle totem of the legionaries would already be getting a strong hint of what was to follow, from that element alone.

Of course, had the name "Rome" occurred in the text in some way, I suspect you or others would then allege that it was inserted later, as sceptics do for the cases of Josiah (1 Kings 13:2; 2 Kings 21:24-23:30) and Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28, 45;1; Ezra 1, etc.), both named in advance. Daniel gave detailed identifications in advance of the four great empires that would rule over the Middle East: Babylon, followed by Medo-Persia, followed by Greece, and then a fourth unnamed power (spoken of as being "of fierce countenance" – the last feature precisely matching Moses' words in Deut 28:50), which was of course Rome. But his words likewise are dismissed – without proof, and indeed, despite evidence to the contrary – as being written much later, so as to allow an alleged uninspired writer (forger!) the advantage of looking backwards, not forwards, in time.

Otherwise, it may be a case of retroactive interpretation - seeing what you want to see - or perhaps some degree of political insight on the part of the writers in very general terms. After all, the Jews had more than their fair share of troubles with other nations besides Rome prior to the completion of the OT (Assyria and Babylonia come to mind as examples).

Before his prophecy about Rome, Moses does indeed describe the troubles Israel would suffer at the hands of those earlier attackers. But at verse 49 a distinct new invading power is described. This part of the prophecy is specific to Rome.

My mother said that when she was a child she always knew she would have three children. That she eventually did doesn't mean she is or was a prophetess. If she had described our physical features and had given names and dates of birth in her diary when she was young, then that would be impressive and arguably qualify for the label of "prophecy."

Even then, if she had done those things, she would have had a plausible (though slim) prospect of getting it right by a combination of choice and chance: children typically bear some relation to their parents' appearance, and the approximate date of a birth is a function of (usually wilful) human activity(!). By contrast, for Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and all the rest of the Biblical prophets, purely by chance and a measure of human insight to get even a fraction of the details right that they did, is – I assert – far beyond the range of a "natural" explanation. The only explanation that makes sense – that I am compelled by the evidence I find to accept – is that the God of the Bible is real, and told his prophets what he was going to do, long before he brought it about. On that basis I continue to look to him to complete his purpose with his people of Israel, ultimately bringing to fulfilment what he through Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon:

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God has made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. (Daniel 2:44,45)

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

552. Comment #17205 by fonex_86 on January 11, 2007 at 10:54 pm

Ah, it seems that many people here are defending the OT rather well. I have to say that I, too, am astonished at the level of accuracy with which the Jews have preserved their holy texts. However, this again proves nothing about its truth. Just because a text is accurate doesn't mean that it's true. As for prophetic accuracy.. the bible is so chock-full of literature-speak that it is difficult to pin its precise meaning. For example, instead of stating "the world is flat, and there is water above the skies" -- which is a testable prediction/claim/hypothesis, the bible makes references to "the ends of the earth" and the "waters above it (skies)". Why is that? Is it too hard for god to just say SOMETHING to us about our world that we don't know yet, which is clear, unambiguous, and directly testable?

Having said that, it still remains to be shown whether the NT possesses the same degree of accuracy found in the hebrew OT. From what I've learned, this is not the case. Anyone care to comment on that?

Other Comments by fonex_86

553. Comment #17210 by Mark Taunton on January 12, 2007 at 1:54 am

fonex_86: (705)
There are a very few "literary" forms of expression in the passage from Ezekiel 36:1-24, that I quoted for my second example in (click here:) my previous comment 576 (page 12). But overall there is so much that is very plain, I don't see how you could argue it is somehow obscure in meaning. Please consider it and tell me, if you don't agree, why I am wrong to believe it means pretty much what it says, and therefore counts as a direct and detailed prophecy of events that came to their fulfillment only in the last century, over 2500 years after its time of writing.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

554. Comment #17232 by down_under on January 12, 2007 at 7:50 am

Mark, i fancied checking out Ezekiel 36:1-24 to see just how "plain" it was and im very sorry but your description of "plain" and mine differ greatly.

what is plain about this?

Ezekiel 36:22 "Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went."

or this?

Ezekiel 36:15 "Neither will I cause men to hear in thee the shame of the heathen any more, neither shalt thou bear the reproach of the people any more, neither shalt thou cause thy nations to fall any more, saith the Lord GOD."

or any of these?

"36:3 Therefore prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because they have made you desolate, and swallowed you up on every side, that ye might be a possession unto the residue of the heathen, and ye are taken up in the lips of talkers, and are an infamy of the people:"

"36:4 Therefore, ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD; Thus saith the Lord GOD to the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the heathen that are round about;"

"36:5 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey."

I see very little plainess in much of Ezekiel 36!!!
Infact I even see a sexist remark!!!


"36:17 Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman."


I fear you are merely seeing what yu want to see in these prophecies and it is sheilding you from truth
you think they are plain because you are seeing the meaning you want in them and no other.

And as I have stated before prophecies such as that can be easily assigned to events that have happened/are happening once we compare them, that is why Nostradaumus is always considered accurate and why prophecies must not be taken seriously, ad also prooves everything is down to how you translate it.

I also asked earlier if anyone had heard of a self-fullfilling prophecy

Basically it says in the bible it will happen, therefore all the jews belive with all their heart that it will happen, therefore they do everything in their power to make it happen, therefore it will eventually happen.

Never underestimate the power of a group of people with a dream.

it is reasons like these (among others) that mean prophecies simply cannot be taken too seriously,

if a bible prophecy said:

"In the month of september in the year of 2001 two flying machines built by man will be stolen by sevants of Allah and flown into large buildings in the sky causing them to crash to Earth"

my idea of "plain" i might add!

it would be a little bit differet, and ofcourse if the Bible is true, and writen by god, who really can see the future, then this sort of accuracy is not only easy, its expected, which is why bible prophecies proove nothing.

Other Comments by down_under

555. Comment #17233 by down_under on January 12, 2007 at 8:17 am

Does anyone convinced by bible prophecies fancy commenting on the following?

Jules Verne (more accuratly, more recently and less cripticly predicted several future events)

and Nostradaumus, who is cripitic and requires translation, but no more so than the bible

i also provided many bible prophecies that
a) havnt come true (you could argue they will one day)
b) cant come true
and c) contradict eachother

if the bibles prophecies are so great....then how can this be?


i dislike the prophecy arguments because (as we stated earlier in the thread) they are too innacurate and all go down to translation and us already knowing the events that have or are taking place and therefore comparing them (like with nostradaumus)

plus you could also just argue that phycic people actally exist
do you belive in phycic people?

i also dislike them because just because there are 1 or 2 accurate prophecies, does that really excuse all the other ridiculous things in the bible?

Other Comments by down_under

556. Comment #17234 by fonex_86 on January 12, 2007 at 8:23 am

I was going to answer sooner, but it seems that down_under has beat me to it =D. I must agree with him when he says "...your description of "plain" and mine differ greatly."

Mark, this is EXACTLY my point in my previous post. This is little more than fancy poetry, and is worthless as prophecy. Suppose that now I "prophesy" that "the day will come when the great Flying Spaghetti Monster will lift His Noodly Appendages and alleviate from man that disease most dreaded by all. Then they will know that His Meatness is truly most Scrumptuous". Let's break this "prophecy" down.

1. First, there is no specification of WHAT the "dreaded disease" is. It could be AIDS, it could be cancer, it could be ebola.
2. Second, we are expected to believe that this event will prove the deity's power. I will now ask: HOW?
3. Finally, and this is closely related to the Ezekiel prophecy, this "prophecy" has little value, if any. WHY? Simple. Because it's simply an event waiting to happen! It's the same as "prophesying" that there will be rain and storms in the following years to come! All we need is for someone to develop a reasonable cure for some deadly disease, and... I think you see the point.
4. The Ezekiel prophecy can also fall into the category of "self-fulfilling prophecies". Naturally, the Jews (with their strong sense of nationalism and ethnic pride) would want to reclaim their lands, especially if they feel that their endeavor was supported by an omnipotent being!

So to me, this Ezekiel prophecy has no substance at all. Again, I would ask you for one shred of information in the bible which is unambiguous and clearly demonstrable by scientific standards.

Other Comments by fonex_86

557. Comment #17237 by gimlibengloin on January 12, 2007 at 8:58 am

Theo (703)

Of course questions naturally arise regarding the meaning of "on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat".

However, these are also figures for humiliation see Psalm 44:25 and Proverbs 20:17.

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

558. Comment #17245 by shauntheboy on January 12, 2007 at 9:47 am

JC Sam, Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Two things to make clear from the outset. Firstly apologies for not providing you with a full reference and, yes I do have a copy of Elpis Israel(in fact I've inherited a few over the years!). On the context issue, I could have just cut and pasted the whole chapter, but I don't think you would really want me to do that. I deliberately chose to post the "best bits" and made that clear in my comments if you look again.

Secondly, Thomas did not claim to be a prophet and neither do Christadelphians believe him to be. He is a man who read his Bible and tried to interpret the prophecies contained in it. He is not infallible! However, he got the framework of events right, and you have to either mis-read or simply wriggle and squirm to avoid this conclusion.

JC Sam. Said:
1. Dr. Thomas believed the restoration of the Jews would take place in 50 to 60 years from the time he wrote this. Given that this passage exists in the 1848 edition, it would be 100 years before the Jewish nation of Israel would be reestablished, which you acknowledged.

This is quite clearly NOT what he says. He states: "The restoration of the Jews is a work of time, and will require between fifty and sixty years to accomplish."

The context is clear - once begun, this two-phase process of physical THEN spiritual restoration (as described in Ezekiel 37) of the new nation will take 50-60 years in total. He believed that once established Israel would be a secular state for 50 – 60 years before Christ returned and established a Theocracy beginning at Jerusalem with Jewish repentance.

The modern nation of Israel was established in 1948 and Jerusalem again came under Jewish control in 1967. They had to "fight" their way into existence as he thought would be the case, although his identification of the opposition was not correct (he thought Russia, but instead it was Arabs sponsored by Russia –close but no bannana!). We are currently 59 or 40 years into this process using these two dates. Still time yet for him tobe bang on!! I wouldn't get too hung up on the folly of predicting specific dates though. The author was estimating and I think he makes that clear.

He nowhere mentions that he believes that Jews would return within 50 – 60 years of his writing.

JC Sam. Said:
"I guess Dr. Thomas couldn't foresee the Russian Revolution. Do Christadelphians still believe a Russian Czar represents "Gogue of the land of Magogue?" After all, the 1990 version (which is linked to above) simply removed the words, "Nicholas, or a successor" yet still states it will be a Czar. If so, it would be interesting to know how this is expected to come about."

The Russian Revolution is not mentioned in Ezekiel or Daniel, presumably because in the context of this prophecy it is irrelavent. This is an interesting point though, and it illustrates nicely the folly of trying to change your interpretation of the specific Bible prophecies to fit with the political times.

During the 1960's and 70's some Christadelphians thought we needed to revisit this understanding that a "Russian Autocrat" and "Russia" herself would be the leading opponent to Israel and ultimately Christ . They looked at the Iron Curtain and the impregnable might of Communism and could not see how Europe could form a united confederation of nations or how Russia could possibly control this confederation of nations in order to facilitate an invasion of Israel (as predicted in Ezekiel and Daniel as well as elsewhere).

I know of very few Christadelphians who now feel this way. We have an increasingly totalitarian Russia, ripe for an "Autocrat" (that's if he isn't already in place!!), we have a united confederation of nations in Europe increasingly beholden to Russia for gas and oil, particularly Germany.

The scene is almost set exactly as Thomas was able to predict FROM BIBLE PROPHECY, not of his own clairvoyance, in 1848. The Bible prophecy is highly specific, the allied nations / regions are listed. And the action they are going to take is specified.

That the "Autocrat" would be a descendant of Nicolas was obviously a speculation and cannot be found in Ezekiel, Daniel or elsewhere. The fact that he will be Russian, will have authority over Germany and most other European nations, along with the area of the old Eastern Roman Empire, is clearly specified in the prophecies concerned.

JC Sam said:
in other words, the wheels were already turning by the time Dr. Thomas penned his book. It is reasonable to hypothesize that being cognizant of the changes already afoot he could quite easily have guessed the eventual establishment of a Jewish state. Further guesswork on his part could quite easily conclude that they would seek to establish an economy through trade and agriculture. However, here we find yet another error.

I would argue that "the wheels" have always been turning as far as students of Bible prophecy are concerned. That is why God provides us with these prophecies so we can confirm that "the wheels" of God's purpose are turning and He is inexorably working out His purpose.

In response to your point though, if it was so obvious why then did very few great minds, if any, or "Christian" or political commentators of the time think this would happen. Most students of Bible prophecy of this era simply spiritualised these prophecies away. Even the British Parliament of 1948, 100 years later, tried to halt the Act sanctioning the Jewish homeland in Palestine.

JC Sam Said:
Israel didn't establish diplomatic relations with India until 1992, and neither silver or gold are among Israel's or India's list of natural resources. Even today silver and gold are not among Israel's major imports or exports, according to the CIA World Factbook.

You misrepresent unfairly the use of the terms "gold and silver" in an attempt to strengthen your argument. Gold and silver is used simply to denote material wealth. To use this to try and discredit the prediction shows a bit of desperation! Does Israel trade with India? Is Israel a major trade partner of India? The answer to that question is undoubtedly "YES". The fact that this "only happened in 1992" illustrates that the prophecy is still in progress, and yet another part of it has been fulfilled. This is evidence FOR, not against the accuracy of Thomas's Bible based predictions.

JC Sam Said:
So Dr. Thomas guessed correctly, due to the unprotected condition in which Palestine existed at the time, that another power would be necessary to secure the area. But, as he noted, anyone could guess this.

So why didn't they "guess"? Or can you show me any evidence from the times (1800-1848) that provides succour to your postulation that "anyone could have guessed"? The answer is that very few, least of all the British govt. did foresee this eventuality.

JC Sam said:
At the time, the British empire was still the preeminent power in the world. It was reasonable to conclude that Israel would come under the protection of the British.

I suppose with the benefit of hindsight we could think that way, and in 1848 it was at its height, but in reality by the turn of the century the might of the Empire was on the wain, and by 1948 all but spent!

JC Sam said:
Dr. Thomas believed Britain to be the "Lion of Tarshish" rather than the U.S., it would seem that later attempts to include the U.S. under the concept of an Anglo-American "Lion of Tarshish" are nothing more than creative interpretation.

I agree that Thomas thought that Britain would probably still be the dominant force in the future. Is it reasonable to view the USA as a young lion of Tarshish? Has she in her modern history been subject to the governance of Britain? The answer to both these questions is "YES".

This being the case I don't see that there is such a problem with making the link with between "Tarshish and all the young lions thereof" (Ezekiel 38:13) and a power that is British in origin associated with Britain. The close links that remain between the nations of the old Empire, and Britain's automatic alliance with the US rather than her European neighbours are continued testament to this fact. This recruitment poster from the 1st World War (which obviously post dates Ezekiel 36 – 39) illustrates the association nicely.

www.


The section in Elpis Israel that you refer to speaking of dwelling in a land of "unwalled villages" comes towards the end of the secular phase of Israel's rehabilitation and is yet future, although will happen very soon I believe. This aspect is hard to envisage at the moment when the Jews are actively building "walls", but I have no doubt that this situation will change at some point soon so that the "unwalled villages" and "peacable people" (Ezekiel 38) elements of the prophecy will be fulfilled. When so much of the rest of the prophecy has been fulfilled there is no reason to expect that the small amount outstanding will not.


JC Sam Said:
Well, we can see that he wasn't exactly accurate. In fact, he got most of it wrong.

Obviously I beg to differ. This man was not an infallible individual as I stated in my original post. He filled the fine detail with his own speculation, however, when you look at the specifics of the events which frame his personal speculation he was absolutely spot on:

Events FULFILLED so far:
1.The Jews will be restored to Palestine in unbelief of the Messiahship of Jesus.

2. This will happen under the protection of the British.

3.They will become materially rich through commerce.

4. One of Israel's trading partners will be India.

5. There will be a uniting of the territory of the old Western Roman Empire as a confederation of European nations. This European Union will be under the influence of apostate Christianity.

The aspects which are IN PROGRESS:

1. Russia will become the dominant power in Europe and will eventually control all of the areas attributed to Eastern and Western Rome, apart from the areas specified in Scripture as controlled / allied to Tarshish namely: Afghanistan, India, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf (Ezek 38 & Daniel 11 onwards).

The aspects that REMAIN TO BE FULFILLED are:

1. The completion of the totalitarian influence of Russia over Europe and Near/Mid-East.

2. Invasion of Israel.

3. Return of Christ & repentance of Israel

JC Sam Said:
The parts that may be interpreted by you as accurate can be explained as guesswork based on the prevailing political climate of the day.

This being the case you will obviously be able to provide numerous examples of others who said the same things based on secular observation? I wait with anticipation!

When you consider the preceding list (above), that's some pretty impressive guess-work!

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

559. Comment #17247 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:56 am

Check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

560. Comment #17250 by shauntheboy on January 12, 2007 at 9:59 am

D-U Said:
and may i also add then yes, a creator is improbable (highly infact) but sciences answers are HIGHLY PROBABLE! so ponder on that for a while

In fact the postulation of secular science re the origins and development of life are highly IMPROBABLE. This fact is verified by the work of mainly atheistic/agnostic scientists such as Hoyle and Wickramsinghe amongst others.

This fact is also recognised by the High Priests of the NDT, even RD himself who invokes the "long-lived alien" analogy to try and convince us that it's not really that improbable.

The only people who accept that these things happened DESPITE their improbability are those whose faith is robust enough to accept the impossible!

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

561. Comment #17252 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 10:02 am

Check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

562. Comment #17254 by down_under on January 12, 2007 at 10:40 am

Shaun

"faith is robust enough to accept the impossible!"

when it comes to accepting the impossible "robust" is not the word id choose to describe it! but hey thats just my opinion!

also im not sure if you caught it (sorry i do post alot) but i replied to your comment 643, il try and find what number my response was and you can tell me what you think

ah here we go post 679

also have you any comments on posts
667
669
694??

i do not wish to take up too much of your time ofcourse just interested as to what you might say

Other Comments by down_under

563. Comment #17256 by J.C. Samuelson on January 12, 2007 at 10:52 am

Mark,

Thanks for your reply. Since I hadn't really been following your previous discussion closely, I decided to go back and read the pertinent posts so as to try and avoid repetition. I'm in the process of composing a reply, so please bear with me.

Thanks!

Shaun,

Thanks to you as well for your reply, and I'll post something in response to this as well as soon as I'm able.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

564. Comment #17257 by down_under on January 12, 2007 at 10:54 am

Shaun

Hi, i havnt read all of your post for JC yet but one bit just lept out at me I feel I have to answer right away

its in relation to my point how a prophecy can be compared to anything depending on what is happening at the time


"There will be a uniting of the territory of the old Western Roman Empire as a confederation of European nations. This European Union will be under the influence of apostate Christianity."

Had you been alive in 1942, perhaps you would compare this prophecy to the expanding Germany, insted of the modern EU??

Ithink i may re-read your oringinal post aswell because some of the things you said youare merely stating what you think he's referring to.....as with most prophecies.....to my memory Thomas's predicion was not that clear as to actually use the word "European Union"
if you are simply stating what you think he's refering too then it makes no difference, as you wlll see my previous posts on prophecies

Other Comments by down_under

565. Comment #17258 by shauntheboy on January 12, 2007 at 10:56 am

665 D_U said:
"im sorry but the "god can do anything" argument explains nothing and is just superstition, it is ridiculous"

It's not as ridiculous as you think, and in fact it is virtually identical to:

"Random mutation and natural selection can do anything"

and

"We don't know how life began but we are certain it wasn't an intelligent being"

As an atheist and (presumably a believer in NDT?) you should be used to circular reasoning, many eminent Evolutionists use it all the time.

Such statements as:

"The fittest offspring (defined as those who leave the most offspring) will leave the most offspring."

"The eye has evolved, therefore the perceived problems of improbability must only be apparent"

"In the face of the improbability that life arose spontaneously and developed to the stage we see in the world today, we are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred."

This type of statement abounds in the scientific literature. The "natural selection can do anything" mantra explains everything, and in so doing explains nothing!

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

566. Comment #17259 by down_under on January 12, 2007 at 11:02 am

Shaun

"Random mutation and natural selection can do anything"

i have never heard this before, im pretty sure random mutation will not fit millions of (long extinct - fact wether you like it or not) dinosaurs on a 450ft ark!

natural selection will not speak to noah and tell him to save the world (so to speak) or turn mosses staff into a snake

im pretty sure neither can destroy a city because they were annoyed
also this statement is a huge misinterpretation of what we belive when i comes to natral selection

natural selection cannot do anything, it simply means the fittest of the animals will survive, then obviously as trates are passed down through generations, have fitter offspring

i do not understand your annology here they do not seem to be linked.

Plus the difference is, EVERY one of you statements can be tested in some way or another, or has had tests done to lead to the assumption, plus NOTHING in science is certain and is therefore subject to change.

You belive God is certain and not subject to change, therefore does not need to be tested or questioned......a rather medieval outlook

If you can provide we with a test to proove that God can do anything, and i mean a scientific test, not "god can do anyfing coz it sez so in da bible" then i will re-tract my statement

Other Comments by down_under

567. Comment #17260 by fonex_86 on January 12, 2007 at 11:03 am

Shauntheboy,

Don't get me started on Hoyle again. You see, Hoyle was an astronomer/cosmologist/astrophysicist. He was no biologist/evolutionist/paleontologist. As embarassing as it might be, the fact is that some people just can't keep their hands out of other people's cookie jars.

Again, shaun, since you are so insistent on Thomas' apparently predicting all these things solely from scripture, I suppose any faithful, intelligent, god-fearing, born-again christian like YOU can do the same thing, particularly now that you have more information at your fingertips than any previous prophet ever had!

By the way, it appears that your god's "wheels" have and are still butchering thousands of human lives "to inexorably work out His purpose." Maybe he needs our blood as axle grease? Can't he just create his own? Are you so bent on telling us all that your loving, omnipotent, omniscient deity is a lying, murderous, perverted, sick, masochistic prick who is able and willing to screw everyone that stands in his way? But hey, whaddaya expect from someone who created Hitler? Oh yeah, where does Hitler enter the story anyway? Can't seem to see him anywhere in the bible.. And don't give me that typical xian BS about Hitler being an atheist. He was a devout catholic who believed that he was continuing his saviour's work on Earth by slaughtering the Jews.

Way to go, god. Way to go.

Other Comments by fonex_86

568. Comment #17261 by down_under on January 12, 2007 at 11:14 am

Shaun

"In fact the postulation of secular science re the origins and development of life are highly IMPROBABLE"

ok I may have over exadgerated by saying Highly probable (just like you are over exadgerating now)

the fact is it is still more probable than a creator, and too be honest i prefer not knowing and having the scientific mystery of trying to find out!
notonly is it more honest, intelligent, fullfilling and logical, but its also simply more fun! i love the mystery!

simply saying "oh its god there done" stops us from questioning and studying
it halts progress!!

as iv said many times (which no theist has yet commented on)

The last time everyone thought like this, that is to say how creationists (and you yourself) think, it was called the Dark ages!!!

Other Comments by down_under

569. Comment #17262 by down_under on January 12, 2007 at 11:19 am

Isnt it also such a co-incidence that snakes, an animal we have a natural fear of*, are evil in the bible
as well as being evil throughout many other myths, ledgends and relgion throughout history (notably the egyptians)


*though not me i love snakes, beautiful facinating creatures i actually keep them as a hobby :-)

Other Comments by down_under

570. Comment #17269 by Theo on January 12, 2007 at 2:26 pm

J.C. Samuelson

In order to clear this matter up, I'm writing this before you reply. It seems to me that we are arguing in circles with no hope of extracting ourselves short of capitulation on one of our parts. So, I'm going to explain both how I perceive your arguments and what my position is in relation to it as clearly as possible, and if you still disagree then so be it; we'll just agree to disagree.

I was going to write a post concerning this but I too have noticed that we have been going around in circles. So I accept that for the sake of time, we should agree to disagree.

This statement was made in the context of a biblical defense. That is, you were in the process of explaining biblical passages that had been attacked. You even stated the reasons why God placed the tree & serpent in the Garden, and why he rested on the seventh day. All of this taken from Genesis. In other words, you extracted your evidence for the character of God from the Bible! Even the mere assumptions of the Garden as a real place, Adam & Eve as real people, real talking animals, and God as a real entity who rested are based entirely on the Bible.

Ok I think I understand where you are finally coming from. Proof of the eternal existence of God I get from creation. The character of the creator Himself I get from the bible BUT, this statement needs to be justified, why? Because the bible needs to be critically analyzed to verify its inspiration since anyone can write a document and claim it is from God. So the question after Gods existence is, "Did He write the bible?"
That is a whole different discussion and a lengthy one at that. But to over - simplify, I have investigated the matter and SO FAR, the evidence points to the fact that it is inspired. It must be noted that during this investigation, when miracles were encountered, I accepted them because the question of Gods existence was already answered. In other words, for the question, "Is the bible Gods word?" one cannot conclude that God did not write the bible because it contains miracles, that would be foolish. However, one can conclude that the bible is not Gods if it, for example contradicts itself. These are however only a very simplistic statements on a lengthy subject.

Therefore when you if my position is:

1. If God exists the Bible is reliable.
2. God exists.
3. Therefore, the Bible is reliable.

You should now know that this is not my position because if it were so Gods existence would mean that any document is reliable.

Also you restated:

1. We can't discuss the biblical reliability if you don't accept God.
2. You don't accept God.
3. We can't discuss biblical reliability.

I believe we cannot discuss the MIRACULOUS aspect of the bible as I explained above. We can however discuss the other aspects of the bible such as contradictions etc.

Concerning spontaneous generation

However, I also cited some intriguing lab results (which you ignored) that might indicate spontaneous generation could take place, allowing for further study.

I did not ignore it, I just found that chemicals reacting to produce organic chemicals are simply not intriguing.

Finally, in comment #16883 you went to yet further lengths to show there was no third alternative and that creationism does win by default. In perhaps a meaningless concession to reason, you state that if science ever reports the formation of a living cell from raw materials, you'll return to atheism. This in spite of your earlier declaration that "WE DEFINITELY KNOW FOR A FACT that life did not originate spontaneously." It is a meaningless concession also because as a creationist you automatically assume that your conditions will never be met.

When I said that we definitely know for a fact that life did not originate spontaneously, I was applying the same stringency found in all areas in science to S.G. I do not believe that as a scientific theory, S.G. should have any special privileges over the other theories. For example, if it is said that at stp water does not freeze at zero degrees Celsius, it can be tested and it was. It was falsified and must remain so until evidence is presented that indicates otherwise. In other words I definitely know that water freezes at 0 Celsius, pending evidence to the contrary. This is just one example from a plethora of scientific cases.
The hypothesis that life arose from non living chemicals has been tested and was falsified over and over again. The generation of organic chemicals does not give any credence to the rise of life (as implied by the table).
This is not to say that the hypothesis has been taken out of the lab, but if it is to be treated as other scientic cases then the current data must stand until evidence to the contrary is presented.
To say that this hypothesis is not falsified because scientists are still performing experiments on it makes one beg if the proposition would ever be "falsified" because someone will always be willing to perform "one more experiment". This is the reason why this logic has no place science and therefore as with all the other scientific tests, the current data must stand pending evidence to the contrary, a far cry from saying that it will never happen. Therefore I am not "abolishing the patent office" but awaiting evidence.

You would say the God hypothesis and creationism are falsifiable. I disagree. Why? Because even should we witness the forming of a complete, living, self-replicating cell in the lab, the creationist can still claim that it was God that did the combining, or that without God the necessary elements wouldn't even have been available, or that God allowed that to happen. The unseen force that God is supposed to supply to life is forever beyond the microscope. If it weren't, God would cease to be considered a supernatural entity.

While I cannot speak for other theists, I can safely say that upon such evidence, it would have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that life did not need a creator to originate but arose from natural causes (as proven in the laboratory).

Other Comments by Theo

571. Comment #17377 by shauntheboy on January 13, 2007 at 6:25 am

D_U

Sorry if you feel I have not responded to some of your points. This will be for one of two reasons.

Firstly, I may have already given my response to someone else who raised a similar contention earlier in this, now somewhat lengthy, thread.

Secondly, the format of your posts means it takes more work to pick out exactly what your point is.

I will try to look back at the posts you mention and see if they fall into category "two", if so then I will try to respond at some point, time permitting.

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

572. Comment #17378 by shauntheboy on January 13, 2007 at 6:41 am

Fonex Said:
"Don't get me started on Hoyle again. You see, Hoyle was an astronomer/cosmologist/astrophysicist. He was no biologist/evolutionist/paleontologist. As embarassing as it might be, the fact is that some people just can't keep their hands out of other people's cookie jars."


I think Hoyle was an "Evolutionist" actually. He recognised the impossibility of the NDT though, and sought an alternative hypothesis.

Using this reasoning presumably you would equally reject the work of mathematicians (such as Fisher),whose work aims to support evolution? Or do you only reject it if it doesn't agree with the NDT? If you are consistent in your application of this reasoning, I presume you would discount anything that anyone might say that has an impact on a specialist area of study outside their own?

Mathematics is essential to any theory of life and its development. We have a pretty good idea what the rate of mutations etc, are in the DNA of various living organisms, and we can estimate approximately how many mutations would be required in some cases for one structure to develop into another, or whether a mutation would be likely to survive in a population. Mathematics is an essential component of evolutionary theory. Unfortunately for the NDT the mathematical evidence is stacking up against it.

Most of the leading lights in the NDT camp recognise this problem and are on the offensive with arguments such as RD's 100 million year old alien. He argues that there has been plenty of time for life to develop as described, and that it is only our relative shortness of life that hinders this view. I think it's worth examining this idea a little more.

I couldn't figure out how to get superscript so you will have to excuse the way I describe the following calcs. The chance of life occurring in 10(to the power of 20) planets once in a billion years is an event, so we can measure the probability of that event. After acknowledging that the likelihood of life occurring spontaneously and then NDT evolution occurring, is less than being dealt the perfect bridge hand (i.e. all players being dealt 13 cards of the same suite)we can calculate. What RD says is that if we imagine some alien being who lived for 100 million years and regularly played bridge, we can see that this being would hardly bother to write home if he were dealt a perfect hand because of the length of time and the frequency of the hands involved.

Well let's see if this is true or if it is just a bit of smoke and mirrors! The odds against being dealt a perfect bridge hand are 4.47x10(to the power of -28). What this means is if the alien played 100 bridge hands a day for 100 million years he would play about 3.65x10(to the power of 12) hands. The chance of him seeing a perfect bridge hand at least once in his life is now increased to 1.63x10(to the power of -15), in layman's terms that equals one chance in a quadrillion! That's an event worth writing home about I think! An event of that improbability is in fact impossible.(calcs. courtesy of Spetner 1999)

We can't just "presume" something has to happen given enough time, some things will never happen even if given an infinite amount of time.

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

573. Comment #17381 by shauntheboy on January 13, 2007 at 6:55 am

Fonex said:
"And don't give me that typical xian BS about Hitler being an atheist. He was a devout catholic who believed that he was continuing his saviour's work on Earth by slaughtering the Jews".

I wouldn't particularly disagree with that statement. Adolf Hitler was a particularly evil human being, and yes he was nominally Catholic (arguably not devout), and the Catholic Church was eerily silent during the holocaust, so yes I agree.

However, if you are suggesting that the Catholic Church is representative of the true Christian principles summarised as "love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind" & "love your neighbour as yourself", and additionally if you are suggesting the Catholic Church is based on Bible Christianity, I would disagree. Although with the value of hindsight I can see how Hitlers murderous cruelty prepared the way for the establishment of a Jewish State.


Whilst you mention Hitler - knowing what you do, (if you had the ability) would you think it right or wrong to go back in history and eliminate Hitler (or any other despot such as Stalin or Pol Phot (?sp)), before they reached their murderous maturity?

I believe most people would answer that question in the affirmative. This is because with hindsight we know the evil they were going propagate, and therefore, are equipped to make a just decision. If Adolf Hitler had been killed as a small baby I think we could safely argue from a purely human perspective that would have been a good thing.

Your argument against the "nasty" stuff in the Bible only holds if you reason from a human perspective. Human beings are, generally speaking, not "just" in this respect. We are not able to foresee what an individual may or may not do in the future; we do not know the end from the beginning.

If there is a Creator of the universe (I realise that you don't accept this but if you use your imagination here and lift your mind out of the realms of purely naturalistic reasoning) and He is "just", as he claims and omniscient, then He knows the end from the beginning. This being the case He has authority over His creation and He is at liberty to enforce His laws and ultimately decide who lives and who dies. He is free to establish the rules of justice and implement them. I trust Him when He says He is just and fair and I am happy that everything will turn out the way He has promised.

Your indignant rejection of His authority is based purely upon reason from a two dimensional human perspective; "humans aren't equipped to make such decisions therefore neither is God". The argument only holds if God is a human being, which thankfully He is not!

Other Comments by shauntheboy

574. Comment #17400 by Mark Taunton on January 13, 2007 at 9:09 am

down_under:

I also asked earlier if anyone had heard of a self-fullfilling prophecy

Basically it says in the bible it will happen, therefore all the jews belive with all their heart that it will happen, therefore they do everything in their power to make it happen, therefore it will eventually happen.

Never underestimate the power of a group of people with a dream.

You have rather a big problem with that idea. My question is, what is the "it" in your "it will happen"? The larger part of Deuteronomy 28 is concerned, not with the good things that the Israelites might well dream of, but instead with the nightmarish things that no rational human being would wish for - having to eat one's own children during a siege, for example. Yet they also did happen - was that because the Jews did "everything in their power to make it happen", the fulfillment of their collective dream? I hardly think so...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

575. Comment #17403 by Mark Taunton on January 13, 2007 at 9:28 am

Shaun, a friendly correction: in 726 I think you meant "knowing the end from the beginning", not "knowing the beginning from the end" (twice)...
Mark.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

576. Comment #17411 by down_under on January 13, 2007 at 11:54 am

Mark

You failed to aknowledge the rest of my point,
Self fullfilling prophecies explain many of the bibles prophecies but obviosly not all, undesriablt prophecies such as Deuteronomy 28 arweobviously not going to be self fulfilling, that would be a bit stupid on the jews part.

you merely found one undesirable prophecy, and picked it out to highlight it, a common theist technique, to comment only on what you can, to pick and choose,and ignore the rest

However my other points can clearly apply to Deuteronomy 28.

For a start it makes very little sense, it is so criptic it can apply to almost anything, you are yet again just seeing the meaning you want to see in it and nothing else.

it is this short-sighteness in prophecies which can be quite dangerous

here is the rest of what i said, which can easily apply to deuteronomy 28:

"And as I have stated before prophecies such as that can be easily assigned to events that have happened/are happening once we compare them, that is why Nostradaumus is always considered accurate and why prophecies must not be taken seriously, ad also prooves everything is down to how you translate it."

"if a bible prophecy said:

"In the month of september in the year of 2001 two flying machines built by man will be stolen by sevants of Allah and flown into large buildings in the sky causing them to crash to Earth"

my idea of "plain" i might add!

it would be a little bit differet, and ofcourse if the Bible is true, and writen by god, who really can see the future, then this sort of accuracy is not only easy, its expected, which is why bible prophecies proove nothing."


Other Comments by down_under

577. Comment #17412 by down_under on January 13, 2007 at 11:57 am

I also added:

Does anyone convinced by bible prophecies fancy commenting on the following?

Jules Verne (more accuratly, more recently and less cripticly predicted several future events)

and Nostradaumus, who is cripitic and requires translation, but no more so than the bible

i also provided many bible prophecies that
a) havnt come true (you could argue they will one day)
b) cant come true
and c) contradict eachother

if the bibles prophecies are so great....then how can this be?


i dislike the prophecy arguments because (as we stated earlier in the thread) they are too innacurate and all go down to translation and us already knowing the events that have or are taking place and therefore comparing them (like with nostradaumus)

plus you could also just argue that phycic people actally exist
do you belive in phycic people?

i also dislike them because just because there are 1 or 2 accurate prophecies, does that really excuse all the other ridiculous things in the bible?

Other Comments by down_under

578. Comment #17415 by Mark Taunton on January 13, 2007 at 12:52 pm

down_under:

OK, I grant you that the verses you quoted have a few longer or rarer words in, that perhaps a dictionary would help with. Also, you cite the KJV which has some archaic forms in - perhaps they are a problem for you? If you want to avoid those, look again at my comment 576, where in quoting the passge I deliberately used a more modern form of words, and explictly transliterated God's name Yahweh (though otherwise I followed the KJV).

I ask again, is the passage really cryptic? Not like Nostradamus it's not, no!

Nostradamus is seriously cryptic. He uses relative common words alright, but gives no context to enable anyone to identify what those words refer to - i.e. who, what, where is being talked about. That is being cryptic (hidden, secret).

This passge in Ezekiel is not cryptic: the identity of each element of the prophecy is plainly given in the context itself:
+ Yahweh (the God of Israel) - the "I" throughout the passage
+ the land of Israel, with its mountains, valleys, rivers, etc.
+ the people of Israel, scattered through many countries, but prophesied to come back to the land
+ the Idumeans (i.e. Edomites - Arab descendents of Edom, the man Israel's brother - as I explained in comment 576)
+ other nations round about the land, who had control of the land when the Israelites were not in it.

Let us then consider verses 8-12 of Ezekiel 36 - a part that you didn't list in your comment (707, above). I quote it again below, copied from my original quotation but split into verses to make it easier for you.

8 But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come.
9 For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and you shall be tilled and sown:
10 And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be built:
11 And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and you shall know that I am Yahweh.
12 Yes, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess you, and you shall be their inheritance, and you shall no more henceforth bereave them of men.

Please say, which bits of the above verses (i.e. which particular words or phrases) are not clear to you? (For brevity, just give a verse number and a word or phrase, for each point you consider "not clear".) For each point you identify, I will then show you, from context in the Bible (i.e. not some explanation I dream up in my own imagination, as is necessary with Nostradamus, but from the Bible itself), what the word or phrase means.




Other Comments by Mark Taunton

579. Comment #17417 by roach on January 13, 2007 at 1:58 pm

The fact that very intelligent people can pull off such mental gymnastics in order to belive in an entity as brutal as the God of Abraham and a superstition as absurd as Biblicl prophesy makes me marvel at the amazing capabilites of the human brain. It also terrifies me.

Other Comments by roach

580. Comment #17422 by Mark Taunton on January 13, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Roach:

Who's doing any mental gymnastics? I just read the Bible, where necesary comparing one passage with another to gain more understanding. Some parts take more work than others, but really the passage in question is hardly obscure and requires no mental gymnastics. I can think of rather trickier passages in Shakespeare, but few would disdain his work just because they have to use their brains a little to make sense of it.

By the way, I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but you have no need to be terrified of me or my approach. I am not like some (indeed) scary types, who seem to think that they will establish by political or even military means their notion of a Christian country. I consider myself a stranger and a pilgrim in the present world, as men of faith in previous times also did. So I would not fight (or indeed vote) for any human ruler or system of government. I only seek to show to others, by my words, the great hope that I have found in the Bible, and the evidence that my hope is solidly founded. Though you might think me a fool, I am convinced by the great quantity of fulfilled, detailed Biblical prophecy - of which I have presented only a couple of primary examples previously in this thread - that the God of the Bible is real. Furthermore, I am certain that he will work out the remainder of his purpose, as he has brought about so much thus far, in accordance with the words that he gave to the prophets of Israel.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

581. Comment #17426 by down_under on January 13, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Mark

All you have done in comment 731 is proove my point, for a 3rd time, so once again........bravo

It is indeed cryptic, you have merely translated it to show what you think it means.
Th fact that you had to translate it only shows just how cryptic it is.

I see it for what it really is, cryptic nonesense that could be applied to any number of things......just like Nostradaumus

As I have said many times before, you are blinded because you are seeing what you want to see in these passages and nothing more

I demonstrated to you what a clear passage would be and pointed out that if the bible truly was the word of god who sees all and knows all past present and future, then that kind of accuracy would not be a problem

"In the month of september in the year of 2001 two flying machines built by man will be stolen by sevants of Allah and flown into large buildings in the sky causing them to crash to Earth"

you have also still failed to comment on Jules Verne

and you are conviniantly ignoring this:

i also provided many bible prophecies that
a) havnt come true (you could argue they will one day)
b) cant come true
and c) contradict eachother

if the bibles prophecies are so great....then how can this be?

plus you could also just argue that phycic people actally exist
do you belive in phycic people?

i also dislike them because just because there are 1 or 2 accurate prophecies, does that really excuse all the other ridiculous things in the bible?

why do you ignore these issues they're quite important, do you , like most theists, only pick and choose what to answer and ignore what you cant, then continue on with your blind faith?

Other Comments by down_under

582. Comment #17429 by down_under on January 13, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Mark

"Please say, which bits of the above verses (i.e. which particular words or phrases) are not clear to you? "

I find the whole of your quote unclear!!
and im sure many other non-christians or people who can see what is written and not the meanings they wish to see will agree with me!


im also going to over-analyse this, from a lamens point of view so i apologise in advance for my sarcasm, i just want you (and everyone else) to see how unclear this is


"8 But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come."

What does this mean? Isreal will expand? israels people will branch out? isreal wil have a good harvest? its not very clear

"9 For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and you shall be tilled and sown:"

come again?

"10 And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be built:"

wow god predicts that the cities will have people living in them, kudos
and wastes shall be built? what does that mean??

"11 And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and you shall know that I am Yahweh."

God will multiply upon me? i dont want to be raped!
so god is predicting that man and beast will multiply, another amazing prediction, the beasts will bring fruit? clever beasts.
so the isralites find a new place to live and god says its him? (another self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps?)

"12 Yes, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess you, and you shall be their inheritance, and you shall no more henceforth bereave them of men."

So god will posses them? not very nice thats what satan does, and i dont even understand the rest of this

Mark this is about as clear as a florida swamp in a hurricane, the fact you think it is clear in anyway only goes to show how blind you are the obvious, as i said you are seeing what you want to see.

Plus i noticed you went in a little circle earlier, you show a prophecy that is obviously self-fullfilling, i point it out, so you then show a prophecy that cant be self-fulfilling, i explain that prophecy and so then you go back to your original?
how bizzare?

As i said earlier, your description of "plain" and mine differ greatly!

open your eyes man!

Other Comments by down_under

583. Comment #17540 by Mark Taunton on January 14, 2007 at 3:45 pm

down_under:

It seems you are right, your notion of "plain" and mine must be different. I'm sorry about that. However, for the sake of completeness I'm going to give it one last attempt. I don't do this to reflect your sarcasm back to you, or to cast doubt on your intelligence, but just to try to explain. (Anyone who knows me will tell you, I am a straightforward sort of person: I usually take people to mean what they say, and I do try to say what I mean, without trickery. An example of my failure to spot other people's subtle words appears earlier in this thread, though it would take me a while to find it again.)

You directly say that you are being sarcastic. Perhaps because of that, I shouldn't bother, but I will still try to answer your points. Here goes:

"8 But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come."

What does this mean? Isreal will expand? israels people will branch out? isreal wil have a good harvest? its not very clear

The last of your suggestions – the most direct one. The mountains of Israel were barren and unproductive when the people of Israel were in exile. But God through Ezekiel says they will become productive again when the people of Israel come back to the land. The trees that grow on the mountains (e.g. on the well-known "mount of Olives", named for the fruit of the trees that grow on it) will once again produce fruit for the people of Israel. That has happened. The Israelis have been very diligent in agriculture and irrigation, and the land is indeed fruitful once again now that they are back in it. When Jews first started to settle there again in any numbers in the late 19th and early 20th century, it was in many ways an unpromising place. It was wild and barren in the mountains, with hardly any trees, only low shrubs. Along the coastal strip it was very marshy. And it was hot and dry in the eastern valley and especially in the southern desert regions (the Negev). There were some places that had water and supported crops, but it was not generally so. For that reason, only a modest number of people lived in the country at all (in 1890 the total was about 650,000, mostly Arabs). But it's very different now, just like Ezekiel said it would be.

"9 For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and you shall be tilled and sown:"

come again?

You just need to remember from the context (and as I explained in post 576) that this prophecy is addressed to the land of Israel (e.g. verse 6: its mountains, valleys, and rivers). So the word "you" refers to those things, not to the people (or to you or me, reading it). That was obvious in verse 8: "you, O mountains of Israel", and nothing has changed in verse 9. God says he is "for" them, i.e. that he favours them and cares for them (as he does for the whole land - see Deuteronomy 11:11-12). God is saying he will turn to them (the mountains) in the sense of being involved with them again because of his bringing Jews back. As a dictionary will tell you, "tilling" means ploughing; "sowing" obviously means planting seed into the ground (i.e. the regular senses of those words apply – no interpretation is needed.) That is just what the Israelis do today so effectively, in fulfilment of this prophecy – they can feed and support their large population (over 7 million) – they now grow many types of crops, even in the mountainous regions. Yet in the early days of the modern Israeli state, most food had to be imported, even with far fewer people.

"10 And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be built:"

wow god predicts that the cities will have people living in them, kudos

The point is simple: Jews (or indeed people of any other ethnic group) weren't living in the cities before this prophecy was fulfilled! Most of the cities of Israel were in decay and ruin, for many hundreds of years. The Jewish population in the whole of the land in the late 1800s was measured only in the low tens of thousands; a significant proportion of the remaining population were Bedouin Arab nomads who didn't (and still don't) live in cities at all. But the Jewish population has since then increased hugely, and they have rebuilt the cities in order to live in them.

and wastes shall be built? what does that mean??

Places that were waste (i.e. wasteland – empty, unused) would be built on. Israel today has over 7 million people; far more than when independence was declared in 1948. Of necessity the Israelis have built a tremendous number of new houses and factories and shops, etc., mostly on waste land that had not been used for centuries, if ever.

"11 And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and you shall know that I am Yahweh."

[unpleasant sarcasm deleted]
so god is predicting that man and beast will multiply, another amazing prediction, the beasts will bring fruit? clever beasts.

As I mentioned above, the Jewish population of Israel has expanded enormously in only a century: from around 50,000 in 1900, to around 5.5 million today (the rest of the 7 million are Arabs or Druze or other ethnic groups). That increase by a factor of 100 or more in 100 years is certainly "multiplication": far, far faster growth than the world population as a whole, or for any other individual country that I am aware of. It is a very distinct and unusual development – not something normal or common at all, despite your mockery.
I accept that "bring fruit" is not specially clear to a 21st century reader – it just means to be fertile – it's an idea that comes several times in the Bible, and is used about crops, about animals and about people.

so the isralites find a new place to live and god says its him? (another self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps?)

But it's not just any "new place to live". First off, before 1948 the Jews as a people had no particular place to live, to call their own. They were scattered in small communities throughout the whole world – e.g. the present Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was born to parents who migrated to Israel from China, having previously escaped persecution in Russia and Ukraine. There were no significant concentrations of Jews in any other single country, except latterly in the USA, and previously to some degree in Russia. And of course in Europe, the Nazis did their utmost to exterminate Jews, killing millions of them in pursuit of Hitler's "final solution". Despite the physical difficulties of life in Palestine, despite the serious political problems caused by British two-facedness over the territory (effectively promising it to both Jews and Arabs), and despite the intense hostility of many Arab people to the idea of Jewish settlement, it was that land to which they went back. Yes, some Jews did want to return to their own ancient homeland, but that didn't mean it was the easy, logical or obvious choice for them – far from it! Many preferred the USA as being a more appealing destination. Yet Jews in significant numbers did return to their original homeland, against the odds, and have transformed it, just as God speaking by Ezekiel said they would.

"12 Yes, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess you, and you shall be their inheritance, and you shall no more henceforth bereave them of men."

So god will posses them? not very nice thats what satan does, and i dont even understand the rest of this

The text says "they shall possess you", not "I shall possess you". The word "they" refers to the people of Israel. The word "you" refers to the land, as throughout this passage. So this is saying that the people of Israel would possess the land of Israel (which they had not done for a very very long time before this was first fulfilled, in the last century). When Jews went back in the last century, they generally bought land from the people living there. That land is therefore now in their possession, and can be inherited by Israeli children from their parents.

The word "bereave" is to do with losing someone because they die (as you can find in a dictionary). The land was previously inhospitable and dangerous – people living there could die because of the state of the land itself, especially with relatively few people in it. You could die from hunger if your crops failed because of drought, or from a snake-bite or a scorpion sting, or by catching malaria from the mosquitoes in the swampy parts of the coastal plain. That's what the land "bereaving them of men" is about. But God is saying that it would stop being like that - and it has. Israel may still be viewed by many people as a dangerous place to live, but the risks are no longer about the state of the land itself – e.g. malaria is practically non-existent in Israel today.

In conclusion…

For all you want to dismiss them, Ezekiel's words have come true, in detail. In particular, the state of the land of Israel, which is the main subject of this prophecy, has been transformed tremendously, in the experience of people still alive today (such as my parents). And this has happened because the Jews came back to settle there, as Ezekiel and many other prophets said they would.

But there was no reason to expect such events! These things happened against all natural prospects, from either a Jewish perspective, or anyone else's. In the 1940s, the main thing Jews seemingly could expect was persecution and death. So this was in no way a "self-fulfilling prophecy" such as you suppose; nor was it "obviously going to happen", at all.

The country of Israel is approaching 59 years old. It is presently thriving, despite obvious political, ethnic and religious problems. Humanly speaking, Israel as a Jewish nation-state could not be expected to exist, and judging by its history, that land should certainly not be anything like as fruitful as it is now. Like people in many countries, I sometimes eat Jaffa oranges, or other fruit exported from Israel. Every time I do, and whether I think about it or not, I am demonstrating that the words of the prophets of Israel, recorded in the Bible, really are true.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

584. Comment #17570 by J.C. Samuelson on January 14, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Mark,

My apologies for not finishing the response in a timely manner. It's nearly finished, but it appears that the thread has moved on. I'll post it late tonight or tomorrow. Whether it will make any difference, well...

Thanks.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

585. Comment #17581 by Mark Taunton on January 15, 2007 at 12:57 am

J.C. Samuelson,

That's no problem to me - I'm certainly still interested, and look forward to your response.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

586. Comment #17582 by shauntheboy on January 15, 2007 at 1:30 am

728. Comment #17403 by Mark Taunton on January 13, 2007 at 9:28 am
Shaun, a friendly correction: in 726 I think you meant "knowing the end from the beginning", not "knowing the beginning from the end" (twice)...
Mark.

Oops! Thanks. Now corrected. It's one of those two o'clock in the morning things!

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

587. Comment #17615 by BillySands on January 15, 2007 at 5:46 am

just time for a quick observation. When you ask a theist why god doesn't just reveal himself and settle the issue of his existance, you get a whole load of bizarre answers as to why "he" doesn't. So, the point is if god doesn't want to reveal himself to sceptics, then why are there so many people trying to argue a case for him then? If you believe he is real, but will not show himself to us, then why do theists bother to try and "prove" his existance to us?

Other Comments by BillySands

588. Comment #17651 by down_under on January 15, 2007 at 9:43 am

Mark

The fact that you had to do SO MUCH explaining and translating in comment 736 only goes to proove my point that this is truly not a very clear prophecy at all!
- you are seeing ONLY what you wish!!! if only you could see this passage from a normal point of view but i guess your parents did a great job brainwashing you when you were a child!!

Trust me Mark your prophecy doesnt predict half the things you say it does and it could be applied to any number of things if you translate it different! You just cant because of your blindless to the obvious and (as I keep saying) refuse to see anything other than what you want to see in that passage!!!

You MUST live in the US right? I mean someone with your mentality can only be american!!
Anyway......my attempt to rope you in with sarcasm apparantly worked!

I know, I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but how do you know the person who said that wasnt being sarcastic when he said it? ;-)

I could answer all of your odd bible ramblings but to be honest theres alot and I havnt got the time, I will point out one that did however make me chuckle

"The point is simple: Jews (or indeed people of any other ethnic group) weren't living in the cities before this prophecy was fulfilled"

Belive me mark if there are cities there people will inhabitat them, its not much of a prophecy
and as for your explanation of self-fulfilling........well i mean you didnt really explain it at all, your whole explanation just really seemed to highlight how they fullfilled it.

infactcome to think of it mark, your entire comment 736 was a poor attempt at an explaination of prophecies for these reasons

1: you prooved my point of how unclear the prophecy was by explaining and translating oh so much of it!

2: Everything you responded with can STILL be explained by my explainations of prophecies (I suggest you re-ead my explanations)

3: you STILL are yet to comment on all of these points which obviously catch you and your medival belief out!......

"I demonstrated to you what a clear passage would be and pointed out that if the bible truly was the word of god who sees all and knows all past present and future, then that kind of accuracy would not be a problem (infact it would be expected)

"In the month of september in the year of 2001 two flying machines built by man will be stolen by sevants of Allah and flown into large buildings in the sky causing them to crash to Earth"

you have also still failed to comment on Jules Verne

and you are conviniantly ignoring this:

i also provided many bible prophecies that
a) havnt come true (you could argue they will one day)
b) cant come true
and c) contradict eachother

if the bibles prophecies are so great....then how can this be?

plus you could also just argue that phycic people actally exist
do you belive in phycic people?

i also dislike them because just because there are 1 or 2 accurate prophecies, does that really excuse all the other ridiculous things in the bible?

why do you ignore these issues they're quite important, do you , like most theists, only pick and choose what to answer and ignore what you cant, then continue on with your blind faith?"

Mark I fee all logic evades you and im running out of patience, as I have said many times, you are seeing only what you want to see and nothing else, you are blinded by faith, in your mind mark you are screaming out

"MY EARS ARE DEAF TO ALL BUT THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE!!!"

and that mark is a dangerous way to think

im begiging to think arguing with theists is rather pointless because from my experiences with you Mark, aswell as Theo and Shaun you seem to...

a) Ignore scientific facts
b) ignore logic
c) ignore what we say if its something that catches you out!
d) ignore the obvious flaws, innacuraces and contradctions in the bible, or pathetically try to explain them (to yourself more than us i fear)
e) have some strange circular logic you seem to love so much
and finally f) think that bible quotes actually mean anything to us!

im sorry mark but i have clearly (yes clearly) pointed out to you that these prophecies mean and proove nothing and you still blindy igonore my points!
There is no hope for you , your mind is completly brainwashed

Other Comments by down_under

589. Comment #17654 by down_under on January 15, 2007 at 9:49 am

Theo.....have you too given up trying to argue with my obviously superior logic (only superior mind because unlike yours it actually IS logcial)

how can you honestly still belive when you cant even convince yourself!


ATHEISTS - Am I the only one fustrated here by Theist ignorance?? Are we wasting our time? maybe we should just let them continue in their little blind ignorant fairytale dreamland and leave their bubble intact?

Other Comments by down_under

590. Comment #17673 by Theo on January 15, 2007 at 12:31 pm

D_U,

Comment 691

This should clear it up:

Lineage: The descendants of one individual.
Seth : A son of Adam

The lineage of Seth: The descendants of Seth; they are human.