Comments by Mark Taunton

1. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78434 by Mark Taunton on October 12, 2007 at 9:19 pm

There, that's it. I'm done. Finished. I will say no more on the topic of Tyre here on this thread. In fact, it's the last I will say here on any topic.

Yes, that means what it says. After many months here, I am giving up. My personal research on ancient Tyre will continue, but I have said all I'm going to say in this forum. I started posting here because the flyer for my talk was held up for ridicule, and treated in a ridiculous manner (such as people claiming to know what I actually must have said, without attending the talk). I was concerned to make at least some attempt to show the real character of the Bible and the reasons why belief of its message is rational and supportable on strong evidential grounds. I've never really covered all the ground I think I could have done in laying the full argument out, but I have made some efforts, at least.


So finally . . .

To Lee: My genuine apologies; I never did finish the response I promised you in our ongoing discussion, and it won't be forthcoming now. But keep reading the Bible, as you were willing to consider some of the passages I talked about. One day (I hope) you will find that it's actually telling the truth.

To Quetz: Likewise my apologies. I produced and submitted a couple of parts, but have never completed the set of instalments I planned, in answer to your very open-minded and reasonable request back in January or whenever it was. Perhaps one day (but this is not a promise) they'll turn up in a PM…

To Billy: Like JCS, you know more of your Bible than most here. You ask some good questions about it, that made me think. I'm just sorry you choose so often to read it the wrong way. (e.g. The "he" in Judges 1:19 is Judah, not God!)

To the several others I have exchanged words with, and who have been reasonable about it: thank you for your time. I trust it has had some value for you, as certainly it has had for me.

Lastly, and especially, to J. C. Samuelson: Thank you for reading what I have written. You have not always taken the point, and usually reject my logic, but at least you have read it and more often than not made a response, in which you demonstrate your intellect, and challenge mine. You have done so with civility, and without crudity, unlike some contributions seen here, especially of late. (It is partly because of the unpleasantness I now associate with a few of the names that appear on these pages, that I have been pondering recently the very question Veronique put to me – why do I still post here? I have decided that I can no longer answer that question to my own satisfaction, as justifying the time and energy I put in.) For a good long while, the interchange between you and me has been most stimulating, as I have been forced to go back and look even harder at the Bible. Until the kingdom of God comes, I will not know it as well as it can be known. But I desire to continue to learn more of it, and from it. JCS, you more than the rest, though I suppose you did not particularly intend to, have helped me do that. Again, thank you.

2. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78431 by Mark Taunton on October 12, 2007 at 8:59 pm

JCS:

Here is my last response to the evidence you presented for Tyre being an island (I raised a couple of points previously).

1. The Josephus quote (and your subsequent comments also).

A:Menander, Tyre and Old Tyre.

if Josephus did, in fact, extract this from the archives of Tyre (or from Menander, who we must also perhaps rely on), and the archive records these events in the time of Eluleus, then obviously the island city of Tyre existed at least a century prior to Ezekiel's work.

No. The text cited does not mention an "island city of Tyre". You are reading into it something that is not actually there, because you are mentally predisposed to thinking of it that way (something I'm accused of doing myself, by some here). I'm surprised to see you make such a basic mistake.

The two cities were distinct enough from one another for the Tyrians to call it something else, old Tyre.

That is not a justified conclusion, if by "the Tyrians" you mean the people of Tyre in the time of Ezekiel & Nebuchadrezzar, or before.

Menander, whom Josephus cites, provably (that's a "v", not a "b"!) lived a considerable time after Ezekiel and Nebuchadrezzar, longer still after Elulaeus. You can work that out from the sequence of all the Tyrian kings, which Josephus says explicitly that he obtained from Menander's work on the Tyrian records. The king sequence includes several kings and rulers who had control of Tyre after the time of Nebuchadrezzar. Menander therefore wrote later than that, though we don't know exactly when.

Josephus says explicitly that it is Menander's own account that he (Josephus) is quoting. The form of the account is that of a history; moreover, it is written from the perspective of Menander's own time, not that of the earlier Tyrians. In his words, we see a successive flow of events, a history or chronology, looking back and speaking in the past tense. Now Menander's account includes the form "palae tyrus" – old Tyre (as two words). It's a form he does use, I quite accept. But that does not prove, as you claim, that earlier people of Tyre, such as in Ezekiel's day or before, also used "old Tyre" as a form of description for one of two different cities called "Tyre". Instead, we can understand Menander deliberately using the phrase in order to establish the correct identification of the name Tyre for a readership in or after his own day. There could readily be confusion in their minds: if, as I assume (and you take as absolutely true!), he was writing after the establishment of Tyre on the island, he needed to explain which Tyre was involved at what stage - the old one on the mainland, or the new one on the island, as Menander and his audience would know them. As is apparent in the text, the choice of the words in his history is his own, not that of the people whose history he is giving. Thus your claim, that the Tyrians of early times themselves spoke of Tyre and Old Tyre as separate cities, is unproven.

B: Tyre in relation to Palaetyrus

Although two translations of this Josephus passage mention both Palaetyrus and Tyre in the same sentence, as if they were two separate places, this is not (to my reading) consistent with the Greek text. (Whiston, the third translator, indeed does not do that.) In the critical sentence, it uses only an adjectival form of the name (as in "Tyrian", not "Tyre"), which would come most directly into English - and this can be justified in respect of known Phoenician city-state relationships - as "Tyrian Sidon". (Whiston has just "Sidon", leaving out "Tyrian"; otherwise he sticks close to the original Greek here.) There is no definite reference to "Tyre" as another city distinct from "palae Tyros" in this sentence. "Tyre" in the normal form does come up later in the passage; but Menander's initial mention of "palae" Tyrus has established which Tyre that is – the old original one, not the later (New) Tyre of his own time.

C: Water

the king of Assyria returned, and placed guards at their rivers and aqueducts, who should hinder the Tyrians from drawing water. This continued for five years; and still the Tyrians bore the siege, and drank of the water they had out of the wells they dug.

Now we come to details that are very significant to the debate. The text speaks of the Tyrians' "rivers and aqueducts". But there are no rivers or aqueducts on the island,. So these must have been on the mainland.

There was an aqueduct in the past. But it was built along the line of the isthmus, and therefore dates from after Alexander's time. It's gone now, but old drawings, from the 1700-1800s I think, can be found on the Web, showing some previously standing remains of it. That aqueduct was needed to carry water out to the former island, precisely because the island has no fresh-water supply of its own – it is made of solid rock, as you have pointed out yourself.

Furthermore, the account also says the Tyrians dug wells to get water. What wells could "island Tyrians" dig, to survive a siege for five years, if they were restricted on a rocky island? None, because there is no water on the island to dig for. Again, when Nebuchadrezzar besieged it for 13 years, what did the people do for water for all that time, if (according to your view of Tyre's location) they were trapped by him on the island? Your idea just does not work. Indeed your view, even though it is the consensus view among most scholars, is actually opposed by the evidence you yourself put forward.

These points are quite straightforward, and arise logically from the text of Josephus you cite. They go directly against your proposition, even though many share your view. The only reasonable conclusion that accords with the details and implications of the historical accounts is that Tyre was not in Ezekiel's day the island fortress, but a mainland city, as I have been saying for so long.

If you now consider the location I previously linked to on Google maps, we see direct evidence to support my case. While Tyre island is dry, it doesn't take too much effort to discern a number of shallow fresh-water pools dotted all round the mainland area I identify. This zone is within the Tyre Coast Nature Reserve, a wetland specifically designated as protected, to harbour wildlife, in part because of the freshwater ponds it contains. There isn't a huge amount of water, not a copious flow as seen at Ras-al-Ain a couple of miles south, but enough to get by on. Menander's description of how the Tyrians "bore the siege, and drank of the water that they had out of the wells they dug" matches the nature of the physical situation here extremely well. My proposal, that the Tyre of Ezekiel's day is the same place as was later called Palaetyros, and that it stood at this site, is entirely consistent with both the historical data and the geography. An island location for Tyre, at that date, simply is not.


2. Isaiah 23

You assert that this passage says Tyre is an island. But it doesn't. The word "Tyre" comes, the world "isle" too; also the word "city", but they are not put together in any way that forces the conclusion that "Tyre" is the "isle city" that you think of. Nothing says that the "inhabitants of the isle" are living in the place that is "laid waste", having "no house, no entering in"; indeed that would be peculiar. They're living on an island, yes, but in what? complete ruins? Why? Why not go back to the mainland and find somewhere more commodious?

But if instead we take it (though of course you wouldn't) that this is a prophecy of the surviving Tyrians having to live on the island because their city on the mainland has been destroyed, then everything suddenly makes sense. They would certainly howl at the laying waste of (old) Tyre, that is, the "ancient city". And one can understand how Zidon (Sidon) could "replenish" them, in helping the Tyrians to build a new Tyre on the island. Even after that, they would be able to see the old city's ruins just over the water, as a permanent reminder of the catastrophe brought by Nebuchadrezzar. That is, until Alexander, generations later, in performing the work Ezkiel had predicted for him and his international collaborators, removed those ruins for his determined purpose, and thereby made things even worse for the Tyrians...


3. Other mentions of Tyre (an island).

The punctuation of the above heading is deliberate. Though you will find the word "island" several times in the English for those several texts you cite from ANET, all your citations have something distinctive in common. They are all marked using parentheses as being interpretative interpolations by the translators. In other words, so far as I can make out from the text in ANET, in not a single case does a word with the direct sense of "island" actually occur in the original text.

Is this odd? Yes. Is there a reason for it? I believe so. The power of the consensus view, the orthodoxy around this topic, is such that there is a (probably unconscious) desire on the part of translators, not to deliberately deceive, but to try to make plain the notion they have so thoroughly absorbed, as to what "Tyre" was (as they think of it); this despite the lack of explicit warrant for the reading of "island" in their source text. Thankfully, the conventions of ANET, and other such reference books, allow us to see for ourselves where this has occurred (like the use of italics for interpolated text in the KJV), and if we only would choose to do so, we can consider and evaluate just why things are that way, and whether there is a better explanation.

Brief notes on individual citations:

A. In the Hori quote, you include "(an island)". But in my copy of ANET, that does not occur. I suspect you maybe used a different version of ANET; mine is the 3rd edition (1969).

B. On the Tell-el-Amarna letters, I again disagree. Once more, your own evidence works against you.

The letter continues that Zimrida (king of Sidon), Aziru and the people of Arvad have taken an oath to besiege Tyre by land and sea.

If Tyre is an island, the detail there is meaningless. You cannot besiege an island by land as well as by sea. To besiege it (though that in itself seems an inappropriate word), the best you can do is to surround it by ships; no land siege is required, or of any value. Quoting from the equivalent text on the second page you linked to:

Zimrida of Zidon and Azira,the enemy of the king, and the people of Arwada have sworn, and they have repeated the agreement with one another, and they have assembled their ships, their chariots, their infantry to conquer Tyre

(This is I think the fuller detail, implied by the first summary of the letter, above.) I can envisage a few infantrymen being carried on each ship, but please, what on earth is the point of chariots if the enemy was going to try attacking an island? It really doesn't make any sense!

However if instead, as I claim, the Tyre whose king wrote this letter was a mainland coastal city, then everything becomes entirely consistent and meaningful. He complained that he could not get to his nearby sources of wood or water, or dispose of the dead. Those problems can be understood directly, if enemy soldiers were posted on the landward side of his fortress city at the mainland coast. According to the text you cite (though not in the translations I have at hand), he had problems with transport by ship, presumably because maritime rivals had their own warships nearby, ready to attack whatever left his harbour. And the combined power of ships, chariots and infantry were threatening to engage in an all-out land siege and sea blockade combined, in order to conquer it. No wonder he was keen for help from Egypt!

He states that Zimrida will not allow the Tyrians to go on the mainland for supplies

OK, that sounds more supportive of "island" status for Tyre – mention of "mainland" as somewhere the Tyrians can't get to. But remember the issue of translators' predisposed understanding of Tyre as (an island)? We already have an illustration of that bias in the case of the Bible text: one of the looser translations of Ezekiel 26, which someone once cited here, included the word "mainland", whereas the Hebrew word is near-universally translated as "field", and never elsewhere implies anything to do with the coast, or land in relation to the sea. I cannot read cuneiform, and at this time have only various English translations to work from, but I suggest at least the possibility of an equivalent bias in the case of this rendering of EA155. In any case, as the critical apparatus indicates, some text immediately around mention of "land" ("mainland", as rendered in the above summary quote) is damaged and has been interpolated as best the translator thought fit, so the meaning here is not 100% clear.

"On my return march, I conquered the town Ushu the emplacement of which is on the seacoast. I killed those inhabitants of Ushu who did not obey their governors by refusing to deliver the tribute which they had to pay annually. I took to task those among them who were not submissive their images and the people I led as booty to Assyria."

This is indeed an interesting quote. According to the common theory that you subscribe to, Ushu = palaetyrus = the mainland suburbs of Tyre. But in this quote, Ushu (the only name used of it here) is not only a (defended) city that Ashurbanipal is proud to say he conquered, it also has its own governors, who were supposed to deliver tribute from the place to their Assyrian overlord. If this place were in fact only just a suburban region of Tyre, why does it have all the paraphernalia of an independent city? Would the Assyrians lay tribute requirements on peasants or farmers working in an agricultural hinterland? Ushu was clearly much more than that, which casts great doubt on the conventional and frequently encountered assertion, which is (so far as I know) nowhere supported, in any ancient documentation, that Ushu is the same place as Palaetyros. That the two cities were on the coast is not in doubt: but where are the solid reasons for saying they are one and the same place? Surely such a basic geographic identification ought to have some factual evidence behind it!

Lastly, on the Balawat gate-bands, which I have indeed studied.

(a) Although the walled city is shown on land protruding into the sea, it is not by any means clear that the land actually forms an island – both "land" and "sea" in the picture stop abruptly together at the left hand side. Tyre is frequently spoken of as being "in the sea" (in several of the other quotes), but as I keep pointing out, this does not imply that is totally surrounded by it. In England, "Leigh-on-Sea" sounds like it should be afloat(!) but it is merely a parish of Southend-on-Sea; and neither of them is an island: Southend, to use its common short name, is a large coastal town on the north side of the Thames estuary. Winterton-on-Sea is likewise only a coastal village, and there are many more such examples I could give. At least in this country, where settlements are actually built on islands, the word island normally figures in the name, such as the Isle of Dogs. Canvey Island indeed isn't even an island! (Not now at least, though I presume it once was.)

(b) The textual record associated with this gate-band picture does not mention only Tyre; it says the tribute came from both Tyre and Sidon. Yet in the picture, the tribute's source is apparently all from the one city by the sea. What is the significance of that? The usual assumption is that the ships are carrying it over from Tyre to the mainland, as a local ferry would. But where does the tribute from Sidon come in? An alternative explanation is that the two boats shown are not just local ferries, but actually coastal (inshore) merchant boats, carrying the tribute from both Tyre and Sidon (of which only one is shown, for simplicity, it's not clear that it is even Tyre), northwards up the coast to a point much closer to the primary traffic route, through what is now western Syria, to Assyria. This is not proven of course, only a suggestion, but I give it to show that while a picture is supposedly worth 1,000 words, it is by no means the same thing as 1,000 words, since it may well not spell out an intended meaning unambiguously, as that amount of text might do.

3. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78188 by Mark Taunton on October 12, 2007 at 4:59 am

As to 'knots tied', it appears to me that you keep trying to explain your belief structure by relying on your belief structure and utilising arguments from that same belief structure to explain and verify your belief structure.

How is that not equally true of you and your belief structure? What am I missing?

4. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78125 by Mark Taunton on October 12, 2007 at 12:48 am

Veronique:

In exactly which "knots" am I "tied up", please? I'm just curious to know...

Of no significance really, but what's a "Mazda moment"?

Lastly, actually the number is rather higher than 1687. Between 150 and 200 comments were lost from this thread, in the Great Glitch that evidently hit this web-site's servers, a few weeks ago.

5. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78117 by Mark Taunton on October 11, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Goldy (1684):

Thank you, quite genuinely, for seeking to answer my question. Though I don't find your comment to go very far in proving your case, I appreciate your efforts. I see you are trying harder on this, than you did in response to my earlier challenge, over your claims about the Bible and the Koran!

6. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78115 by Mark Taunton on October 11, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Oxytocin:

1-Wonderful. You change your opinion with regard to minutiae in the bible. Congratulations. In what way that has any bearing on reality, I don't know. I was suggesting something a little more significant.

But what I said was (emphasis added now):

When people point out errors in my arguments, and give evidence of my mistake, I change my mind.

I was talking about evidence, in contrast to your claim that my belief system is not based on it.

5-You can't use the bible to confirm the bible. Any scholar knows that's a laughable practice. If I submitted an article to a reputable journal and I referenced the article that I was writing as evidence in support of the article I was writing, I can't even imagine the thunderous laughter that would erupt.

But that happens all the time! Not in the sense of a reference that is listed as if to an entirely separate article when it's actually the same one, but articles and books invariably have many internal implicit or explicit references ("as we showed above in relation to …"; "see chapter 5"). Your claim is simply invalid. The Bible, like any book, needs to be considered as a whole, as well as in its parts; the common assertion you cite, that "you can't use the Bible to confirm the Bible" is just plain silly. Does one part of "The Origin of Species" confirm another, or not? Does Darwin make any internal references in order to justify his argument in one place from reasoning he makes in another? Of course he does!

To qualify as true, a document must (amongst other requirements) be internally consistent and coherent. Internal contradiction on the other hand demonstrates falsehood: an assertion "A", followed or preceded by another assertion of equal status (not an ironic, or hypothetical one), "not A", would be grounds for rejection of any text, including the Bible. The Bible has a vast number of internal references and quotations - the obvious explicit citations (e.g. "as is written in the Law of Moses, ...") are but a minute sub-set. And these in fact demonstrate extreme coherence and consistency, uniquely so. When I asked for examples of contradiction (as Goldy claimed there was) between the Old and New Testaments, none was forthcoming. Even Billy, who knows the Bible better than most here, could only come up with very feeble cases that I showed readily to contain certainly no contradiction, and indeed actually quite consistent meaning.

But in any case, you misrepresent my position. What I actually said was (again, emphasis added now):

But the strength of the evidence that comes out of my reading of the Bible, and comparing it with the world I see about me, does far more to convince me, and move me towards the God it presents, than to turn me away.

I stand by that.

7. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78053 by Mark Taunton on October 11, 2007 at 4:51 pm

JCS: I lied, this is my last. A most trivial detail, purely for light relief. I suspect "Palsetyrus" is no more than an OCR error, or else a typo (if it was transcribed manually): "a" and "s" are close both in shape and on the keyboard. My printed edition of Whiston says "Palaetyrus".

Goodnight.

8. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78048 by Mark Taunton on October 11, 2007 at 3:50 pm

JCS:

My last comment for now.

You demonstrated the stark difference between the character of our conflicting assumptions when you write:

Because in the face of all the evidence that atheistic evolutionists throw at me day by day, and especially on this web site, I continue to stick with my (to you) peculiar beliefs. I believe that in fact this world was created, complete with complex lifeforms, by God, not over billions of years but in six days, and that only a few thousand years ago. Consider all those sceptics of the text of Genesis 1, who in all the science books, articles and TV programmes I have read and watched, present evolution as a solidly established "scientific fact". Between them they have conveyed to me far more words than the Bible contains (and vastly more than just the Genesis creation account itself). Surely by now they should have convinced me of the truth of their ideas, and I would have stopped believing the Bible? But I have not.

What immediately jumps out at me is the tone of defiance here. What this amounts to is a confession that you refuse to give up your cherished beliefs. ...

I'm sorry, but that in one way is yet another illustration of an issue I've tried to point out. You have abstracted that paragraph from my earlier comment, and taken it on its own without reference to the context in which it is set. Thereby you have substantially lost the overall point I was making. Yes, my tone was deliberately chosen, precisely because I was highlighting the error of Farrell Till's argument.

On a previous occasion you indicated disapproval of some aspects (but not all) of Till's approach. Do you go along with him in this case (see stevencarrroot's comment in which he gives the link ) or do you not?

9. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78043 by Mark Taunton on October 11, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Oxytocin:

...your non-evidence based belief system

If I may dare to disagree, my belief system is very much based on evidence. Although many religious people would not worry about evidence and proof, and indeed a significant proportion would suppose that they are actually in opposition to "faith" as they think of it, it is not at all like that with me.

When people point out errors in my arguments, and give evidence of my mistake, I change my mind. In one case I have done that openly on this forum (about the chronology of the book of Ezekiel: both Billy and JCS said I was wrong, which I came to realise I was, and admitted it). I am a fallible person, as we all are; and I do not claim otherwise, unlike some "Christians". I can, and do, change my position over time, as I learn more. But the strength of the evidence that comes out of my reading of the Bible, and comparing it with the world I see about me, does far more to convince me, and move me towards the God it presents, than to turn me away.

I believe the things I do about the Bible precisely because I see (and I need to see) very clear evidence of their truth. I would like to present some particular further examples of that principle, if I can ever find the time to put them together in a succinct but comprehensive form. (The problem is that if I just make broad statements about things the Bible says, I am told that I am not being specific, that it's all just too vague and unconvincing. Whereas if I get down to the details, instead I get complaints, at least occasionally from some, that these are really just silly minutiae, demonstrating the nonsense of my case, and certainly not worth spending time on. It seems I just can't win...)

I am convinced by a large (and still growing) body of evidence, from my own reading and research, that the Bible is true. Because of that I am obliged to accept the whole of it, and that includes those parts that so many here are sure are pure fiction, such as the accounts of creation, the flood, miracles generally and the resurrection from the dead in particular. Certainly the ideas that are pushed so forcefully and so widely, about our origins and the timescales involved, are hugely influential, to the point where I expect most people (in the UK at least, where I live) treat them as true, not to be doubted. But I do doubt them, because I see little direct evidence that of itself (without a lengthy explanation, including many unjustified suppositions) demonstrably substantiates them, and many things that tip heavily against.

To raise for a moment a specific example, the Bible says God made living things on this earth in particuar and very varied forms, and that he did so through his great wisdom. The last few chapters of Job, and other places, discuss this, it's not just in Genesis 1 & 2. The picture I use in my comments here is of one form of owl butterfly. The pattern on its wings is fantastically complex, with extraordinary levels of detail. (Unfortunately the available resolution is far too small to show it all here, though you can see the main features, but I am sure you can find a much better picture on the Web somewhere.) That much fine-grained structure in the "pictures" that appear on the wings is worthy of some careful consideration.

One piece of detail is the "reflected light", as it appears in the iris of the "owl eye"; on close inspection, it has the form of daylight from above, partly shaded as if through the tops of high trees (as it would be in the rain-forest where the creature lives). The reflection itself is curved correctly for a convex eye shape (though the wing itself is of course almost flat). Then there's the quite separate "picture" of a snake's head (and curled-up body) nearer the corner of the upper wing; and yet other features, of similar fine-grained realism, presumably also serving to scare off predators.

Can someone please explain why the process of evolution by natural selection, as you would claim, went to quite such extreme lengths in producing this phenomenal level of design, and just as importantly, how?

I think Billy may have more information about the processes by which such specific well-defined and stable markings on the butterfly's wings are apparently formed as it goes through its short, complex sequence of life. But I find it far too much of a struggle to see how the combination of distinct and independent features of this collage of "photo extracts" (as it were) all evolved together to their present form, beautifully juxtaposed at the right angles, and in some cases blending like an Escher picture from one image into another. Alternatively, if it is claimed that they in fact could have formed at different times over evolutionary history, how did changes to develop one of the detailed "pictures" not disrupt and destroy the detail of the earlier ones? And more importantly, what evidence is there that such an evolutionary process actually took place, beyond the purely existential argument, predicated of neccesity on the absence of a creator, that says "well it exists, therefore it evolved"?

No doubt, someone here will confidently tell me just how easily it could all have come about. No doubt I'll be mocked for my personal failure of imagination. But I need rather more than that to convince me. This beautiful but delicate form of life, with its combination of intricate but unseeing avian and reptilian "eyes" and its own working pair of insect ones, stands out as an example in favour of a creator God who can himself truly see.

10. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77997 by Mark Taunton on October 11, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Steve99:

This form of attack of an argument is perfectly respectable. For example, if someone comes up with a new scientific theory or mathematical proposition, it is usual to go through the details to find flaws. This is because propositions like this generally rely on the fine details being true (this is particularly the case with maths).

The Devil (as they say) is in the detail...

I agree with you that attacking a particular feature of an argument, if the rest of the reasoning depends on it, is a valid form of argumentation. However, the instances I could identify in this thread haven't been like that. Certainly the recent flurry of responses to my comment aren't doing that, they are instead reinforcing my point...

11. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77977 by Mark Taunton on October 11, 2007 at 11:40 am

Face it guys. The more you mock and riducule me for not accepting the (so far as you are concerned) blindingly obvious, the more you prove the truth of my argument, that Farrell Till's claimed disproof of the Bible (especially the accounts of mighty miracles) is bogus. Thank you all very much!

In fact, your responses have once more revealed the very clear tendency, in atheistic responses to the sort of arguments I am presenting, to quickly leave aside the basic issue and logic, and instead pick up on some small individual element or part of the argument, and focus on that. So far as I can see, people are seeking to take attention away from the primary points I make, because they don't want to tackle them head-on. Billy has certainly done that in the past, and JCS more than once, including some recent examples. Now you have all repeated the pattern very clearly. Which one of you actually paid any attention to the logical conclusion to be drawn? Who did more than pick up the obvious "admission of folly" as you would think it, and lambast me for it? Of those who've evidently responded to that specific comment, pretty well none of you. irate_atheist is so irate, he can only throw insults. Oh well...

Edited after posting, to correct a glaringly wrong choice of word. Ooops.

12. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77920 by Mark Taunton on October 11, 2007 at 5:42 am

Corky:

It's a little late I know, but I now must say I am sorry for something I did earlier. In my comment 1611, which you complained about in 1612 and more particularly 1616, I used you as a ("probably unwilling") witness in my argument. I expressed some awkwardness about doing so, but should have avoided it altogether. I unreservedly apologise. (If you like, we could both edit our respective comments to delete that particular exchange from this thread. Please say if you want to do that.)

What was I trying to do, there? The argument was one from Farrell Till, brought up by stevencarrwork in his comment 1574. In it Till says that if the Israelites had indeed witnessed the great miracles Exodus records, they would never have turned away from Yahweh as Exodus says they did. Stevencarrwork said that I am "living proof that all these [Biblical] stories are ridiculous rubbish", since I am convinced of the truth of God's existence, on much weaker evidence than Israelites had, and yet (he said) I would never turn away from the God I worship. It is an argument based on an assumption of basic human rationality - given strong evidence, the case is proved and people are bound to believe it (and go on believing it until they die).

I am indeed convinced of the truth of the Bible, because of what it says and how that relates to this world, its history and its present state; I find it to be true. But as I said already, and _J_ picked up on (sorry I've still not replied), I deny that I could never turn aside from that belief.

Moreover, I have realised that I have a better (and perfectly willing) witness to use, in disproving the argument: myself.

How? Because in the face of all the evidence that atheistic evolutionists throw at me day by day, and especially on this web site, I continue to stick with my (to you) peculiar beliefs. I believe that in fact this world was created, complete with complex lifeforms, by God, not over billions of years but in six days, and that only a few thousand years ago. Consider all those sceptics of the text of Genesis 1, who in all the science books, articles and TV programmes I have read and watched, present evolution as a solidly established "scientific fact". Between them they have conveyed to me far more words than the Bible contains (and vastly more than just the Genesis creation account itself). Surely by now they should have convinced me of the truth of their ideas, and I would have stopped believing the Bible? But I have not.

My conclusion is that Till's argument is false. The only alternative is this: if it is true, then the evidence for, or proof of, evolution is nowhere near as strong as is claimed by pretty well everyone here; less strong indeed than the proof I see in the Bible that it is true instead. And I don't think you'd really want to agree with that conclusion.

13. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77851 by Mark Taunton on October 10, 2007 at 11:11 pm

JCS:

Below I respond to the first part of your comment 1651. I will come back to the later parts, later.

...as my earlier comments illustrate (3 questions to stevencarrroot), the weight of evidence from Ezekiel alone is that he was referring to Tyre as a mainland city.

You truly are a piece of work. First, it should be readily apparent (even to you) that questions are not evidence.

And you seem to be getting desperate. I made or implied no claim that my questions were themselves evidence. I spoke of "the weight of evidence from Ezekiel" and was clearly referring to 26:7-11 and his mention of many physical details of a siege, which aspects formed the basis of my questions to stevencarrwork.

Second, the questions you posed to stevecarrwork are based entirely on the presumption that the text is, in fact, a prophecy. In other words, you expect stevecarrwork to accept first your premise that it is a supernaturally-informed, long range prophecy. Then, if he can answer the questions (which he plainly couldn't, if he accepted your premise), maybe you'll entertain his arguments further. You acknowledge as much in your remarks just prior to posing them. You write, "[u]ntil you respond to these with specific answers consistent with the prophetic text..." Can we speculate as to a reasonable answer to the questions you pose? Certainly! It is not worthwhile doing so, however, because your deeply entrenched assumptions about the nature of the text do not permit you to entertain them.

Another mighty effort to distract from the point, but equally faulty. The text is unambiguously prophetic – it is making a prediction about future events – "they will", "he will", etc. That of itself does not make it true or false, or prevent meaningful discussion of it (what have you been doing here these past several months?!). The same could equally be said about the speech of Zedekiah and the other prophets in 2 Kings 22:10-12; though unambiguously prophetic in nature, both it and they were in that case proved false. So I do not require anyone to accept that the prophecy is actually given by God, or that it is true, in order to be able to answer my straightforward questions about it.

My questions stand, and I am still looking for them to be answered. Although I asked them of someone else, they are eminently relevant to ask you, too. You suppose I "would not entertain" your (speculative) answers, but even so, what are they? For convenience (we're on a new page now) here are the questions again:

1. How was Nebuchadrezzar to raise siege apparatus ("fort" and "buckler") against an island?

2. How was he to construct a siege ramp, made of earth poured out and stamped down by horses (producing lots of dust), against an island city surrounded by deep water?

3. How were a large number of horses to enter the gates of Tyre and run through her streets, if those gates are half a mile offshore?

14. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77748 by Mark Taunton on October 10, 2007 at 11:34 am

JCS:
This is not a reply per se, just a quick note - I've no time for more just now - to commend and thank you for the effort you clearly put in to your last comment. I will of course be taking up the challenge. Suffice to say for now that I was aware of, and have considered carefully, almost all those references, along with several others. I will be replying in detail; but almost certainly not today. Also I will deal with Isa 23. I was not avoiding it, I simply have not had the time.

Corky, _J_ and anyone else I've missed:
Forgive me for not getting back on your respective comments. As is rather obvious, there's a lot of pressure on me around here...

15. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77637 by Mark Taunton on October 10, 2007 at 12:50 am

JCS:

Welcome back.

To put it succinctly, the island city of Tyre had existed for just under a thousand years (previously, I believe I overstated it) before Ezekiel put pen to papyrus. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the facts.

It is certainly to reject the common view that Tyre always meant an island city, yes. Tyre had indeed existed for over 800 years by Ezekiel's time, but as my earlier comments illustrate (3 questions to stevencarrroot), the weight of evidence from Ezekiel alone is that he was referring to Tyre as a mainland city.

My question to you, is this: which "facts", in respect of ancient documentary evidence, do you have to support your claim? Simply quoting modern writers' accounts of its history (by Katzenstein, Jidejian, the Wikipedia article, or whatever), which usually say the same thing, is not enough. The ancient source texts are what matter. Of those in or before Ezekiel's day, I know of only one which might be used to support the idea of Tyre as an island, and several more that provide significant evidence against it. As I said to SRWB, I haven't time to expand on this right now.

On the Josephus reference, please check the various translations of this text. I know of at least three; two others can be found on PACE, see http://pace.cns.yorku.ca/York/york/texts.htm . They vary substantially in how they render that passage. The implication drawn from this text is critically dependent on the translation used; the one you cite is (to my reading of the Greek) the least justifiable, and certainly the least consistent.

What you say about ships does not prove your claim at all. There was a battle at sea between ships supplied to the Assyrian king by those Phoenicians who kept allegiance with him, and the ships of Tyre. This in itself tells us nothing as to whether Tyre was a mainland or an island city.

I will return to this issue later. For now I have other things to do.

16. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77631 by Mark Taunton on October 9, 2007 at 11:53 pm

SRWB:

You did not address my comment "It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea". Where else could nets be spread in the midst of the sea except on an island? Ezekiel may not have made mention of an island being part of Tyre, but there is evidence that it was! This from Wikipedia:

"Tyre originally consisted of two distinct urban centers, one on an island and the other on the adjacent coast (approximately 30 stadia apart or 3.5 miles according to Strabo in his Geography xvi, 2), before Alexander the Great connected the island to the coast during his siege of the city. One was a heavily fortified island city amidst the sea (with defensive walls 150 feet high) and the latter, originally called Ushu (later, Palaetyrus, by the Greeks) was actually more like a line of suburbs than any one city and was used primarily as a source of water and timber for the main island city."

You are right, I didn't really get on to that part of your comment (although the critical wording there is what I have been arguing about with JCS and Billy of late). Sorry, it was late and I ran out of time. I don't have much time even now - this is just to say that I intend to address your question when next I do.

In the meanwhile, please note that Wikipedia is not the last word on anything. The text you quote is a summary of a synthesis of various relatively recent analyses of Tyre and its history. It is far from definitive or authoritative. In particular, I have reasons (from evidence) to believe the equivalencing of Ushu with Palaetyrus is a mistake. Also, the description "a line of suburbs" is I think drawn from the writings of a 19th century scholar (Rawlinson's History of Phoenicia - it's freely available on the Web), who was describing the situation after Alexander, not with reference to the 6th Century BC. I don't have time now to lay out my evidence and logic here and now, but hope to do so relatively soon.

17. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77549 by Mark Taunton on October 9, 2007 at 4:00 pm

SRWB:

Is it still your contention that the Tyre referred to in the "prophecy" was only that which you call Palaetyros, i.e., the mainland city, or is the island included?

Only the mainland city; Ezekiel makes no mention of a separate island as part of it.

All of Tyre was not destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar

Agreed. Ezekiel prophesied that he would besiege it, break in, and wreak significant damage and slaughter, but not that he would destroy it completely. That would be done by the nations ("they" in v3-5,12), not by him ("he", v7-11).

nor by Alexander 250 years later. According to Wikipedia, Alexander "destroyed half the city" (this is backed up by other sources). Clearly, some of it survived and lived on. Ergo, the "prophecy" that Tyre would be "desolate" and flooded by "great waters" was not fulfilled.

No, you've missed the point there. The city Alexander conquered, and destroyed half of, was the relatively new city of island Tyre that he built his causeway to reach. I am not aware of any evidence that "island Tyre" existed as a city in Ezekiel's day. (Evidence of its relative newness in Alexander's time comes in the history of his conquest. When he requested to make a sacrifice in the temple of Herakles on the island, the Tyrians told him that the temple on the mainland, "in the region they called Palaetyros", was older and that he should sacrifice in it instead.) The city that Alexander and his multinational collaborators wiped off the map, in accordance with Ezekiel's prophecy in 26:12, was the original Tyre, Palaetyros = "ancient Tyre". As I've mentioned here before, there are hints in the records that it was effectively deserted ("desolate" to use Ezekiel's word) by A's time. He used, not half, but all of it - its stones, timber and dust - to create the causeway, by breaking down the ruins Nebuchadrezzar had left, and laying that available material into the sea, so that it was indeed "covered by the great waters". Ezekiel's prophecy was given against that original mainland city of Tyre, and came true precisely.

18. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77543 by Mark Taunton on October 9, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Mr DArcy:

It is obvious that you are new to this thread. Please take the time to find out about Christadelphians. The specific issue in your comment that concerns me was

Mark Taunton quotes the great man/god (1624)

since I was doing no such thing. I ask you to go read my posting (1425) which is mostly concerned with this issue.

19. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77542 by Mark Taunton on October 9, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Corky:

My apologies to everyone else here. I have an ax to grind, which I'm sure is obvious.

Indeed it is.

When one of these cults do a member so wrong that the member finally leaves the cult, then they say things like; I'm sorry you are so "bitter". In other words, it's the escapee who is at fault and doing the wrong thing.

Corky, I said what I did, without any knowledge of you or the situation in the past you describe, beyond what you have told us on this thread. I cannot possibly comment on the rights and wrongs of it, since I was not there and do not, so far as I am aware, know any of the people involved. When I say I am sad, I am indeed sad. That you are bitter hardly seems to be in doubt.

They talk about how "sad" they are about your freedom from them. They actually should be sad but they're not. They pronounce things like; if you leave you may get sick or a family member may die as punishment from "God" or you may drop dead youself. Well, "God" better hurry up or I might just die of old age.

I meant what I said about my sadness, no matter what you seem to think. And if Christadelphians did actually say to you what you describe there, then I am doubly sad, because they were very wrong to do so, and I am ashamed of them. No Christadelphian I know would say that sort of thing, as it is not in accordance with the teaching of Scripture. Yes, I believe God will ultimately judge the world by Jesus Christ when he returns, including punishing those who knowingly reject him, as you appear to have done. But that is different from saying that you are bound to suffer in some particular way in this present time, as direct punishment for your actions. I do not believe that is justifiable from the Bible.

20. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77368 by Mark Taunton on October 9, 2007 at 6:17 am

Billy: ref your comment 1625:

The word "through" there is just the same Hebrew as "in" in the other cases, it's not a different word or sense. The Israelites went "in the midst of the sea". It means, not a single point half-way across, but a (wide) line from one side to the other, where the sea had been forcefully separated to one side and the other; they were "in the midst" between the two (frozen) walls it formed. (To add a non-Biblical analogy, though it's less important: consider a footballer being on the half-way line in a game of football: he is "in the middle" of the pitch in one dimension, but not in the other.)

In fact, the word "tevek" first comes in Genesis 1: the firmament (sky/atmosphere) was made "in the midst" of the waters: its effect was to divide the waters into those above and those below. It is not a point, since a point could not do that. It's not even just a line, its a 3-D hollow sphere, "in the middle" between waters beneath and waters above. I know you reject the Genesis account as incorrect, but the implied meaning of the word is not affected by that.

21. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77135 by Mark Taunton on October 8, 2007 at 2:17 pm

stevencarrwork:

It really is not controversial that Ezekiel was referring to the island of Tyre, and her daughter settlements on the coastline.

All of Taunton's word games are just junk.

Here is a set of questions on this central issue. Until you respond to these with specific answers consistent with the prophetic text, I don't plan to engage with your arguments further.

1. How was Nebuchadrezzar to raise siege apparatus ("fort" and "buckler") against an island?

2. How was he to construct a siege ramp, made of earth poured out and stamped down by horses (producing lots of dust), against an island city surrounded by deep water?

3. How were a large number of horses to enter the gates of Tyre and run through her streets, if those gates are half a mile offshore?

I repeat: Saying Ezekiel was describing Tyre as an island is to disregard the obvious details of the prophecy. If you believe otherwise, you must show us why.

22. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77113 by Mark Taunton on October 8, 2007 at 1:38 pm

JCS:

I take it from your last comment that you will not be participating on this thread any more. I am sorry to hear it, but I can understand your reasons. I will miss your contributions - they made me think.

I too am feeling somewhat tired, in part because of the time I spend here. I have been trying to respond to at least some of the many challenges and questions people put to me; I certainly cannot tackle them all, in my available time. But of late, a few postings (from one source beginning with "s" in particular) have been harsh and hostile in tone, which I find sad. I dislike verbal aggression, and sincerely hope that no-one can justifiably accuse me of doling out the same. Having said that, I know I got a bit tetchy with you on occasion, and was glad when you accepted my apology for it. Although you do not hide your disagreement and occasional frustration with me, the general civility shown by both you and some others - particularly those who have been around for a long time - is commendable. Thank you for that.

The time and effort required to investigate thoroughly (and present an argument about) significant issues in the Bible is not trivial. Nonetheless, you have certainly been willing to do that over the past several months. In particular I appreciate that you are prepared to consider detail, and to engage in some way with my points, by contrast with those who choose to just ignore my answers, or condemn me without reason. You have certainly been prepared to open your Bible, and put up an argument responding with specifics against mine, in a spirit of reasoned debate. I wish all here would copy that example.

Finally I thank you, sincerely, for the stimulus you have provided to me over this period. I have learned a great deal through having to dig deeper into the scriptures, so as to be able to respond to your various challenges. As is no doubt obvious, on several points my view has not changed much; indeed it was through your questioning that I have learned a lot more about certain topics, such as to be able more confidently to reject your argument. But it was not all one way; on the chronology of Ezekiel I previously claimed, you were indeed correct and I was wrong, as I realised more recently, and we both now agree. It would be good to come to agreement on all points, though it hardly seems likely.

You closed with "all the best". Here I struggle. I suppose that what you would think "the best" is, and what I think, are rather different. Nevertheless, my wish for you, as for all, is that the best will indeed come.

Mark.

23. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76999 by Mark Taunton on October 8, 2007 at 5:58 am

Billy: but the Israelites crossed it. There was a path or route from one side to the other.

Corky: I am sad that you seem so bitter about things. As to how much Christadelphians as a body do or do not do for others, neither you nor I truly know. Nor will I discuss my personal actions in this regard; Jesus required: "when you give alms, let not your right hand know what your left hand is doing".

24. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76962 by Mark Taunton on October 8, 2007 at 12:58 am

JCS:

Now, it's true that in the Psalms and Proverbs the word is leb

Thank you for acknowledging the basic point!

Those particular passages you cited are irrelevant, if you are trying to claim something about the Hebrew word "tevek" (such as that "tevek ha-yam" necessarily implies something entirely surrounded by water, like an island) because "tevek" does not appear in them! That's what I meant about checking your concordance.

Check your concordance again.

OK. The Hebrew wording used in the Ezekiel passages at issue is "bi-tevek ha-yam" (in-midst (of) the-sea). This is the phrase which appears in Ezekiel 26:5 and 27:32. Here are all the passages in which this exact form appears, as identified by the Online Bible:

Exodus 14:16 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.

Exodus 14:22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

Exodus 14:27 And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.

Exodus 14:29 But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

Exodus 15:19 For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought again the waters of the sea upon them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.

Numbers 33:8 And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah.

Nehemiah 9:11 And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.

Ezekiel 26:5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

Ezekiel 27:32 And in their wailing they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and lament over thee, saying, What city is like Tyrus, like the destroyed in the midst of the sea?

Widening the search to include any combination of tevek and yam together (with or without the "bi-" (in) and "ha-" (the) prefix parts, adds one more case:

Exodus 14:23 And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.

From this extra case, it is obvious that if Israel were already "in the midst of the sea" in your proposed sense, being "totally surrounded by the sea", Pharaoh's army would have been quite unable to reach them, but would have instead drowned straightaway…

I stand by what I have consistently said about this phrase.

25. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76950 by Mark Taunton on October 7, 2007 at 11:50 pm

Corky:

What you say is not true. Your very first post here (I think) was this one. Despite your clear and immediate identification of yourself as an ex-Christadelphian, I responded to you, using your name and addressing you directly (see the immediately following comment), as indeed I am doing now.

In the comment of mine you now refer to, I was addressing and responding to a comment (1574), not by you but by stevencarrwork.

Please do not misrepresent the facts. The Bible tells me not to treat you as a brother or keep company with you as if nothing had changed. It does not say I must avoid ever speaking to you, or ignore your existence.

26. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76901 by Mark Taunton on October 7, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Going back a bit:

Mark is himself living proof that all these stories are ridiculous rubbish.

Despite not seeing one thousandth of the evidence of these people, he would never turn to another so-called god, yet he claims that the events in Exodus were true, and religious people saw all these things and still turned to other gods.

Mark's faith is living proof that that would not happen.

Farrell Till has an excellent mocking column on the sheer stupidity of what Mark Taunton is trying to sell us :-

http://www.skepticfiles.org/sr/4like93.htm

Sorry to drag a (probably unwilling) "local" witness in to the debate; indeed it grieves me that he should be in the situation he is in, to serve this purpose. I do this only to counter the above.

Corky's departure from the faith he once held (that is, the same as mine - he describes himself as an ex-Christadelphian) is my "living proof" that this argument is incorrect. Unlike some who claim to be Christians, who think that it is impossible for them ever to lose their status as "saved", I am very clear, following the plain statements about this in the Bible, that it is all too easy to lose sight of the truth and wander away, giving up on the hope of eternal life. I hope and pray that I never do, but I know that I could.

27. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76896 by Mark Taunton on October 7, 2007 at 4:24 pm

steveroot:

But what is this Tyresome (get it?) argument about a prophesy and whether it's been fulfilled or not?

Because Billy and JCS asserted that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre was a failure.

For a good while now, I have been showing that the opposite is true; that it was very precisely fulfilled, despite being extraordinary in the things it predicted to happen. The sheer uniqueness of it (along with the specificity of it, by total contrast with e.g. Nostradamus) is strong evidence that Ezekiel is telling the truth when he says of Yahweh, the God of Israel that he is the true and living God who gave him the prophetic words, and will ensure they are completely fulfilled.

28. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76892 by Mark Taunton on October 7, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Back for a short while.

stevencarrwork:

Responding to multiple posts:

Exd 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.

Was the flame totally in the bush?

No! The text says "out of the midst of a bush" – so the flame came from within it, but was visible outside it - Moses could see it. Partly in and partly out. Your own choice of example looks to go against your claim...

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

I guess Adam and Eve were partly in the garden and partly out.

Please read the text again (you quoted it!). It says "amongst the trees of the garden", not "in the midst of the garden", which is what you seem to suppose. And they can't have been totally surrounded by trees to the degree that an island is (totally) surrounded by water, else how did they get in amongst them to hide? Did they vault over the top?

You are taking a single word (midst, "tevek" in Hebrew) and seeking to show that of itself it has a particular meaning, always carrying the full sense you want to see in Ezekiel 27:32, which you claim is "(totally) surrounded by". It is clear that the function of this particular word is broad, covering a range of aspects depending on context, though with a common general idea. However, to use a chemical analogy, its meaning is not atomic, but molecular: what sense "midst" has in the phrase "in the midst of X" is dependent on exactly what the "X" is. So what is needed is to see where "in the midst of the sea" comes, and identify what the sense of that phrase is, in all the contexts it appears in. As I said before, besides these two cases in Ezekiel (26:5 and 27:32), all other uses refer to the route by which Israel crossed the Red Sea. According to the Exodus account, they were not "completely surrounded" by water, but instead had a dry path they could walk on from one side to the other of the sea. Just like the causeway provided, that Alexander made using the ruins of old Tyre.

Perhaps Mark would accept Christian sources about the island status of the city of Tyre , and how it had daughter settlements on the coast.

No, that source misses the point, as do you. Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre was describing the mainland city called Tyre. How can you raise an earth bank against an island without using ships (which aren't mentioned) and without the sea washing it away? How can battering rams make its walls shake when there's half a mile of sea between the attackers and the city? How do you build a siege tower in 20 feet of water? What point do horsemen have, unless they and their horses swim across? Even then, how do they climb the walls? Saying Ezekiel was describing the island is to disregard the obvious facts of the text.

The name Palaetyros (old or ancient Tyre) was used by more than one author in the first century BC, at least (if not earlier). But "modern scholarship", from 200 years or so down to today, has decided that they really didn't know what they were talking about, and that Old Tyre was always an island. If you are so determined about that, please provide your evidence that this was the case in Ezekiel's day.

TAUNTON
...the context is characterising Tyre as a grand and mighty armed trading ship....

CARR
What? A grand and mighty armed trading ship that is on land, and not in the sea, like an island would be?

How many actual islands do you know that regularly go sailing? Needing masts (27:5), oars and benches for the rowers (v6), sails (v7), mariners and pilots (v8), caulkers (v9), etc. etc, etc…?

Then in 1603:

TAUNTON
TO illustrate: Luke's account of Paul's journey by ship to Italy is loaded with specialist technical terms relating to ships, sailors, navigation, sea and weather conditions, local geography, etc. Recent comparative analysis in relation to first century Mediterranean maritime history has demonstrated just how precise and accurately used his language is.

CARR
There's a big fat zero of evidence Taunton came up with.

Why now have you suddenly jumped off to a completely different context and started up a totally new argument (including a large body of pasted text – you provided the link, why bother to include most of its content as well?)? We were discussing Tyre. Why did you suddenly jump ship?

And finally:
Just to try to make things a little easier: as is obvious, my name is Mark (you used it once), please feel free to use it, as most contributors here do. I would prefer to call you Steven, but if you prefer me to call you just CARR, then I will. Certainly stevencarrwork is a tad hard to type right every time…

29. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76848 by Mark Taunton on October 7, 2007 at 1:16 pm

steveroot & stevencarrwork:

Oops - I did get your IDs mixed up! Sorry, it was late (no excuse, I know).

30. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76678 by Mark Taunton on October 6, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Stevecarrroot:

The original words for the phrase "heart of the seas" at 28:2 are different from those for "midst of the sea" we were previously debating. So you are now raising a new issue. The case I make about "midst of the sea" in 26:5 and 27:32 has not been defeated.

I leave you to read Ezekiel 27, where this distinct phrase for "heart of the seas" appears also in verses 4,25,26 and 27 (I don't know how it will be rendered in your version, but will hopefully be recognisable.) In this context it is in fact quite fair to see the sense as actually "out at sea", because the context is characterising Tyre as a grand and mighty armed trading ship, pursing its course, but which was going to founder and sink; see also 28:8 which is the last occurnce of the same phrase. (Actually, the land-bound Tyre did physically resemble a ship in some ways. The Assyrian king Sennacherib had a relief in his palace at Nineveh, showing Tyre on the coast, with shields along its battlements, and a fleet of ships at sea nearby, with shields hung along their sides in the same arrangement. Ezekiel 27:11 describes exactly this.)

Please note: I won't be continuing this debate just now. I must go to bed, as I have a long trip to make tomorrow, and really ought to be asleep already.

31. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76670 by Mark Taunton on October 6, 2007 at 4:06 pm

(It's now just after midnight, so I think I can do this without breaking my previous promise :-))

Stevecarrroot:

Please try using a better (more consistent) translation, the one you have is seriously unhelpful. There is a regular way in Hebrew to say "surrounded by", but it does not come in Ezekiel 27:32. The words that do come there are the same as rendered "out at sea" in your version (26:5), or (fairly consistently) as "midst of the sea" by the KJV. As I pointed out already, the sense of those words, from context and usage, is not about being surrounded by sea, but crossing freely (on foot, on a dry surface) from one side to the other of a stretch of sea. That is exactly what the destroyed Tyre served for, at Alexander's orders.

32. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76667 by Mark Taunton on October 6, 2007 at 3:57 pm

JCS:

One brief point in relation to my debate with stevecarrroot: you gave some Bible passages including the words "midst of the sea", which you claimed disprove my position on the meaning of that phrase. Please re-check your concordance/Online Bible or whatever you use. You will see that the word for "midst" in those places is quite different from the one Ezekiel uses in 26:5 and 27:32. As I have been saying, the only other uses of that particular Hebrew phrase are about Israel crossing the Red Sea dry-shod; your claim of other senses is mistaken.

33. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76658 by Mark Taunton on October 6, 2007 at 3:48 pm

stevecarroot:

(This will be my last post responding to you today.)

I am sorry you are confused about all this. One big issue is that the translation you use is not accurately giving you the sense of the original text here. As I mentioned before, it seems the translators were themselves thinking of Tyre as the island, but that is anachronistic for Ezekiel's day, when it was still a mainland city.

"Out at sea" has misled you – it suggests isolation from land. However, apart from another use about people lamenting Tyre as "the destroyed in the midst of the sea" (27:32), the Hebrew phrase here is only ever used in reference to Israel's crossing of the Red Sea. That involved going from dry land on one side to dry land on the other, on a piece of sea floor that became a viable walking route – they didn't even get their feet wet.

From this we see the sense of "midst of the sea": it is actually, from scriptural usage, about a route allowing crossing a body of water which is, by normal expectations, impassable. And that is exactly what Old Tyre was used for: its stones, timer and dust were taken to form the causeway, so Alexander's army could cross the sea channel. Just as Ezekiel's words imply, Tyre was destroyed and ended up in "the midst of the sea", now forming a viable walking route (and net-spreading place), where previously there had been none.

34. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76648 by Mark Taunton on October 6, 2007 at 3:18 pm

stevecarrroot:,

You seem very quick to dismiss the prophecy and my explanation of it, but where is your evidence? What is your reasoning?

Please try to deal with what I actually said about "daughters in the field", and about the status of Tyre as a mainland city. Yes, the daughters belonged to Tyre. They were either villages around the city, or actually women from her; either could be "in the field", as meaning the agricultural land adjacent. (You can still see fields near the site - pan just a little east on the Google maps view I gave in comment 1575.)

You have not shown why Tyre must be identified as the island, whereas I have given multiple reasons why it was in fact on the mainland. Unquestionably, Palaetyros (old/ancient Tyre) was on the mainland.

35. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76644 by Mark Taunton on October 6, 2007 at 3:02 pm

SRWB:

Furthermore, the area is not desolate, uninhabited …

Please look at the Google maps view I linked to. The place I propose as the site of Palaetyros certainly looks pretty bleak, and is bereft of people, even today. Although there's a large Palestinian refugee camp just to the south, the area I identify is a legally-protected nature reserve (the Tyre Coast Nature Reserve, if you care to look it up). Certainly no one is allowed to build anything there, or do much but walk along roped-off routes or along the beach, so as not to disturb the wildlife for whose benefit the area is a reserve. Despite illegal building activity being a major problem elsewhere in the locality, for some reason the reserve does not seem to have suffered from it at all…

and covered by "great waters".

Old Tyre's material remains certainly were, when Alexander's soldiers and labourers deposited them into the sea!

36. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76640 by Mark Taunton on October 6, 2007 at 2:40 pm

stevecarrroot: (is there an easier short name I could use? To call you just CARR, as you did yourself, seems a bit loud!)

This response is somewhat related also to JCS's comments, and is hence part of the response I promised him.

The main part of Tyre was the island part.

What is your evidence for that? You reflect a common view, that Tyre was always the island, at times having also some mainland territory. But the evidence for it is very hard to find!

There are now buildings on what was the island part and what was the mainland part.

The coastline has changed over 2,500 years but that is basically the case.

By Alexander's time, yes, the Tyrians were living on the island. But Palaetyre – i.e. Old Tyre, the original city, the one Ezekiel was speaking about - was just standing there, on the mainland, ready and available to be broken to pieces and carried away. No battle is mentioned; Alexander just demolished the place, which suggests it was by then uninhabited - "desolate", as Ezekiel predicted.

Ezekiel claimed that both the island part and the 'daughter' part on the mainland would be conquered by Nebuchadnezzar

'It shall become plunder for the nations, and its daughter-towns in the country shall be killed by the sword.'

"[…] her settlements on the mainland […]"

What was on the mainland were 'her settlements', according to Ezekiel, not the island itself, which was 'out in the sea'.

That's not correct. You quoted the same original text in two different translations. The relevant original words are most directly rendered as "daughters in the field". From usage elsewhere in the Bible, they could be either the undefended suburbs or villages around the walled city, or its actual womenfolk, working in agriculture. There are no good grounds for "mainland" as a translation for the normal word for "field", unless the translators were already mistakenly thinking of the strongly defended "Tyre" as being the island in Ezekiel's day. But if Tyre that Nebuchadrezzar was going to attack was the island, then the description of his siege makes no sense whatever – e.g. you can't possibly build up an earth ramp, or a siege tower, or roll up other siege weapons, against an island out at sea. Ezekiel can only have been talking about the mainland city. And it was that same mainland city which Alexander, using a large number of local Phoenician people as his labourers, destroyed and placed into the sea to make the causeway.

But Nebuchadnezzar never conquered the island part.

Indeed he didn't – because the island wasn't Tyre at that time; Tyre then was a mainland city.

But Googe Maps shows the dense building on the site of the former island.

No problem there. Ezekiel was prophesying about a mainland city, for reasons I gave above (amongst others).

The mainland part was , apparently , called Ushu.

But I would have to check that.

Certainly that is what most commentators on the subject say - it's the common view. But in all my research, I have never yet come across a single piece of documentary evidence for that identification. When you check this out, please let me know if you do!

Providing evidence against that notion is the mention, in Joshua 19:29, of the next city south from Tyre on the line of the border of the Israelite tribe of Asher, called Hosah. (That same context also implies that Tyre was on the mainland, else it would mention the border reaching the sea there, but it's not till further south that the sea is mentioned.) From geographic proximity, and contextual fit, it seems entirely reasonable that "Ushu" is the same place as "Hosah"; but that shows that it is distinct from Tyre, not just Tyre's undefended rural suburbs. The early king of Tyre who wrote some of the "El Amarna letters" spoke of Usu as a separate place that he sought control of. Even though the editor of one translation of those letters also draws the same equivalence (Usu = mainland Tyre), there is nothing in the actual text that indicates this. Besides, why call an extension of your own city, its suburbs, by a different name? Is there any other comparable example? I am unaware of one.

37. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76572 by Mark Taunton on October 6, 2007 at 10:29 am

CARR:

There are buildings right where Old Tyre used to be.

Bare rock? The place is a bare rock?

http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/910/919/sour/pictures/index3.html

Look at all those buildings - right where the old island used to be.

There is a fault in your logic. Old Tyre was not an island!

How do we know that? History tells us (look it up) that Alexander the Great demolished Palaetyrus (ancient Tyre) in order to construct with its rubble the causeway from the mainland to the island. That is exactly what Ezekiel prophesied would happen to the city.

Where exactly was Old Tyre? It's been a mystery to many for a long time. I have reasons to believe that it occupied an area including the middle of this Google Maps view

Zoom out to see where this is relative to the present-day occupied region called Tyre.

38. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76154 by Mark Taunton on October 4, 2007 at 11:11 pm

What case did you ever actually make, Goldy? It was Billy who stepped in, to provide one...

Maybe Mike'll come back for proof of God, but not for angel counting.

Goldy, you don't seem to have noticed, but the debate here is very much about proving (or attempting to disprove) the existence of God!

You raised an assertion (NT and OT have great disagreements) which is clearly made as if disproving the existence of the God of the Bible: if the Bible is inconsistent with itself, that goes against its claims to be the word of God. All I have done is to argue against that assertion, working with the evidence Billy put forward which he claims supports it, and reasoning from that evidence (specfic words of the text) and the wider but relevant Biblical contexts. In other words, I am indeed arguing for God's existence - no pins ever mentioned...

39. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76094 by Mark Taunton on October 4, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Billy:

Thank you for doing what Goldy seemingly didn't want to do – making an effort to establish a case, in one's own words, with specific evidence (we could swap web-links till the cows come home, but I see little value in that). Indeed you provided not just one, but three examples. Your willingness is appreciated. Of course, he has already condemned as "pointless, surreal and inane" what I'm about to do, which is to engage with what you have said, take up the specific details, and challenge your argument; in other words, to debate the issue, using evidence and reasoning. Oh well, here I go, regardless…

I just assumed that you knew the verses

I know of a number of passages discussing the Sabbath, in both OT and NT; but since I hadn't noticed any disagreement between them, I was unclear what the detail of your argument would be. Now you have now defined your examples in terms of specific texts, I have got something to work on.

As always, it is important to establish context for any quote, such as those you give. Please excuse the verbosity, but I've done that in some cases in what follows, using the KJV for convenience (it's the only English version I have with the Online Bible). After all, I'm sure neither of us wants to be accused of "quote-mining"!

Example 1: The Sabbath

Expanding your quote (Ex 31:15) somewhat:

Exodus 31:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

As a preliminary point, notice that this commandment has a well-defined set of recipients: "the children of Israel, … throughout their generations" (vv 13,16). Moses is not told at v13 "speak to all mankind, to Israel and all the other nations too"; the command is given specifically to the children of Israel.

Likewise to give a more of the context to your second reference (14:5):

Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

We also need a bit of wider background. The letter to the Romans is addressing a mixed audience: some of the believers in Rome were Jews, some Gentiles. And Paul has a lot to say in the letter about the significance of the law of Moses, and the issue of belief in the gospel versus the idea of gaining righteousness by "the works of the law", i.e. keeping every one of the commandments Moses was given and gave to Israel. He is clear that none of his readers, and not even Paul himself, keeps the whole law perfectly, and therefore all are condemned by it in some way. There has to be a different means to obtain salvation, and Paul shows that God has provided it, and it was understood, even before the law of Moses was itself given. That different means is by belief in what God has promised, even if one falls short – as all but Jesus have done - of behaving completely consistently with that belief.

Now in Romans 14:5 that you cited, I first point out that the word Sabbath (or "seventh day", or any equivalent) does not actually appear there, just the term "one day". It doesn't come in the context either, as you can see above. That's not to say that the Sabbath isn't implied (I think it is), but that the issue is not specific to the Sabbath per se. Indeed, in preceding verses, Paul discusses other issues such as food, where what one man sees as important, another does not.

Paul is not setting himself up either to extend the Mosaic law to include Gentiles, or to criticise it and deny its value and significance. He says neither that "the man who thinks one day is more important than another is right and the one who doesn't is wrong", nor the reverse. If he had said the reverse ("it is wrong to see one day as more important than another") then you might begin to have a case for saying that he is disputing or disagreeing with the Mosaic law in Exodus 31. But he doesn't – instead he says "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind".

So for a Jew to whom the Sabbath law was very important, it was clearly OK to continue to treat that day with special reverence. But for the Gentile, who was never under that specific law, not having any requirement to keep the law as the Jews did, he could either choose to observe it, or not, but he was not to be condemned if he did not. The key thing was to be settled in one's mind about one's own view, to be consistent in action with that position, and not to condemn others who for historical reasons didn't see the particular issue in the same way (though having the same understanding of the gospel of salvation), and who were in any case answerable to God as their master, not to their brother.

In summary, I fail to see what the supposed disagreement between the two passages actually is. Billy, please can you explain if you think I've somehow missed your point?

Example 2: "deeds"

Concerning deeds, there are lots of examples in the OT. There is the book off Jonah for example, where Ninevah is saved through repentence. There are many examples in the OT calling for good behaviour or god will take away his favor, eg Deut 28.
vs

Rom 3:24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

or
Rom 8:1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, […] who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Much as in the first example, I have difficulty seeing the disagreement.

You first mention Jonah and the repentance of the Ninevites. If anything, that case directly illuminates the principle that Paul is spelling out to the Romans! Namely, that despite the fact of human disobedience, God is gracious and willing to forgive sins, when people repent (turn back) from them. God was gracious to the people of Nineveh – he sent Jonah to them, just as he later sent Jesus to Israel. (In fact the two prophets are specifically compared in their respective missions: Matthew 12:39-41, Luke 11:29-32.) Just as the Law of Moses condemns disobedience and sin, Jonah brought condemnation of the Ninevites' wickedness, as Jesus did of the Jews', but "the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" is available to any and all who do repent. So where is the disagreement?

Next, you mention Deuteronomy 28, without being more specific. The principle is certainly clear in that chapter that Israel's obedience to God's law would bring blessings and reward, and their disobedience would bring curses and punishment. But God knew, and confirmed through Moses, that Israel were not going to be able to keep the whole law perfectly, though at times they would do well. That's why, soon after, he predicts that both blessings and cursings would indeed come upon them.

Deuteronomy 30:1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, …

But in the very same place, he also predicts God's compassion and mercy on them when they later repented – exactly the same principle as Jonah and Jesus demonstrated, and Paul's argument is based upon! Following straight on with the quote:

Deuteronomy 30:1 … and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,
2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;
3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.

So God's mercy is to be shown to Israel, despite their past sins for which they were punished, when they acknowledge their error, remember God's words, realising they have come true, and repent. Continuing on again:

4 If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.
6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

This is a prophecy of exactly the development that Paul discusses in the same letter to the Romans, chapters 10 and 11. Israel will ultimately be brought back to a state of peace and fellowship with God. Rom 10:6-8 explicitly cites Deu 30:11-14, just after my quote above, and Rom 11:15 links Israel's restoration to God's favour with resurrection, which will happen when Jesus returns. (It's a topic for another day, but the process is already under way: Israel is now, once more, a nation in the promised land, having been re-gathered to it and multiplied as an initial step in what Moses prophesies here, though without as yet the full change of heart God also promises, which will require drastic further work by him.)

In other words, Paul is actively using the context of Deuteronomy that you suppose he disagrees with, in his letter to the Romans, actively to support his large-scale argument about grace, faith, etc, contrasted with the false idea of earning salvation by keeping every detail of the law of Moses. I really struggle to see how you can say that Romans is somehow arguing against Deuteronomy!

As a footnote: just at the tail-end of that point you said:

Apparently some later manuscripts add ...Jesus, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
I think this totally changes the meaning from grace to deeds.

Sorry to be thick, but you've lost me there. (I think those extra words should be included, by the way, which is why I combined them into my earlier re-quote.) Are you now saying Paul is arguing for "deeds" as against "grace"? It doesn't seem in the least bit likely, in context! But if so, and if you think the OT says such "deeds" are essential to salvation (though I don't believe it does: that is different from saying that God tells his people to keep his law), then you're now saying Paul is agreeing with that idea. In which case you seem to be taking the proposed disagreement away yourself… (?!?)

Example 3: "eye for eye"

I could also have given you ex 21:23If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

vs

Matt 5:38-42 You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and don't turn away him who desires to borrow from you.

Before going into the detail, I see you quoted Exodus 21:23. But that in context has a particular application, covering injury to a baby born because its mother is hurt by men in a fight. I believe the context Jesus is primarily referring to is

Leviticus 24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

I will assume the latter context as being the more appropriate one.

Again, what exactly is the disagreement? Jesus quotes the law. Does he say "but that's wrong"? No. Nor does he tell the Jews now to require two eyes for one eye, or on the other hand suggest that the law should never have been written. He does not condemn the law at all, nor disagree with it.

Instead, Jesus is telling his disciples not to seek to "give as good as they get" when they are unfairly treated, even though that law would allow them to do so, in particular circumstances. If by hitting them in the face, an opponent had injured their eye or knocked out a tooth, the law said they could go to the judge (they certainly were not permitted to simply exact their own revenge), and ask that their attacker be made to lose whatever they had themselves lost. If the judge determined that the case was right, such a punishment (but not more) was to be inflicted at his direction.

In what Jesus says, he does not repudiate the law, but asks his disciples to go even beyond what the law permits: to suffer wrong without seeking recompense, even though by "demanding their rights" they could see justice done in some sense. Jesus teaches consistently that we need mercy in God's sight, because we are all sinners. Therefore it is right to be merciful to others, to forgo demanding the legitimate punishment for them, if we acknowledge that our own sins condemn us equally. The principle is "Be merciful, as your heavenly father is merciful." And it does not oppose the law, it goes even beyond it.

4. Conclusion

Finally, I note a contrast. None of your examples, even if you could make a case that one of them is actually in some sense "a disagreement", is anywhere near in character to the outright contradiction between Psalm 2's "thou art my son, this day have I [Yahweh] begotten thee" (quoted also in the NT, which speaks specifically of Jesus as God's only begotten son), and the Koran's "[Allah] has never begotten a son".

Surely, if what you and Goldy claim is true, there ought to be something more plain and obvious, between OT and NT, that you could present?

----

That's all I have in response, for the moment. Sorry it's a bit wordy, though I've tried to avoid "wordplay". As I indicated, I won't be taking this particular debate further for a little while, though I am certainly interested to see how you deal with my reasoning.

40. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76048 by Mark Taunton on October 4, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Oh dear, I can see myself getting overloaded again. I propose for the moment to do the following:
- post a response to Billy, who seems to be willing to sub for Goldy (maybe on a permanent basis?), in answering my previous request for evidence that the NT greatly disagrees with the OT;
- finish and post my half-way ready reply to Lee;
- reply to JCS's latest comment.
I am sure you will respectively wish to come back on what I say, which I will read, of course. But I intend to leave a little gap before any postings beyond the three I identify above. Life is just too busy...

41. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76021 by Mark Taunton on October 4, 2007 at 11:36 am

The discussion should go no further than proving a god exists.

Funnily enough, that's what I've primarily been trying to do on this thread. However, several contributors have been keen to raise other issues (such as the age of the earth, the nature of the flood, the relationship between the Bible and other religions, etc) and ask me to explain my position on those. I have at times tried to deflect those questions in favour of the more fundamental one, but can't reasonably ignore them altogether. I would be content to stick with your proposal, but I suspect it would seriously frustrate quite a few around here...

42. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #75954 by Mark Taunton on October 4, 2007 at 6:28 am

Billy, please can you provide specific quotes, to substantiate your case? If the NT really is contradicting the OT in the way you suggest, suitable quotes will show that clearly. Like my example where the Bible says the God it speaks of has begotten a son, whereas the Koran (written later) says Allah never has begotten a son, and that the idea is a monstrous blasphemy. Something equivalent to that...

43. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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?

44. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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.

45. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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) a