Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #98]

It looks to me that this is simply restating your opinion as though it is obviously true with touches of empty rhetoric. I don't see anything new to respond to there.

All I see is the usual pretence of not understanding and of fingers in ears not listening.

It doesn't matter;it never matters, because Bible apologists continually think they just have to dismiss and deny everything, and they win.

It is not about what you can refuse to see and dismiss, it is about the case and how it looks to others who may still be open to question.

They will see what the proverbial six year old daughter of Creationist apologetics can see - the miracle looks impossible, and not true as described, and trying to pass it off as a preaching tale to tell us about a god that has no shred of decent evidence for it (certainly not in the OT) does not impress either for the religion or the apologist.

You think you won, I reckon you lost.

cue "it's not about winning". It is, in debate, ora court case. The persistent denial of the lawyer, and the grifter on trial doesn't matter; it is about the best case and how the Jury votes.

The same with online debates.

[The Tanager]

It is not about what you can refuse to see and dismiss, it is about the case and how it looks to others who may still be open to question.

I agree. They will see what they will see; they don't need me to tell them what they will see. I've shared my thoughts, you've shared yours, and everyone will analyze our posts for themselves. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is not about what you can refuse to see and dismiss, it is about the case and how it looks to others who may still be open to question.

I agree. They will see what they will see; they don't need me to tell them what they will see. I've shared my thoughts, you've shared yours, and everyone will analyze our posts for themselves. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Ok, and there we are wondering what was achieved. It's always been a bother yto me that the better case goes unheard and you may retire comfortably assured that the Majority agree with you.

Of course it isn't Just about hearts and minds, it is about testing the arguments. It does me no good coming up with what I think are good arguments if nobody is there to shred them, or try. So I appreciate all those who turn and rend me. We all need something to give Meaning to our existence.

[Data]

I care about your case, or I would if you make one.

The case I make is that skepticism almost always takes the position of destructive criticism. Higher criticism, for example, as opposed to lower criticism which is constructive. Though I highly recommend being skeptical, I don't recommend higher criticism. The criticism begins with a false premise and politically motivated becomes propaganda. On both sides. I don't make a case because I know, from experience, even specifically on this exact subject, to do so is only a pointless facade. For me to take you seriously your case has to be something more than I can quickly find on any forum or website just like this with the skepticism just as you have presented it because what I would have to give in answering would also be just like any one you can find in a response on a forum like this or that of any theist. That sort of exchange is obsolete repetition and motivated by something other than any real substantive examination of truth.

What I'm looking for in such an exchange, specifically in this case is:

1. What was the relationship between Tyre and Israel prior to the prophecies?
2. What exactly motivated the prophecy?
3. In this case, how many prophecies were there and what are the specific details of each?
4. How did each of the prophecies affect or were affected by the others?
5. How might translation, theology, history or biased skepticism be an issue?
6. How was Tyre presented in the Bible after the prophecies?

There are other possible considerations that may present themselves in a serious discussion as well, of course.

Ezekiel 26.12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.

Who will plunder what and who's wealth and merchandise and why? What walls, stones and rubble?

The Encyclopedia Americana: “With the debris of the mainland portion of the city, which he had demolished, he built a huge mole in 332 to join the island to the mainland.” What was Nebuchadnezzar's part in Alexander's attack?

Though this apparently relates to Nebuchadnezzar's attack he didn't do any of that. Alexander's did in part 332 B.C. But the prophecy is 'You will never be rebuilt' and this is presented by the Evangelical apologists as proof of prophecy. But Tyre was rebuilt and was a thriving Phoenecian centre of trade in Jesus' time and still is today.

What evidence? What does that mean? What about Augustus in 638, the Moslems in 1124, Crusaders in 1291, Turks in 1516? What did Sandys see in 1619? Maundrell in 1697? Hasselquist in 1751? Robinson in 1838? Es Sur (Arabic; Soûr) is ancient Tyre.



"Tyre exists only in ruins today, in the modern town of Soûr, Lebanon, about 50 miles south of Beirut. Probably not much of the Phoenician city still survives since it was overbuilt by both Greeks and Romans.

Today, the site exists as a peninsula, which resulted from Alexander the Great’s siege of the city, which originally stood upon an island just off the coast. The Tyrians thought they were safe, until Alexander built a causeway to the city in his assault upon it." [source]

“Of the original Tyre known to Solomon and the prophets of Israel, not a vestige remains except in its rock-cut sepulchres on the mountain sides, and in foundation walls . . . Even the island, which Alexander the Great, in his siege of the city, converted into a cape by filling up the water between it and the mainland, contains no distinguishable relics of an earlier period than that of the Crusades. The modern town, all of which is comparatively new, occupies the northern half of what was once the island, while nearly all the remainder of the surface is covered with undistinguishable ruins.” - Lands of the Bible, by J. W. McGarvey, 1880, p. 529.

The excuses are that a 'New Tyre' was built somewhere els and the Old Tyre is only ruins in the sea (or the Necropolis which was built outside the city anyway. But the fact is Tyre was rebuilt and extended to cover Mainland and Island Tyre and the causeway when it silted up. The archaeology is under the present city, known as 'Sur'.

No, that isn't the fact. Modern day Tyre is present day Tyre. Here's an image of both.



As usual, with skepticism, it's easier to make a baseless assumption when uninformed as it has been propagated. Like religion. Distorted, uninformed. The Bible speaks of the destruction of the world. The world in a general sense was destroyed before, with the flood of Noah's day. It wasn't rebuilt in the sense you suggest Tyre has been. The upcoming destruction of heaven and earth results in a new heaven and earth, not a rebuilding. You haven't even mentioned Zechariah. Two parts of Tyre that existed then or any distinction.

I'm sorry. I just don't have time for this. That's a good start, but what's the point?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #104]

That was all total irrelevance or misdirection and the only relevant point is this:

" Probably not much of the Phoenician city still survives since it was overbuilt by both Greeks and Romans." 'Probably' is not quite the thing as archaeology has shown that is the case (I have seen a plan showing archaeological foundations of old Tyre under the present city). geographically Tyre was mainland and an offshore island. Alexander built a causeway to the Island and that has silted up and the present city covers all of it. We know old Tyre was built over as later Tyre by the Phoenecians in fact, even without the archaeology.

The point is, If the prophecy predicts that Tyre will never be rebuilt and it does look like that as well as being one of the True prophecies in the Bible, it is proven false. There are ruins in the sea, sure, but the old city is still rebuilt as the new one over the same sit. The prophecy is either not a prophecy or it fails.

[Data]

That was all total irrelevance or misdirection and the only relevant point is this:

Shocked at your offhand dismissal because you give it even after you denied you would just as I told you you would.

[POI]

Yes, the video explains all of this... Getting the people to wrestle with new ideas, seek God, and grow, would involve giving them advanced knowledge. God does not do this. He instead conforms to their non-advanced ideals and existing knowledge. It's as if all the laws comport with pre-existing human laws alone.

So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying the Bible should be a (largely) completely different set of moral rules than any culture around them? If that is what you are saying, why do you think this? Christians believe that God wrote the moral law on all human hearts, God built it in, so to speak, so of course we’d expect similar laws. The Bible isn’t mainly a moral textbook just like it isn’t a science textbook.

What the context reads is that the Bible God was or is okay with chattel slavery, men over women, ordering the male rapist to marry their victims, etc... Was or is he good with these pronouncements? If he was or is, then his "objective standard" changes (from then to now)? If he wasn't, then why did he sanction these actions in the first place, rather than to instead abolish them?

It wouldn’t necessarily follow that the objective standard changes. When asked about why Moses allowed the Israelites to divorce, Jesus told his audience that it was because of their hard hearts. This seems to say God is willing to work with us, taking a slower route, because it will be better for us in the long run. I don’t see a problem with that kind of approach.

God has no problem laying down his moral standards. God already knows society will fail, regardless of circumstance. An objective God given moral law, or a (not-yet) God given objective moral law, is still impossible to follow. Hence, there is no need to beat around the bush.

[TRANSPONDER]

That was all total irrelevance or misdirection and the only relevant point is this:

Shocked at your offhand dismissal because you give it even after you denied you would just as I told you you would.

Avery obvious trick to make a bad argument and play the bias card 'I knew you would just dismiss it'.

The only relevant point is if old Tyre in buried under present Tyre ("Sur") and it is. Thus Tyre was rebuilt and the prophecy (if it is one) fails. All the rest is irrelevant.

Do you have anything else to say than playing the bias card and saying i didn't discuss points that were irrelevant anyway? Is there anything in your post that you think shows that Tyre was not rebuilt?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, the video explains all of this... Getting the people to wrestle with new ideas, seek God, and grow, would involve giving them advanced knowledge. God does not do this. He instead conforms to their non-advanced ideals and existing knowledge. It's as if all the laws comport with pre-existing human laws alone.

So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying the Bible should be a (largely) completely different set of moral rules than any culture around them? If that is what you are saying, why do you think this? Christians believe that God wrote the moral law on all human hearts, God built it in, so to speak, so of course we’d expect similar laws. The Bible isn’t mainly a moral textbook just like it isn’t a science textbook.

What the context reads is that the Bible God was or is okay with chattel slavery, men over women, ordering the male rapist to marry their victims, etc... Was or is he good with these pronouncements? If he was or is, then his "objective standard" changes (from then to now)? If he wasn't, then why did he sanction these actions in the first place, rather than to instead abolish them?

It wouldn’t necessarily follow that the objective standard changes. When asked about why Moses allowed the Israelites to divorce, Jesus told his audience that it was because of their hard hearts. This seems to say God is willing to work with us, taking a slower route, because it will be better for us in the long run. I don’t see a problem with that kind of approach.

God has no problem laying down his moral standards. God already knows society will fail, regardless of circumstance. An objective God given moral law, or a (not-yet) God given objective moral law, is still impossible to follow. Hence, there is no need to beat around the bush.

Yes. This is an excuse I've seen before.God's morals are not man's. But then man's morals are not God's, which makes one wander how 'Do what I say, not as I do' constituted a good god rather than a nasty dictator. I find myself using the term 'excuses' because that's all I hear.Christian/Bible apologists claim to have the arguments and evidence but it always comes down to excuses as to why they actually don't.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #88]

I see in your thinking the assumption that people long ago were intellectually inferior and abysmally ignorant. This comes right from your world view that life, including intelligence, evolved.. The fact that Americans, for example, are abysmally less informed that Americans two generations ago doesn’t disturb that assumption. The fact that the ancients built structures we cannot even beging to understand how doesn’t disturb that assumption.

I intend to answer your longer post as well, but on the whole your understanding of the ancients as well as creation science is off. The question comes up as to your readiness to attribute intelligence to ancient peoples at all. It’s called bias.