09 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsBy that reckoning, no city at all can ever be rebuilt, unless you put exactly the same stones in exactly the same locations, and then you'll probably say that it's still not rebuilt because different people are living there.
No. It was not rebuilt. The Tyre today is a different city as is explained
in the reference. The old city is gone under water or buried under ground.
The old Tyre can not be rebuilt. All that was done is a new city was built
at or near the old location. The ruins of the old city are gone and can not
be rebuilt. Are there any other part of the prophecy that you dispute?
So that implies that even if Babylon is rebuilt, you will not accept it. When you said
I think all man has to do to prove God is a liar is to rebuild Babylon
in Iraq with homes and let it become an inhabited city again.
Saddam Hussein said he was going to do this and tried.
This seems like an easy task for man to do. Don't you agree?
you were lying.
--- Penguin.
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by PenguinWhy? 😏
By that reckoning, no city at all can ever be rebuilt, unless you put exactly the same stones in exactly the same locations, and then you'll probably say that it's still not rebuilt because different people are living there.
So that implies that even if Babylon is rebuilt, you will not accept it. When you said
[b]I think all man has to do to prove God ...[text shortened]... ems like an easy task for man to do. Don't you agree?
you were lying.
--- Penguin.[/b]
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat would be impressive. But this? Nah...
sure, it should have stated that he was standing on one leg, while facing North, while
the sun was at its zenith, while his pet hamster, Hammy walked backwards seven times
taking two steps to the left and two steps to the right.
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by PenguinBecause you said:
By that reckoning, no city at all can ever be rebuilt, unless you put exactly the same stones in exactly the same locations, and then you'll probably say that it's still not rebuilt because different people are living there.
So that implies that even if Babylon is rebuilt, you will not accept it. When you said
[b]I think all man has to do to prove God ...[text shortened]... ems like an easy task for man to do. Don't you agree?
you were lying.
--- Penguin.[/b]
I think all man has to do to prove God is a liar is to rebuild Babylon in Iraq with homes and let it become an inhabited city again ... This seems like an easy task for man to do. Don't you agree?
Most people would consider that building [a]a[/b] city on the site of the ancient city of Babylon and calling that new city "Babylon" could fulfill the requirement to "rebuild Babylon in Iraq with homes and let it become an inhabited city again".
However, you have made it clear that you would not accept that doing this would prove God a liar, since you do not accept that Tyre has been rebuilt.
It seems that you would only accept that Babylon had been rebuilt if the sames stones were used in the same locations to build the same houses again. This does not seem to me to be an "easy task for man to do"
--- Penguin
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobNebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland area, but he did not destroy Tyre entirely, for an island city still existed, it was Alexander, who, using the stones from the mainland city that Nebuchadnezzar had torn down, who completely destroyed the ancient Phonecian city by building a causeway with the remnants of the mainland city and laying siege to it, fulfilling the prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed.
But the prophesy clearly names Nebuchadnezzar who would do this, not Alexander.
09 Jan 12
3 edits
Originally posted by PenguinBut that is not what happened in the case of Tyre. It is my understanding
Because you said:
[b]I think all man has to do to prove God is a liar is to rebuild Babylon in Iraq with homes and let it become an inhabited city again ... This seems like an easy task for man to do. Don't you agree?
Most people would consider that building [a]a[/b] city on the site of the ancient city of Babylon and calling that new city "Babylon houses again. This does not seem to me to be an "easy task for man to do"
--- Penguin[/b]
that a fishing village was built near the ancient Tyre that covers the
causeway built out to the Rock Island of Tyre that the fishermen use to
dry their nets and most of the Island of Tyre has sunk into the sea. The
village has grown into a city but has an Arabic name of Sour. I could
be wrong but that is what I believe the believers in the fulfillment of the
prophecy say. Others say it is to be rebuilt into a great port city again
as headquarters of an Islamic Anti-Christ and then be destroyed at the
coming of the Lord. And skeptics like you believe it has been rebuilt as
proof of a failed prophecy. I have no first hand knowledge, but I believe
the Holy Bible is true and do not claim to be an expert on interpreting
prophecy. I had not even considered this Tyre prophecy before it was
brought up in response to my challenge on Babylon. For me, I believe
that the Babylon prophecy would be false, if what I stated happened. To
others, who believe the Babylon in Revelation refers to this Babylon
in Iraq, literally, rather than to Rome and the Vatican City, figuratively,
would say that Babylon must be rebuilt as a great city again so it could
be destroyed again to fulfill Revelation. So what are you going to do?
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm up to speed with the timeline concerning Tyre Rob, but the galring ommision; or inclusion depending on which way you look at it, is that the Bible doesn't mention Alexander at all. He's been added into the prophesy so that it can be labelled 'fullfilled'.
Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland area, but he did not destroy Tyre entirely, for an island city still existed, it was Alexander, who, using the stones from the mainland city that Nebuchadnezzar had torn down, who completely destroyed the ancient Phonecian city by building a causeway with the remnants of the mainland city and laying siege to it, fulfilling the prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed.
It's like me predicting that Chelsea will beat Man Utd 1-0 next season, and when it doesn't happen claiming my prediction is spot on as Liverpool beat them 1-0 instead.
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobOf course the Bible does not mention Alexander, but the fact of the matter is, he did
I'm up to speed with the timeline concerning Tyre Rob, but the galring ommision; or inclusion depending on which way you look at it, is that the Bible doesn't mention Alexander at all. He's been added into the prophesy so that it can be labelled 'fullfilled'.
It's like me predicting that Chelsea will beat Man Utd 1-0 next season, and when it doesn't happen claiming my prediction is spot on as Liverpool beat them 1-0 instead.
come along, pitch the stones into the sea, build a causeway and completely destroy the
city in fulfilment of the prophecy. This is not a glaring omission, its simply an
archaeological fact.
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut the Bible doesn't say it's Alexander who will do this.
Of course the Bible does not mention Alexander, but the fact of the matter is, he did
come along, pitch the stones into the sea, build a causeway and completely destroy the
city in fulfilment of the prophecy. This is not a glaring omission, its simply an
archaeological fact.
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes i know, it doesn't need to, all it needs to state that the very stones will be pitched
But the Bible doesn't say it's Alexander who will do this.
into the sea, which, through the application of the scientific method, in this instance,
archaeology, we now see the fulfilment in detail of the prophetic word. If i say that
Glasgow will be destroyed and that its stones will be pitched into the river Clyde, and it
happens, does it negate the fact that i have failed to mention who did it, i dont think so.
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut if you claim John will destroy Glasgow and throw some stones into the Clyde and it turns out Steve does it instead you are wrong.
yes i know, it doesn't need to, all it needs to state that the very stones will be pitched
into the sea, which, through the application of the scientific method, in this instance,
archaeology, we now see the fulfilment in detail of the prophetic word. If i say that
Glasgow will be destroyed and that its stones will be pitched into the river Cl ...[text shortened]... t
happens, does it negate the fact that i have failed to mention who did it, i dont think so.