1501. Comment #70311 by newatheist on September 14, 2007 at 9:41 pm

1570. Comment #68414 by Mark Taunton -

But the Bible claims for itself, and gives objective enquirers strong reasons to believe, that it is in fact a communication from God, bringing into our finite minds and intellectual framework God's own presentation of his infinite power and knowledge, couched in terms we can grasp if we choose to.

Jeff Lindsay - www.MormonEvidence.com

"Book of Mormon Evidences" discusses some of the factors that suggest the Book of Mormon may be an ancient document. Contrary to the claims of our critics, there are impressive findings that make it difficult to explain away the Book of Mormon as a nineteenth-century fraud from Joseph Smith. Such evidence is not "proof" but represents indications of plausibility that demand further attention.

You guys just don't get it, Mark. You'd all be waving your books at the Martian Anthropologist, and shouting "Look here! We're right; and they're all a crock of baloney! Mr Martian, if you just turn to the right page, squint, and think laterally, you'll see that our case, and our case alone, is irrefutable!"

The OT is long on "battle rhetoric". (read the stomach turning Isaiah 34)
So, Ezekial says "Your city will be destroyed and put into the sea…". Well, was the city beside the sea? Yes. Might Nebuchadrezzar have wanted to destroy it and make sure it wasn't fit for rebuilding? Sure. The best way to do that to a city by the sea? Well, maybe… push it into the sea. Right. So 'Zeke writes up such a scenario, predicates it on God's displeasure with the place, and Tyre is later (historical debate aside) treated in the almost inevitable manner. Even then, Big Neb didn't do it so you have to shape the "prophesy" to suit two cities; two cities which the "prophecy" doesn't mention separately. You have to add that.

This prophecy thing is paint by numbers. I think I'll predict God hates San Francisco and he's going to destroy it with an earthquake.

Anyway Mark, it sounds like this will all soon be academic, as you're sitting on the greatest discovery in all of history, in that it will prove the existence of God beyond any doubt to anyone. I look forward to you appearing in all of world's news media in the coming years.

Other Comments by newatheist

1502. Comment #70350 by Goldy on September 15, 2007 at 3:02 am

A city has walls, houses and other buildings; people, activity, etc. - does it not? The location I have found lacks all of those things. Therefore it cannot rationally be considered a city now, any more than (to repeat my previous direct analogy) a carpet, or the flattened marks in it that show where a piece of furniture previously stood, are actually the piece of furniture. But in view of the evidence from the satellite photo, I claim that Palaetyros did indeed once occupy that site, though unquestionably it is not there today. The fact of and reason for that are well-documented in history.

OK, so if I understand you well...you're looking at basically virgin earth, via a satelite, and you're seeing....old Tyre. No walls, ok. No people, I understand. I even understand your analogy with the furniture.
OK, this is how I read Ezekiel's prophesy (and, after reading the first chapter, what else can I say about the dude!) - people will look for old Tyre (of course, he didn't call it thus) but NO ONE WILL FIND IT. It is wiped away - TOTALLY. Using the wardrobe analogy, there never wasa wardrobe there. The floors were sanded, the carpets pulled and replaced. No one will ever know the wardrobe was there. The fact that a wardrobe was ever there is neither here nor there - one could have replaced the wardrobe with another, or with a drinks cabinet or even a bath.

You will be sought, but you will never again be found

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to post this to make a point, but read it. It doesn't say people will look for the wardrobe, but it's gone, here's the marks on the floor. It says it's gone, gone, gone. Hell, give old Ez his due, all one would have to do it wait about 50 years and Tyre would be gone - redeveloped! The city would be in the same place, but the people would be gone, the neighbourhoods changed, all the same old things we see today.
To say you have found the site is saying you have found old Tyre. Otherwise, what have you found? The site? Sorry, good as. It was demolished. Alex did that, it seems, and used the bits to make a causeway. Which means for centuries, people knew where those bits were. And if they fell to dust, core samples will bring them up (as dirt) and we can safely say "Ooooh, old Tyre!"
Sorry, Mark, you found it, contrary to the prophesy. Shadows, in this case, count (if words count for the existance of God, shadows can count for the existance of a city). If not, you found dirt and are calling it old Tyre. For your sake, one would hope it is the latter.

Other Comments by Goldy

1503. Comment #70352 by Goldy on September 15, 2007 at 3:10 am

There is a field outside of Reading near a village called Silchester. It is surrounded by a wall and to one side there is an amphitheatre (converted by Stephen to a castle). It is called Calleva Atrebates. Now, it doesn't exist - it is a field. But on a modern map, using what is seen in the ground, it is still called Calleva Atrebates. It's gone, I repeat, but you can still find it (Ezekiel was long dead by then...)
http://www.roman-britain.org/places/calleva.htm
Look it up on an OS Roman Britain map. It's lack of physical presence has not made it any less a city, albeit a historic one.

Other Comments by Goldy

1504. Comment #70353 by Quetzalcoatl on September 15, 2007 at 3:18 am

In support of Goldy's point (and I've probably mentioned this before), it strikes me that any excavation of the area that Mark has identified would most probably find some evidence of old Tyre. Shards of pottery, the remnants of walls etc. Alexander's forces wouldn't have wasted their time wandering the area excising every trace of Tyre from existence. They didn't do that with any other city, why should Tyre be any different?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1505. Comment #70368 by Mark Taunton on September 15, 2007 at 5:29 am

Well, you all seem very determined to pursue your arguments, on the most tenuous possible traces of reason. Let me counter with the following, and I will then, in respect of this topic, leave you in the fine surroundings of Wardrobeville... (Was that the official residence of a certain Emperor's tailor?)

If you could resurrect a former resident of Pompeii and invite him to make his home there again in its present state, I think he would not be overly impressed. He might condescend to try if pressed, but it would certainly be very hard.

Now do the same for an old Tyrian, and transport him to the South Lebanon location in question. Try offering him the equivalent option; after all he used to live there, he ought to recognise the place? He would look at you "a bit gone out", as my wife might put it. He would certainly acknowledge the correctness of Ezekiel's account of the final end of Tyre, even if you can't bring yourselves to.

Old Tyre is no longer a city in the slighest meaningful sense, whatever the map says. Ah, now. Actually, even the map is no help to your case... Can I therefore politely suggest you drop it?

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1506. Comment #70376 by Mark Taunton on September 15, 2007 at 6:41 am

I look forward to you appearing in all of world's news media in the coming years.

I sincerely hope not, and I certainly don't expect any such result. Indeed, rather than seek publicity, I am very keen to keep the lid on one particular element, for reasons I have already mentioned. As it happens, I have a friend who was recently subjected to a forceful stream of enquiries and requests for interview by the international media, keen to sensationalise a particular discovery that was made in his specialist research subject. They weren't actually camping on his doorstep, but even so, I don't believe he enjoyed the experience.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1507. Comment #70386 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 8:14 am

Old Tyre is no longer a city in the slighest meaningful sense, whatever the map says. Ah, now. Actually, even the map is no help to your case... Can I therefore politely suggest you drop it?

You can suggest if you like, but I don't think it is going to happen. If you claim to have found a city, then there must still be some remnant or imprint that caused you to recognise the site. That is the way satellite imaging (be it visual, infrared or radar) works... it picks up traces and disturbances. The fact that we are having this discussion shows the ambiguity of the situation, and why trying to fit things to prophesies is a waste of time.

Other Comments by steve99

1508. Comment #70431 by Mark Taunton on September 15, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Corky:

However, if Christadelphians were really true to their god and his holy book, they would have obeyed Deut. 18:20-22 and stoned their founders to death.

Certainly they would not, for two reasons:

1. No early Christadelphians I know of claimed to make any prophecies themselves, and none do now, either. Indeed the idea is quite laughable: the earliest believers who used that name were quite clear, as am I and Christadelphians today, that the only available source of true prophetic knowledge in this era is the Bible itself. John Thomas and Robert Roberts both strongly repudiated any notion that they were divinely inspired, as would be required to communicate a new prophecy. (This is, as you should know, in sharp contrast to the ideas of a significant proportion of those who call themselves Christians.) Rather, we confesss freely that we are by nature quite fallible, just as the Bible makes plain.

2. The commandment you cite, like the rest of the Mosaic law, was given specifically to the the nation of Israel, and is by plain scriptural teaching not applicable to Gentile believers in Jesus, as I recently pointed out in other discussion here.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1509. Comment #70454 by walk on September 15, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Admittedly, I haven't read every word of this thread, but it seems Mark goes on and on about the more esoteric questions, but totally avoids the simple, hard ones.

Goldy (1612.) "However, if you could tell me why Mohammed is not a prophet of God (...) as believed by billions, I'd be grateful.
(...) there's no reason why the Koran cannot be a continuation of the Bible."

LeeC (1619.) "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." Joshua 10:13 (...) "Why didn't the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese or whoever NOT notice the Sun and the Moon were not moving for a WHOLE 24 hours and write it down?"

Other Comments by walk

1510. Comment #70461 by Mark Taunton on September 15, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Walk:
There is obviously a large volume of comment to read on this thread (of I which write a fair bit, though considerably less than some other protagonists do, and only a small fraction of the total). Amongst all that, it seeems you missed my comment to Goldy, that I do intend to answer his (or her?) question on Islam and its status relative to the Bible. I would be quite willing to tackle the other point you pick out also, if I can find the time. But I have a number of even earlier issues still to deal with, and I do try to have at least something of a life away from this web site...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1511. Comment #70462 by walk on September 15, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Thanks, I'll stay posted.

Other Comments by walk

1512. Comment #70473 by Goldy on September 15, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Hi Mark :-) I await your response, then. Til that time, I shall be enganged in a project of my own - making a leak-free shower stall to replace the leaky one currently there.
Oh, and I'm a he - you can call me Mike :-) Goldy is just a contraction of my surname...or my radiant smile :-D

Other Comments by Goldy

1513. Comment #70518 by LeeC on September 15, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the response (post 1641). I've read it and will be replying in detail when I can. (I had to pick the mother-in-law up from the airport last night and now have 3 weeks where I have to be on my best behaviour - and so will have to be "brief" on the computer)

So, just quickly now...

My original response to this prophecy was detailed back in post 1186.

As you know I broke down the whole chapter and raised many questions, which I hoped you could address – maybe in time you will be able to go into more detail later on the remaining ones – I know you will not be ignoring my points, just that I made SO many of them.

To summarise a couple of keys points I made:

Why wasn't Alex mentioned by name (or period?) didn't God know?

Why are we jumping around between the island and the mainland city to explain the prophecy?

Why is much of the detail in the prophecy being ignored (or at least, you have not provided evidence for it - please re-read my original post for the break down, although I am happy to repeat myself when I have more time.)

Must go…

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1514. Comment #70519 by LeeC on September 15, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Hi Walk,

Admittedly, I haven't read every word of this thread, but it seems Mark goes on and on about the more esoteric questions, but totally avoids the simple, hard ones.

Too many words to read... so do not read them all.

It is only natural to respond to the easy ones first - but we do not forget, and I have since created summary posts so we can come back to them. (We all ask Mark so many questions, it is hard to keep track of all of them)

Some summaries can be found on page 31, post 1502 onwards if you are interested on the topics we have touched on.

Or follow this link...

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1515. Comment #70547 by J.C. Samuelson on September 16, 2007 at 2:02 am

Mark,

No one could ever accuse you of lacking a keen intellect and imagination. However, as I suspected, there is really very little that could be construed as new in your latest defense of Ez. 26 as prophecy. Having poured over your latest responses and the map you so kindly provided, with all due respect I've come to the conclusion that you have resorted to grasping at straws.

You now assert that the Tyre Ezekiel referred to was only the mainland portion of the city. Again, this is equivocation. Let us grant that Nebuchadnezzar was only meant to destroy the mainland city. Doing so does not exonerate the chapter as prophecy in the least. Indeed, you still have not dealt with the plain fact that the island city conquered by Alexander has been rebuilt. Put plainly, if Alexander is to be considered you simply must deal with the city that stands today where the island used to be. You cannot simultaneously say that Ezekiel referred only to the mainland as being wiped away while arguing that Alexander fulfilled phase two of the prophecy. Phase two includes the island city being wiped away, as is made clear by the remainder of the chapter. Unless, of course, you're going to again shift the goalposts and say that the remainder referred only to the mainland.

In any event, you've also apparently failed to account for is that the island portion of the city had existed for quite a long time prior to Ezekiel's writing. It had long been used as the main port and a refuge against previous attackers (the Egyptians and the Assyrians being notable examples). If memory serves, the El-Amarna tablets, which predate Ezekiel by as much as a thousand years, refer to the island, not the mainland, as the city proper. While it's impossible to know whether the city was founded on the island or the mainland first, this does not truly seem important since there was ample time for the city to grow on both counts by the time Ezekiel penned his missive. But perhaps most damning to your theory is Ezekiel himself who, by his reference to Tyre as distinct from her "daughters in the fields" and by his further reference to her being a ruin in the "midst of the sea," gives the lie to your notion he referred only to the utter destruction of the mainland portion.

Granted, the Tyre that stands today is not the Phoenician city with which Ezekiel was familiar. But Ezekiel's familiarity is beside the point if we're talking about a prophecy informed (if not authored) by Almighty God. Attempts to place the city elsewhere merely divert attention from the fact that the city has been rebuilt on exactly the same ground that you've previously argued was wiped clean by Alexander and subsequent conquerors. Changing it to mean only the mainland is part and parcel of apologetic attempts to find fulfillment where there is none.

I've intentionally ignored the temptation to respond point by point, because I've already posted my responses to your other assertions elsewhere and months ago (some 10 or more pages back, I believe). In other words, I find your latest suggestions to be less than persuasive and, to put it bluntly, specious. Incidentally, it does not matter one bit what a Phoenician Tyrian would think of modern day Tyre. We're not supposed to be talking about earth-bound perceptions, are we? We're supposed to be discussing a divine prophecy, which presumably is not bound by such limitations.

Now, I'm sure this is all quite frustrating and I do not mean to be rude but frankly it seems to me that it's you who is clinging to the most tenuous threads of reason here, as is the one who is quite "gone out." Again, I would ask you what there is that might be left to say about this alleged prophecy? That said, I'm still interested in your paper. I'll send you a PM shortly.

On another note, please don't feel that you need respond to every post of mine. You are quite overwhelmed, and let me assure you that I'm quite content to wait as long as necessary, or even to go without! :)

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1516. Comment #70564 by newatheist on September 16, 2007 at 4:39 am

1659. Comment #70368 by Mark Taunton

Well, you all seem very determined to pursue your arguments, on the most tenuous possible traces of reason.

I agree it's worthless arguing the merits or otherwise of historical events, or what constitutes your city, or where it stood, or whatever.

Let's assume everything happened just like you said.

The fact is "I will send armies against your city: I will destroy it and put it in the sea", is no more a detailed prophecy than Isaiah 34 "Their slain will be thrown out, their dead bodies will send up a stench; the mountains will be soaked with their blood."

It's hyperbole. The OT reads like an instalment of World Wrestling Federation "Smackdown XXXV."

It's all "I will kill you. You will die and stink. I will destroy your cities and lay waste to your land…"
"I will put your city in the sea. The waves shall consume it and the fishes will be your companions!..."

I would be completely unimpressed if Tyre, Old Tyre, New Tyre, Tyre Heights, etc etc was destroyed and thrown in the sea. The fact that some biblical ranting roughly matches the event is nothing more than an interesting coincidence: maybe even an extraordinary coincidence, but just a coincidence in any case.
Simply adding "just as Yahweh's prophet Ezekial said it would, doesn't make it a prophecy.

This whole "my dad is bigger than your dad", fear of God rant was describing a single wanton act of destruction against one city. People have done some convoluted work, making it somehow match events by splitting it up, with one city abandoned and later pulled down to get access to its island successor, hundreds of years later. *YAWN*. Now, where have we seen this kind of work before? That's right – the application of post diction to Nostradamus. At least Nostradamus supposedly referred to 20th century cities and people that didn't exist in his day.

And by the way, exactly how does a prophecy cover something like "you will never be found"? …Never?

Is it never yet? Seems like the Statute of Limitations on never is 2338 years.
I prophesise Jesus is never coming back. Looks like I'm right.

Mark, have you read the Mormon Evidence yet? You guys have compelled me to add a "quote" to my posts:

"When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well." - Stephen F Roberts.

Other Comments by newatheist

1517. Comment #70638 by Corky on September 16, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Interesting Christadelphian Prophecy Chart:

http://www.bible.ca/pre-prophecy-christadelphians.gif

Other Comments by Corky

1518. Comment #70695 by walk on September 16, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Mark,
Not to be a wanker, but it seems to me you could have answered the two simple questions I mentioned (1664.), from Goldy and LeeC, in the time it took you to explain why you DIDN'T HAVE TIME to answer!

Other Comments by walk

1519. Comment #70844 by LeeC on September 17, 2007 at 4:14 am

Hi Mark,

Still have to be brief… you are probably not surprised to hear that I am not convinced yet. However I give you it is interesting and I am grateful for your time in responding but many of my questions are still unanswered. Neither one is important in itself – but if there are more questions than answers in a "prophecy" then I may think someone was just cherry picking the bits they like.

…But actually in terms of Ezekiel's language here, he is using a very common form of expression in the Bible for death
…
…Again a common Biblical way of speaking – Ezekiel uses this sort of description in other places too, speaking of the end of various foreign powers. It comes particularly in contexts of poetic judgement against kings destined to lose their throne and die ignominiously.
…

Now when is something "prophetic" in the bible, and when is it "poetic"? A lot is written in this chapter, but much of it has been ignored and brushed under the "poetic" mat. Why?

As I have said though in my last post, my problems now with your responses are that this prophecy has now been broken into 2 because reality does not match the single description.

One half for the mainland… and 270 years later for the island.

Why doesn't the prophecy mention this "gap" you would have thought it was important?

Anyway, I will repeat just a few of the points you did not have chance to respond to the first time … (I will post more of them later, but I do not want to overwhelm you again.)

2Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste

What is this offence that Tyrus said against Jerusalem and has Tyrus already done this offence at the time of the writing?

If the offence was SO BAD… why did it take at least 2 attacks (one on the mainland, and one island) over the course of 270 years?

The verse does only mention one offence, so why did God take 270 years to get His "vengeance"?

3Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

Many nations? Why couldn't God name the nations (or even the man you claim who did the second attack i.e. Alexander the Great?)

7For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

Why does the prophecy name Nebuchadrezzar, but NOT Alexander the Great… why does the prophecy have a gap of a few hundred years?

You say Nebuchadrezzar started it, and Alexander finished it… but where are you getting the information from the prophecy itself? It seems like the prophecy FAILED, but with "luck" a few hundred years later some other chap came along and it "fitted" a little bit of other waffle… it is wishful thinking unless you can show me where in the prophecy it clearly states these events because I do not see it.

My limit research also suggests that Nebuchadrezzar was fighting in the area at the time the prophecy was supposedly written, so it is more likely talking about events that were to come very soon, and not 270 years later.

16Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee.

Now Mark, you claim the prophecy was describing Alexander the Great – can you name any princes of the sea this is referring to and where Alexander The great was ever named as a "prince of the sea"?

I could go on… I still have many questions – but I will leave it at that for now. You are very busy.

Thanks

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1520. Comment #70848 by LeeC on September 17, 2007 at 4:18 am

Hi Corky

Being an ex-Christadelphian myself, I was attracted to this rather lengthy discussion. Let me just say that you all are wasting your time with the Christadelphians. They are the hard-core of the hard-core fundamentalist. They are the epitome of fundie-ism.

Well I'm not out to convert anyone – so the time I am wasting is merely typing the rubbish I do – but I enjoy it.

However, you say you are an "ex-Christadelphian" so it is possible to leave it behind then. May I ask what made you leave the church? If that is not too personal a question.

Cheers

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1521. Comment #71478 by Goldy on September 18, 2007 at 9:17 pm

While waiting for an answer, found this in today's Independent

Sir: Robert Fisk's harrowing account of the cultural devastation of Iraq recalls the prophet of the Babylonian exile, Ezekiel: "The end is come upon the four corners of the land." The final destruction has been achieved two and a half millennia later by the White House and its annex at No. 10.

The awful fact for the idealists is that Saddam Hussein built upon the Sumerian and Mesopotamian heritage in his own brutal manner to unify the loose coalition that is modern Iraq, where at least al-Qa'ida had no place and Christians were relatively free to worship.

Dr David Spooner

Dunfermline, Fife

Other Comments by Goldy

1522. Comment #72667 by LeeC on September 22, 2007 at 6:50 am

Why are we on post number 1505?

Is it just me or has 100 posts have just disappeared?

Too much wine I guess?

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1523. Comment #72675 by Corky on September 22, 2007 at 8:31 am

Why are we on post number 1505?

Is it just me or has 100 posts have just disappeared?

Too much wine I guess?

And, we were on page #34 but now it's #31, something is amiss here.

Other Comments by Corky

1524. Comment #72689 by BillySands on September 22, 2007 at 9:39 am

Interesting prophecy chart Corky. Strange the world is not filled with the glory of god. How was redemption achieved through the seed of woman before the covenant with Abraham. Jesus is not decended from david, because joseph is not his father and those messianic prophecies are so lame and out of context etc ....
How did those other cults deal with their failed prophecies?

mistakes of moses is available here

Other Comments by BillySands

1525. Comment #72695 by Quetzalcoatl on September 22, 2007 at 10:27 am

I agree. Maybe someone's been marked as a troll and had their posts removed? Can't think what else it could be.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1526. Comment #72711 by walk on September 22, 2007 at 12:05 pm

I also thought I was hallucinating at the loss of posts on this thread. Perhaps the site manager (is it Doug?) could clarify.

Or PERHAPS! (feigns a shudder) - - - the "Divine Dictator" is miffed!!!

Other Comments by walk

1527. Comment #74751 by Corky on September 30, 2007 at 9:09 am

Okay guys?, Mark?, back at it. Don't leave me up in the air here like a serial on TV when the season ends. I'm in suspense about those fulfilled prophecies.

I would like to know about the fulfillment of the prophecy about Jesus in Psa. 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Maybe old Celsus the Epicurean philosopher was correct about the Roman soldier and Jesus' mother?

But it has to refer to Jesus, right? Because David's mother did not conceive David in sin, so . . .?

Other Comments by Corky

1528. Comment #74806 by Mark Taunton on September 30, 2007 at 3:12 pm

All: I've been silent on this forum for some time. I did try to post a comment a week or so ago, but the server seemed to be in trouble and I never managed to submit it. Life has been rather complex and busy of late; but I've got a few minutes today.

Goldy:
Eventually, I have found some time to get back to you. I still owe JCS a response on various things, but given a comment he made to me recently by PM, I am sure he will be OK with my answering you first. As earlier expressed, your question was:

Mark, please, just answer one question. Why is Mohammed not a prophet of God? Why stop at the NT?

Firstly, I note that you later did some digging and found a very old comment of mine about the Quran/Koran and my limited knowledge of it. As it happens, I subsequently acquired a copy, and have read parts (but by no means all) of it. That was relevant when someone later asked about prophecies in the Koran, and I was able to respond to specific issues. Some of what I say below is similar to comments I made then. (Sorry, I haven't gone looking to find my original postings; even if I did, I fear another digital earthquake such as the one recently experienced on this thread could make any references invalid again.)

Mohammed is claimed by Moslems to be a prophet of Allah. I won't take issue with that directly, but what I can say is that he was not a prophet of Yahweh, the God of the Bible. I say this for a number of reasons. Here are three:

1. Yahweh and Allah are not just different names for the same god. This is proven straightforwardly by comparing their respective descriptions. For example, the God of the Bible is spoken of, in both Old and New Testaments, as having a son (not just in a vague general sense, but quite specifically, causing him to come into being in the womb of his mother). By contrast, the Koran emphatically denies that Allah has or ever has had a son. The Koran thereby disclaims a connection with the Biblical God. Allah is different from Yahweh, in an irreconcilable way. The same applies even when particular named individuals, such as Abraham or Moses, are spoken of in both books. The respective accounts diverge substantially, particularly in regard to the nature of the things those people said and did.

2. In the Bible, prophets of Yahweh prove their status and authority by making predictions, that is, in doing or saying specific things that point to the future, giving advance account of things not yet seen or known. Thus they are witnesses for God, that he exists, is involved in the world, and has given them this superhuman foreknowledge. Those who claim to be prophets, but aren't, are exposed as false when their (near-term) prophecies fail: other predictions they make can then be ignored (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). An example would be Hananiah (Jeremiah 28), whose prediction of the return of the holy vessels from Babylon within two years failed, and who died within a few months of giving it; this demonstrated both the correctness of Deuteronomy 18:20, and the validity of Jeremiah's own prophecy about him.

While Islam speaks of Mohammad as Allah's prophet, I have not seen any evidence (but would be interested if anyone has any) that the Koran defines his "prophet" status in a comparable way. Certainly most of the example texts from the Koran that were suggested on this thread as being prophetic turned out, when considered in context, to have no such aspect. That is not to say that the Koran doesn't speak of the future; it does, but the nature of the language seems extremely generalised. For example, in a number of places it speaks of a future day of resurrection and judgement, in terms that to some degree reflect and draw upon the Bible's predictions of it. But by contrast with Biblical prophets, I have yet to find in the Koran any prophecies that identify and predict specific future developments for particular nations, or kings, or cities – the sort of thing that is the bread and butter of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and many others. The difference between the two books in this regard is very great. I see no reason to think of Mohammad as a prophet in the sense the Bible gives to that word.

3. The Koran emphatically is not a "continuation" of the Bible. For it to be so, it would require to pick up and develop Biblical ideas; but it clearly doesn't. For example, the New Testament ends by speaking of the return of Jesus to establish the kingdom of God on earth and reign over it. This theme is rooted deeply in the Old Testament, and reiterated and developed throughout the New. So far as I have observed (but again, please tell me if I have missed it), such a concept is simply absent from the Koran. Jesus, while mentioned several times in it, and spoken of as a good man and even as a prophet, is not treated as of any greater importance than earlier prophets, and certainly less important than Mohammad. His status as the unique, only-begotten son of God is denied, as I identified above; and there is no mention, at least in the parts I have read, of him in the future becoming King of Israel and over the whole world.

In conclusion: the Koran is of distinctly different character compared with the Bible; it is not consistent with it, since the two books disagree in some fundamental details. Therefore the Koran and the Bible cannot both be true. I believe that the Bible is true.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1529. Comment #75238 by Mark Taunton on October 2, 2007 at 5:30 am

It does seem to have gone a bit quiet here of late. Perhaps the following will wake someone up?

Despite Corky's claims, Christadelphians (in sharp contrast to many who say they are Christians) deny that they are in any way inspired. That is, we say clearly that no Christadelphian (nor anyone) today speaks or writes by direct revelation from God, as Biblical prophets did; the same applies equally for Christadelphians of previous generations, such as John Thomas or Robert Roberts. Since John Thomas explicitly denied inspiration for himself, it is logically absurd and inconsistent for anyone subsequently to claim it for him (was he inspired to deny his own inspiration?!). Instead, we consistently assert that the Bible is the only source of authoritative knowledge about God that is available to mankind at the present time: unlike all other extant human writings, it was inspired by God.

As evidence of my own fallibility and non-inspiredness, I must acknowledge an error I made in this thread a little while back. Both JCS and Billy argued against my view at the time, and I now freely concede that I was mistaken. The issue is the chronology of Ezekiel. At the outset there is mentioned "the thirtieth year" (it does not tell us, of what), and this is identified as being the same as the fifth year of Jehoiachin's captivity. I had claimed that other dates Ezekiel gives, of the form "in the Xth year", which are not explicitly qualified (such as the 11th year, in which the prophecy against Tyre was given, 26:1) were to be understood on the same timing basis as the "30th year", rather than the basis of the "5th year". This makes a difference of 25 years in the timing. I now realise that this is incorrect and unworkable, and that the years are indeed relative to the captivity of Jehoiachin. In particular, the precise correspondence between Ezekiel 24:1-2 and 2 Kings 25:1 shows this, and that my earlier idea was faulty.

So, my apologies to Billy and JCS: on this detail, I was wrong and you were right. I'm sorry I took up your time with it.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1530. Comment #75242 by BillySands on October 2, 2007 at 5:57 am

Don't worry about it Mark, I learned some interesting stuff from the debate, so it wasn't a waste of time.

Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

1531. Comment #75246 by J.C. Samuelson on October 2, 2007 at 6:06 am

Mark,

Like Billy, I don't see that there's anything to apologize for. I also learned a great deal from the exercise, and so consider it worthwhile. Also, thanks for your honesty. Not to sound condescending, but it seems so rare on this side of the pond for folks of a theistic mindset to admit mistakes, that your forthright admission is a breath of fresh air. If I make a similar mistake, hopefully I can follow your example.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1532. Comment #75325 by Mark Taunton on October 2, 2007 at 10:44 am

Nope, no claimed inspiration there

Indeed not - the word does not come anywhere in the text quoted. I, as a Christadelphian, am entirely happy to deny, on the record, that "the authors of these books" (certain influential early Christadelphians) were inspired by God. And the writer of the words Corky quotes (assuming he is still alive, I don't know) would agree with me. I know of no Christadelphian who would not.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1533. Comment #75443 by Mark Taunton on October 2, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Thanks to Billy and JCS for their good-natured responses to my apology. This comment is addressed chiefly to JCS, and in some respects to Billy as well, but I hope it will be of interest to others too.

I would like to return to an underlying topic, prompted in relation to the word "jealous", and your comments on it. You will remember that this arose in relation to RD's (I claim, faulty) view of that term, in its Biblical sense.

What I want to discuss here is the issue of how one understands the meaning of words, and therefore, how we can understand what the Bible is saying, based on its words. Forgive me if the following seems condescending or overly pedagogical in tone: it is not intended that way. It is driven from the disagreement we have, and the example you provided of your interpretative approach, over the words "jealous" or "jealousy". You seem to miss what is in my mind a key point. I wanted to bring this to your attention.

I will start with a non-biblical example. I hope, for purposes of illustration, that you are not familiar with the word "haver" - though I suspect Billy may be. If you aren't, then you would not be able to tell us what that particular word means, even though you now know (from my last sentence) that there is such a word.

However, as soon as I start to make use of the word in some context, you will begin to gain at least some idea about it. If I say. "Fred often havers", you immediately learn that (a) it's a verb; (b) it's something a person may do; (c) grammatically, it's intransitive. But while that's given some framework for the word, it's still not really told you what it actually means. You need more uses, in contexts that cast further light, from different angles, on the word, to build up the full picture. For example, "It's frustrating when Fred havers", would imply a negative connotation for it, though again not telling you what the specific sense of the word is. Now "Bill asked Fred, but he havered as usual", suggests it has to do with an interaction between people, probably in conversation. I could keep going in this way (but won't), or alternatively you could search for its occurrence in literature. By degrees, the sense of the word would be established in your mind. After seeing enough instances of its usage, you might be confident to use it yourself - you would have gained a working understanding of its meaning.

In all this, although it might tempt you to do so, you would not need to use a dictionary. Instead, by repeated exposure to usage of that word in various contexts, its effective meaning, which its existing users already had in their minds, would be developed in your mind also, and would become a shared understanding between you and them. Of course, a good dictionary should reflect that meaning in its formalised "definition" of the word, but a dictionary is not necessarily up-to-date or complete in coverage – "definitions" as such are somewhat arbitrary, though often helpful. In fact, I just looked up the word "haver" on dictionary.com, and whilst the first result is closest, I find the brief summary there doesn't do justice to it; it fails to represent the more specific idea that my own past experience of the word, as used by others, gives me.

Individual development in the world of everyday human language is primarily driven, even from babyhood, by exactly the same principle as I have expressed above. A baby can make no sense of a dictionary. Nonetheless, we have all learned to understand and use words, sufficient to engage in conversation. We know what the words we use mean (in our own understanding at least), even though we never consulted the OED for most of them!

Turning now to the Bible, I say that the same principle applies. Obviously we are not now discussing English words, but the original words, in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Certainly there exist Bible "dictionaries", and even concordances such as Young's often give their authors' own "definitions". But they are none of them inspired, and can on occasion mislead rather badly. Even a listing of the various ways a given word is translated into English (which both of us, and others, have at times quoted) is not decisive – though it may give some clues when beginning to investigate - since translations vary widely in quality both within and between themselves.

The Bible does not include a dictionary of its own words; there is therefore no inspired and authoritative Bible dictionary. Nevertheless we can, if we choose, gain an understanding of the meaning of any original Bible word, in just the way a baby learns to understand language, by noticing how the contexts of use of a word imply things about that word. There are differences in some respects – we don't usually learn from physical experience what a particular Hebrew word means, in the way that a child may gain a practical understanding of "hot", for example. But the primary point remains: it is the aggregation of implications from actual usage, in all relevant contexts, that shows us what scope of sense any particular word has. Despite possible claims, a dictionary is not definitive, only the full spread of actual usage is. And because, unlike the compilers of a general English dictionary, we are concerned with a fixed and quite modestly sized body of source text, it is practical to identify and analyse the whole spectrum of use, for any particular Biblical word being considered. A good concordance (such as Wigram) permits this, at least to a close approximation, even for the majority of people who do not read the original languages.

It's an ongoing process, of course, and an iterative one. As the senses of words interact, so the understanding of one word is affected to some degree, though not usually critically determined, by the understanding of other words in some context of its use. (I could give a mathematical analogue to this, but won't.) And the same principle about individual words applies equally at the next layer up, by considering not just words, but compounds of words (i.e. phrases), that occur more than once. Over time, by reading and re-reading it, in a good English version, and with a concordance at hand as need arises, one can build up a better and better understanding of the Bible. With my fellow believers, I've been seeking to do just that, for many years, though by comparison with many, I'm a slow learner. (Someone recently spoke of my "slavish" adherence to the text. I don't quite know how that remark was intended, but I take it as a compliment, though undeserved: Jesus alone truly fulfilled such a description – he didn't just learn it, he lived it, as "the word made flesh".) In all those years, I've invariably found that when the Bible is treated on this basis, it proves time and time again to be consistent, powerful, often contrary to natural expectation, but clear and understandable, when one is determined to understand it on its own terms and seeks to leave aside extraneous ideas from any other source. In short, I find it to be unique, and uniquely true.

Why am I (seemingly) labouring this point? It is about seeing what the Bible really says, and seeing from that that it is indeed true. Returning at last to my starting point, I will pick up a few examples related to past discussions in this thread. For the following words, as for any other, the sense to be understood from the original Bible word, in any passage, can be – I say, should be - determined exclusively by reference to the Bible itself. (For those without knowledge of the original languages, a good concordance is the only additional book needed.) Thus:

- "jealousy", or "zeal" as it is also rendered, is in its basic Biblical sense a specific attitude with a positive connotation (though one that can be misused, just like e.g. "love" might be – one can love in truth, or love a bad thing). It is principally used about relationships that have been established by a binding covenant, including the specific case of Israel becoming Yahweh's people and he their God. Though you and/or someone else suggested otherwise, selfish motives are not involved; it is about a concern to maintain and fulfil a solemn commitment. For example, Paul uses the word in relation to believers, and their being betrothed to Christ (2 Cor 11:2).

- The word "lay" in Ezekiel 26:12 has, from the large gamut of its scriptural occurrences, a consistent sense of deliberate or intentional placement – never of random discarding (as might suffice, if Ezekiel were describing only Tyre's future physical break-up and removal). Even if a different - more neutral - word were used here, the rest of the prophecy would still have powerful and unique application to the particular activities, firstly of Nebuchadrezzar in attacking the original city of Tyre, and later of Alexander's men in demolishing it and building his famous "mole" with the rubble. But the fact of the particular scriptural sense of the Hebrew word for "lay" only adds to the deep specificity of Ezekiel's prophecy. (One more brick in the water-logged wall, as it were…).

- The phrase "midst of the sea" (Ezekiel 26:5) has a completely consistent scriptural sense, when every other use outside Ezekiel 26-27 is considered, that directs understanding of its two occurrences there to the prophetic meaning. By its usage in every other place, it is found to describe, not the idea of "a place somewhere out at sea", but instead, quite specifically, a path across the sea, that would under normal conditions be impassable on foot. It thus matches exactly with the purpose that old Tyre ultimately served, in its final and total destruction.

- The combination of terms "stones", "timber" and "dust" (Ezekiel 26:12), at least in that particular order, has only one other occurrence in the Bible. But as ever, it turns out that this fits directly into the prophetic framework. By Ezekiel's day, Tyre, though friendly to Israel in the days of David and Solomon, had returned to its Canaanite roots, both in attitude towards Jerusalem (26:2) and in its pagan religion. Leviticus 14:45 in context (vv33-57) provides the background in the law of Moses to understand why God decreed such judgment upon her. By use of the three particular words together in sequence, and in conjunction with the Hebrew words for both "house" and "destroy" which also come in the same sentence in Leviticus, Tyre is being compared directly to a house of the land of Canaan in whose physical structure a plague of 'fretting leprosy' has been found, and which does not respond to the prescribed treatment. (The leprosy of Tyre was presumably more of a spiritual sort, but evidently equally incurable, in God's view. By way of further evidence of the connection in these contexts, note that the very rare word rendered "fretting" is only otherwise used in relation to Tyre's relative, the city of Sidon, in Ezekiel 28:24.) By the law, the only thing that remains to be done in this circumstance is physically to dismantle the house, and carry its constituent elements away, out of the city, into an unclean place. It is precisely what Alexander, as if himself a priest, ordered done to Palaetyros.

From such examples of scripturally defined meanings (all but the first of which I have come to appreciate only in the past few months, provoked by our debate here), and many others, it becomes ever clearer in my mind that the Bible, the word of God, is indeed "living and powerful", as Hebrews says. I believe that it is telling us the truth about Yahweh's reality: that when Ezekiel made his prophecies, he was given the words by the only true and living God. I am compelled to conclude that there is no other viable explanation, and that I (and indeed everyone) ought to pay equally careful heed to the whole of the Bible.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1534. Comment #75473 by Goldy on October 2, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Cheers for the response, Mark. I am, as you'd probably guess, not 100% convinced by all of your explanation - especially the part that God, or Yahweh, and Allah are not the same god. Mo got the idea from the Jews, who also gave the idea to the Christians. 2 groups say God didn't give birth the a son (who was, paradoxically, also God), one does. You follow the dissenting group, hence you are bound to say the others are wrong. But 2 out of 3 suggests differently....

That is not to say that the Koran doesn't speak of the future; it does, but the nature of the language seems extremely generalised

Heheheheheh! No shit, if you'll pardon my French. We've actually been saying the same about Ezekiel too, which you deny. Now, if you can deny the Muslims prophesies thus, can you not see why we do the same with your prophets? Indeed, the prophets you mention need a great deal of wordplay and insinuation and, most importantly, imagination to fulfill their prophesies :-) *quick edit - your last post is a marvellous example of wordplay. Simply inspired!*
Finally

In conclusion: the Koran is of distinctly different character compared with the Bible; it is not consistent with it, since the two books disagree in some fundamental details. Therefore the Koran and the Bible cannot both be true. I believe that the Bible is true.

The same has been said of the OT and the NT. One can see them as separate books, both with great disagreements. The Koran is just Ishmael's descendants version :-) As such, yes, it isn't a continuation of the NT. I'll give you that. However, it is a continuation of the OT.
PS. As to Mo being a prophet - as a non believer in any of this, I rank him the same as all prophets.

Other Comments by Goldy

1535. Comment #75538 by Mark Taunton on October 3, 2007 at 12:57 am

The same has been said of the OT and the NT. One can see them as separate books, both with great disagreements.

In which case, please be so kind as to point out an equivalent "great disagreement", such as this that I have observed between the Koran and the Bible:-

In both OT and NT, the Bible is clear that Yahweh has begotten a son. In a prophetic mode, Psalm 2:7 says "Yahweh has said unto me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee". John, writing after the time of fulfillment, says (3:16) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (There are plenty more quotes I could have used, but those alone substantiate the plain point.)

Now consider the Koran. In passages such as 17:11-18:6, it is likewise very clear about this point, in relation to Allah (God): "... God who has never begotten a son" ... (the idea being) "a monstrous blasphemy". Or at 19:35 - "God forbid that He Himself should beget a son!".

Thus it is obvious that the Koran on this issue directly contradicts the Bible. If your assertion is true, then you will easily be able to provide an equivalent example of outright contradiction of the OT by the NT. However, I do not believe you will be able to do so...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1536. Comment #75544 by Mark Taunton on October 3, 2007 at 1:14 am

2 groups say God didn't give birth the a son (who was, paradoxically, also God), one does.

In which case I'm in a fourth group. Considered by the majority view in each case (though democracy is never the arbiter of truth), all 3 groups you refer to (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) actually or effectively say that God did not beget a son, whereas the Bible says he did. For the parenthesised "paradox", please read this previous comment of mine

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1537. Comment #75552 by Goldy on October 3, 2007 at 1:42 am

all 3 groups you refer to (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) actually or effectively say that God did not beget a son, whereas the Bible says he did.

EH??? So Christianity doesn't say God begets a son, but the Bible does, which Christians follow....sorry, I'm completely lost now! The book you follow says God didn't have a son but you say Jesus was the son of God. Hmmm......
I'll not give you examples of contradictions and discrepancies - have a look through the posts and count them yourself. Of course, you'll not believe them, so it's no point really, is it?
I have come to the conclusion that talking to ardent believers is rather surreal and not really worthy of my time. Talking to you is like telling my daughter not to do something - she hears but I'm not 100% sure she really understands (she's almost 2). Cats would be a better analogy - they do not listen unless it is a tin of food being opened :-). You'll twist my words, meanings, interpret the Bible or any "holy" book to suit your needs. You'll point to passages that mean...well, diddly ad proudly proclaim that you have proof. You'll also change meanings - the prophesy that Tyre will NEVER be found is a good example as you say you've not found it, only the site...except to me it sounds like you found it. And please, no cupboard analogy!
So, I'll let you believe that you won and leave you with your smug smile :-) There's nothing that can change your mind because you've closed it - totally and utterly. Sad as you seem to be a nice chap and I do find what you're doing as rather interesting.
No worries - I'll be a-bed soon. Maybe I'll look up your replies (if any) tomorrow - maybe not. It's become rather academic now.
Ciao!

Other Comments by Goldy

1538. Comment #75557 by Goldy on October 3, 2007 at 1:57 am

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/antithesis.html
Best I can do with the wife telling me to get off the computer so she can check emails and go to bed.
You'll have an answer for all of the examples, no doubt. Like I said, it's a bit surreal :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

1539. Comment #75571 by BillySands on October 3, 2007 at 3:13 am

Hi Mark,
I dont think I have time today to deal with everything, and some we have already been over.
However, on the issue of jealousy, god says:

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..." Exodus 20:4-5

The idea here is that he is not wanting that which he claims belongs to him (worship, service, obedience etc) given to other gods. This is much in the same way you would not want your wife giving undue devotion to other men.
God actually demands the death penalty for those who would entice you to follow other gods (Deut 13:6-8). I would say that was a negative form of jealousy in the selfish way that JC means

Other Comments by BillySands

1540. Comment #75574 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 3:29 am

So, I'll let you believe that you won and leave you with your smug smile :-) There's nothing that can change your mind because you've closed it - totally and utterly. Sad as you seem to be a nice chap and I do find what you're doing as rather interesting.

It is worse than sad, it is positively frightening. The ability of ideas to get lodged into the brain so firmly that no amount of evidence and reasoning can remove them is the danger of religion.

Other Comments by steve99

1541. Comment #75584 by Mark Taunton on October 3, 2007 at 4:51 am

Steve99:

... no amount of evidence and reasoning ...

Please re-read the most recent comments (1520 onwards) in the debate between me and Goldy. If you do so, you'll see that I quite reasonably asked Goldy for evidence in support of his assertion that the NT and OT disagree greatly. So far, he has not provided any such evidence of his own. OK, the link he provided points to some claims on that score. But he didn't even provide a quote in this thread itself. On the other hand, in this process of reasoning between us, I have given direct evidence for my claim that the Koran contradicts the Bible.

Apologies for editing this post after first posting, twice. It now says what I want to say.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1542. Comment #75818 by Goldy on October 3, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Me

The same has been said of the OT and the NT. One can see them as separate books, both with great disagreements

Mark

So far, he has not provided any such evidence of his own

As you can see - I need no evidence of my own :-) It's there for you to look up. You like reading and I had a wife over my shoulder.
But...OK - general stuff. God of the OT is harsh, like genocide and killing. Loves it, even, yea down to the animals of the enemy. God of NT, nice feller. God speaks directly to prophets in OT - very quiet in NT. Sets down rules to followers in OT - no rules necessary in NT. That sort of thing.
I am an athiest - I do not have nor do I need a proficient knowledge of the Bible. Don't need any knowledge of any holy book, come to think about it. I don't care as it is not important. It does not rule my life, it does not change anything in my life. I don't need this knowledge to argue with believers as even the most direct evidence does not sway you. Soooo, what can I say?
You said

But he didn't even provide a quote in this thread itself. On the other hand, in this process of reasoning between us, I have given direct evidence for my claim that the Koran contradicts the Bible

I'm not looking, reasons outlined above. Your Koranic pronouncement is there with what revcort would say. You're arguing against the other two religions that follow the same god (and it is the same god). Heck, even the people he has chosen as his personal devotees don't think Jesus was any more than a mere man. 2 against 1...and by that somewhat strange reply you tell me even the 1 sect that believes in the Son of God ..... don't.

all 3 groups you refer to (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) actually or effectively say that God did not beget a son, whereas the Bible says he did.

Against this, I concede defeat. Nothing I can say will sway you so i'll say no more. I'll go my way and you go yours. We'll know who is right when the worms are feasting on our flesh :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

1543. Comment #75863 by Mark Taunton on October 3, 2007 at 10:58 pm

Goldy, I'm sorry you are confused about the difference between the teachings of Christianity and the teachings of the Bible. Yes, there is a difference. Again, I refer you to an earlier post of mine about the same issue; however, I will come back to that later, if you're willing to discuss it.

However, I also am confused, about your argument. First you ask me:

Why is Mohammed not a prophet of God? Why stop at the NT?

Your claim seems to be that Islam is just a further development in a sequence, that the Koran simply continues this line onwards from the Bible (specifically, the NT). On that basis, the Koran ought to agree with the Bible and develop its teachings in a harmonious way. You certainly appear convinced that Allah of the Koran and the Bible's God (Yahweh) are one and the same:

Mo got the idea from the Jews, who also gave the idea to the Christians.

Yet in the same post you said:

The same has been said of the OT and the NT. One can see them as separate books, both with great disagreements.

So, does the NT pick up and continue the OT ("the Jews … gave the idea to the Christians"), or doesn't it? Indeed the web-site you provided the link for was explicitly seeking to show that the God of the NT and the God of the OT are very different – not the same God at all.

Please, can you make up your mind, as to what your case actually is? And when you've done that, can you please present it, with supporting evidence (i.e. actual quoted text from the respective books: your examples in 1529 of "general stuff" are indeed too general, lacking the crucial detail) in a short posting? Something comparable in length and format to my comment 1521 above would be fine.

Of course, the whole tenor of your last comment (1529) suggests you are not willing to engage in the debate here. If I went on the evidence it gives, I would be tempted to conclude about you that:

There's nothing that can change your mind because you've closed it - totally and utterly.

Is that really true?

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1544. Comment #75870 by Mark Taunton on October 3, 2007 at 11:38 pm

Lee:
Just to let you know, I've not forgotten where we'd got to on the Tyre prophecy analysis. Every time I come to this page, your comment is right there at the top, reminding me! I've got some way through a response, but what with being waylaid on other questions of late, I've not quite finished it yet. I do hope to do so before too long.

Quetz:
In similar vein, I once more acknowledge my extreme tardiness in producing my next "installment" (of examples of Bible prophecy as evidence for God's existence). It seems from recent developments here that what it will discuss - prophecies about the decay of Christianity away from the teachings of the Bible - is even more relevant than ever, especially to help Goldy.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1545. Comment #75877 by irate_atheist on October 3, 2007 at 11:47 pm

#75571 by BillySands -

As a thought - can we interpret this to meant that God actually believes in the existence of other gods? After, he could hardly be jealous of someone who doesn't exist...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

1546. Comment #75894 by Goldy on October 4, 2007 at 1:59 am

Mark, no. I won't be drawn into pointless surreal inane arguments. It is counting angels on a pinhead. We are both using the SAME book to argue against each other! The same one!
You have been given so many examples ("Really? Please list them") of inconsistencies, inadequacies, wrong prophesies, etc, etc. Yet these fall off you like water from a duck's back. The translation is wrong. The timing is incorrect in the general translation. This reason, that reason. It's not that meaning in Hebrew...bah!
You do the checking. You read the arguments of others who might have more time on their hands to toy with you.

Your claim seems to be that Islam is just a further development in a sequence, that the Koran simply continues this line onwards from the Bible (specifically, the NT)

Ummm....you must've missed this bit...

As such, yes, it isn't a continuation of the NT. I'll give you that.

And your translation of the quick ref I gave you (I guess you don't have a wife over your shoulder wanting the computer) is that they are different gods. Or maybe just that the books are written differently - the same god, different attributes, perchance? An inconsistency, maybe?
As it is, to you they are all different gods. Allah isn't Yahweh who isn't God (the one I had to listen to sermons about) who isn't the God of the Jews (must've been a different Yahweh). Your god doesn't require you to do certain things which it required of its chosen believers because some blokes said it wasn't necessary anymore. Blokes, I repeat for I sure as hell can't remember reading "And the Lord spake unto them, saying "Hey, pork's OK, you know."" And this Christian teaching not being Biblical teaching - hello!?! What the bloody hell is it then? You not a Christian, then? I'm sorry if I appear confused - I don't often talk to sect members. All the Christians I talk to seem to think Biblical teachings are intrinsic to Christian faith. Well, well, silly them, eh? Imagine being wrong all this time!

Is that really true?

As true as you believe those prophesies. Ask any ex-Christadelphian.
As for my continuation with this debate, you're right. This is absolutely, utterly butterly my last words on this subject. I am talking to a cat when I argue with you. You hear my words but you don't listen. You don't actually listen to anyone unless they're saying what you tell them. You are more inconsistent than that book you claim is your god's words which, given the howlers presented therein, I guess I must come to accept. The logic missing in his plan for this oh so young world is made perfectly obvious in your arguments. I can't debate with you - I use logic, you use.....the Bible. What more can I say?
Adieu.

Other Comments by Goldy

1547. Comment #75902 by LeeC on October 4, 2007 at 2:38 am

Typical of this thread - I've been away from it for a little while, and 15+ new posts come along.

Hi Mark,

Lee:
Just to let you know, I've not forgotten where we'd got to on the Tyre prophecy analysis. Every time I come to this page, your comment is right there at the top, reminding me! I've got some way through a response, but what with being waylaid on other questions of late, I've not quite finished it yet. I do hope to do so before too long.

No problem - take your time. (I have to admit though, I have forgot where we were – I've been "debating" on another site while you have been away, but I will catch up again - Alex The Great wasn't it?)

Oh well... time to get reading the backlog.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1548. Comment #75907 by BillySands on October 4, 2007 at 3:22 am

Irate_atheist,

That is one way of looking at it, but often the term gods is used to mean man made as in

Exodus 20:23 You shall most certainly not make alongside of me gods of silver, or gods of gold for yourselves.

Interestingly, the word for god in genesis 1 is plural (elohim) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

El from which elohim is derived is part of a community of gods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29

Probably thee was a crossing over of myths between babylon and the jews, the epic of gilgamesh being a good example (some suggest the book of job originates there too) http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/floodorigins.html

Other Comments by BillySands

1549. Comment #75921 by Mark Taunton on October 4, 2007 at 4:44 am

Goldy,

I really don't see why I am obliged to go out and find every possible claim about inconsistencies in the Bible, and refute them all. All I asked from you was a specific example to back up your assertion that OT and NT disagree greatly. If there are so many around, surely you can pick one up and present it (including specific quotes) to substantiate your claim? You seem to be arguing in a way that I would never get away with here. Imagine if I said "there are plenty of web-sites with evidence that the Bible is true, and plenty of earlier comments on this thread saying the same thing", could I reasonably expect you to simply accept that I have proved my case? Of course not! Why does one rule apply to me, but a different one to you?

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1550. Comment #75943 by BillySands on October 4, 2007 at 6:07 am

Hope Goldy doesn't mind me stepping in for a mo here. One major difference between OT and NT that I think JC brought up recently is the attitudes to the Sabbath. The OT says kill sabbath breakers, but Jesus says otherwise. The OT is also a book where deeds make you right with god, but the NT (at least most bits) claim that faith in Jesus is what makes you right with god.

The NT introduces Hell, but the OT talks of a Hades like place for all called sheol.

Those are just a few examples

Other Comments by BillySands