Some people pay attention in class.
The prophecy didn’t just say the city would be destroyed, it said the city would be destroyed and not rebuilt.
This bit of conversation that you quoted regards Babylon and it’s bloodless conquest and continued existence for centuries not Tyre.
Nope. Adam, you really need to stop the false claims about people.
One does not “insert genre”; all literature has a genre, the only question is what genre applies to a given piece. YEC in unChristian when it insists that the genre of ancient literature is actually a modern genre, which is non-incarnational. Since Christ is the perfect representation of the nature of GOd, then all of God’s activity will be incarnational.
1 Like
Fine statement of the “problem” and a convincing take on it.
Just as good a question: how about all the prophecies that were fulfilled accurately? Isaiah 53 has an uncannily accurate description of Christ’s death. It is included in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls that has been retested by the new C14 test and found to be from 125 - 250 BCE.
2 Likes
I quote new testament statements about old testament historical writings to support the scholarly position that old testament writings are historical and not some genre driven allegorical moraility lesson.
Ive quoted Christs statment in Matthew 24 and Peters writings in cross reference to the flood account in Genesis (as do bible comentaries if you bothered to actuslly check)
I do that (cross reference old and new) because the Old Testament Sanctuary best explains the gospel to its observers and that Christ came in fulfillment of its prophecy (he humbled himself even unto death to save his own creation from the wages of sin that whoever believes on Him, will not perish but have everlasting life.)
Why?
-
Because if the very reason sin enterred this world is an allegorical genre driven morality lesson, then the rules of internal consistency demand…so its its solution.
-
That would mean Christs death and resurrection for sin and salvation = allegory…not a real physical death and resurrection
-
Second coming = allegory…not real
It is a delusion to continue to believe that points 2 and 3 are not a consequence of point 1 above.
Which do not say what you claim they do. You need to learn to read literature for what it actually says.
In other words you are out to attack straw men of your own devising.
Not to anyone I’ve ever met – all it actually does is confuse people.
You want to explain the Gospel? Point to the Cross – that’s the starting point of Christian theology.
So you start with a straw man, follow it with a non sequitur, and conclude by stating the assumption underlying your non sequitur.
Your three points are not a logical argument, and they are unChristian as theology: Christ’s death and resurrection is the starting point, not a conclusion.
1 Like
The theme of this particular site is a broad one, answered by a computer (AI) no less. And then it devolves into an argument with Adam over a couple things like the prophesied fall of Tyre.
The question could also have been “What about the fulfilled prophecies” and that might also have been a good one. After all, most respondents are likely to think the subject worth exploring at all --because of prophecies known to have not failed…
Since “the fall of Tyre” seems to have been raised—this comes, in Ezekiel, after accounts of the death of Ezekiel’s wife, then prophesies against Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, and then Tyre/Byblos, Sidon, Egypt, a taunting reference to the fall of the Assyrian Empire, then something against Pharoah, Jerusalem, Edom…right on into the valley of Dry Bones and more…What has been said by others here --re this prophecy – is accurate in that Alexander the Great finished the job (or did the job finish him? hard to say)…and that was, of course, when Alexander the Great’s men came through. BUT, as the editor of the NICOT on Ezekiel noted, …“Ezekiel himself will acknowledge later that Nebuchadnezzar’s efforts against Tyre were less successful than anticipated here (29:17-20), and that Yahweh would give him the land of Egypt as compensation for the disappointing results,… . But Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign was not totally futuile; the Babylonian sources…imply that Nebuchadrezzar exercised political control over Tyre in the following decades.” Menander (342-292 BC) mentioned Tyre being “under siege” for 13 years, so life was not a bowl of cherries (see Saggs in The Greatness that was Babylon).
1 Like
You need to provide examples for that because im not seeing any here…this is nothing more than a blanket statement without any evidence.
As ive said, i provide plenty of evidence…so start a thread about Christ and Peters statements aligning with Moses writings and lets discuss it (i doubt you will but one can live in hope that common sense will prevail here)
The bible starts ij Genesis chapter 1…its starts with the “why salvation became necessary”.
The conclusion is illustrated in Revelation 21&22.
The Old Testament Sanctuary teaches the processes of Sanctification and Justification…both themes coincidently enough also found prominently in Pauls writings.
The cross is all about forgiveness of sin and justification…Christ even stated this whilst hanging on the cross"Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
The thing is, He paid the price for OUR SINS. Its not a let off with no consequences. There are always comsequences. He took YOUR place …CHRIST DIES SO THAT YOU MIGHT LIVE!
As you say, we look to the cross…same as the Israelites looked to the serpent on the stake in the wilderness and were cured…the sinai desert lessons & parallels illustrating salvation are everywhere.
How you can suposedly know the New Testament, particularly Romans, and be confused by O/T Sanctuary???
I find it rather concerning that you do not understand the connection between the blood of sheep and goats in the Old Testament and the blood of Christ in the New (tye - antitype)
The reason the blood of sheep and goats doesnt save anyone is because it was never meant to…all that did was point forward to (prophesy) the sacrifice of Christ and shedding of his blood as the only atonement for the wages of sin is death (Romams 6.23). That is the entire point of the OT Sanctuary…thats it central theme. The reminder there is also that an animal died in order to cover Adam and Eves nakedness…thats part of the reminder of the sacrifice of sheep and goats…thats what Cain was angry about…he didnt care or want to understand why his offering was rejected. Cain thought it was through his own toil…he was wrong and his offering rejected. Cains is i think the first biblical example of an attempt at righteousness by works.
(For someome supposedly trained about this at university… Im sensing a Nichodemus moment in you there)
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
I guess I don’t understand why A&E’s sin is such a big deal when people have sinned during their lifetimes. Sin enters the world when every person sins. People are forgiven for the sins they commit.
5 Likes
Please note…im not stating my position in the above which you have quoted…its a logical conclusion based on twisting of scripture by ANE driven Darwinian Evolution + theology.
Righto…now that caveat has been made…onto biblical theology
People are not automatically forgiven for their sins. How do we know this? Because all prophets in the Bible tended to repeat the same theme over and over again…
Jonah highlights the theme when he finally got the the city of Ninevah…repentance.
In order to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” one must choose to repent and look towards the serpent on the stake in the wilderness…to the cross.
I don’t see any Christians who accept evolution making that argument, though. All of them appear to believe Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins and that it was a real occurrence.
Right. Nowhere do we have to invoke Adam and Eve. No one is repenting of the original sin they inherited from A&E. They are repenting for their own actions.
2 Likes
Since you ignore the ordinary use of language unless it supports YEC, there’s no point to such a thread. You have your worldview imposed on the scriptures and plainly aren’t open to anything else.
Neither Moses nor Peter assert a global flood. Peter does not affirm that what Moses wrote is history.
1 Like
The order of the books in the Bible is not relevant. Faith does not start with Genesis and move to Christ, it starts with Christ. The only reason that anything that Genesis says is worth reading is because of Christ.
You have the relationship backwards.
The “blood of sheep and goats” was an accommodation by Yahweh to the Israelites’ worldview, done in such a way as to point to Christ. That system’s foundation was thus Christ – He is its beginning.
Only because you have never, ever, paid attention to actual theology when I write.
Neither evolution nor Darwin have anything at all to do with ancient near eastern studies.
You plainly don’t know what you’re talking about. Ancient near eastern studies has to do with archaeology and the texts that have been uncovered. You invoke ancient near eastern studies when you can mine it for material to make a point, yet you ignore it otherwise.
Maybe, maybe not. What isn’t automatic is reconciliation.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.