Check out some similar questions!

deist · Sep 22, 2007, 10:21 AM

Ezekiel 29:9-12 & 30:4-16 is a prophecy that Nebuchadrezzar (known elsewhere as Nebuchadnezzar) would destroy the land of Egypt, cause it's inhabitants to cease, make the land desolate & waste, that it would not be inhabited for 40 years, & that there would never again be a ruler in Egypt. The fact of history for all to see is that Nebuchadrezzar did not destroy Egypt. He did not make the land a desolate waste, it hasn't been uninhabited at any time in it's history, & to this day there is a ruler in Egypt (Hosni Mubarak currently). So history refutes this prophecy.
A prophecy that the bible itself refutes is Jeremiah's prophecy to king Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:30), where Jeremiah prophesies to Jehoiakim that he would have no sons to rule over Judah. However, his son Jechoniah (also Coniah & Jehoiachin) (1 Chron. 3:16 & 2 Kings 24:6) was the very next king of Judah (Esther 2:6 & 2 Kings 24:6-8).
Christians like to point to fulfilled bible prophecy as proof that the bible is inspired. However, here are two prophecies that failed, one refuted by history, & one refuted by the bible itself. I'm interested in seeing how christians will explain this away. Remember, the test of a prophet is that his prophecies must be fulfilled exactly as prophesied, 100 % of the time.

shygrneyzs · Sep 22, 2007, 11:04 AM

John MacArthur wrote a very good article on prewritten history, called, "Is The Bible Reliable?" Prewritten History--Part 1  --  John MacArthur. Read through section I. BIBLICAL PROPHECY CONCERNING TYRE (Ezekiel 26:1--28:19)

Also see: Ezekiel 26

You like to nitpick, so you are welcome to it.

deist · Sep 22, 2007, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by shygrneyzs

John MacArthur wrote a very good article on prewritten history, called, "Is The Bible Reliable?" Prewritten History--Part 1 -- John MacArthur. Read through section I. BIBLICAL PROPHECY CONCERNING TYRE (Ezekiel 26:1--28:19)

Also see: Ezekiel 26

You like to nitpick, so you are welcome to it.

Ezek.26:14 prophesied that it would be Nubuchadnezzar who destroyed Tyre, but he failed. Tyre wasn't destroyed until 1700 years later in A.D. 1291. Remember, the prophecy must be fulfilled exactly as stated. It said Nebuchadnezzar would destroy it. He didn't. Also, you did not explain how Ezekiel's prophecy regarding Egypt failed to be fulfilled, or Jeremiah's prophecy regarding Jehoiakim. Why did you avoid dealing with them ?

MoonlitWaves · Sep 22, 2007, 11:05 PM

Jeconiah's reign lasted 3 months and 10 days, virtually no reign at all. Then Babylon deported him for the rest of his life and none of his descendants ruled.
Isreal as a united kingdom lasted for more than 110 years. Then it was divided.. Isreal (north) and Judah (south). Isreal fell to Assyria in 722/21 leaving Judah the surviving kingdom for 135 years. Judah then fell to Babylon. Babylon smashed Assyria and registered a decisive victory againsy Egypt in 605 at Carchemish. According to Babylonian Chronicle they left no survivors.
In Ezekiel 29:18 Nebuchadnezzar subdued Tyre

**Information from The MacArthur Bible Commentary

deist · Sep 22, 2007, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by MoonlitWaves

Jeconiah's reign lasted 3 months and 10 days, virtually no reign at all. Then Babylon deported him for the rest of his life and none of his decendants ruled.
Isreal as a united kingdom lasted for more than 110 years. Then it was divided..Isreal (north) and Judah (south). Isreal fell to Assyria in 722/21 leaving Judah the surviving kingdom for 135 years. Judah then fell to Babylon. Babylon smashed Assyria and registered a decisive victory againsy Egypt in 605 at Carchemish. According to Babylonian Chronicle they left no survivors.
In Ezekiel 29:18 Nebuchadnezzar subdued Tyre

**Information from The MacArthur Bible Commentary

A reign of 3 months & 10 days is still a reign. Jeremiah's prophecy is invalidated, for the prophecy was that Jehoiakim would have no successor to the throne, not one who would reign temporarily. The prophecy must be fulfilled exactly as stated. Also, Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre as prophesied, though he tried & failed. Alexander the great destroyed Tyre but it was again rebuilt, & then destroyed again in A.D. 1291. Also, Egypt did not remain uninhabited for 40 years as prophesied, or for any amount of time in it's history for that matter, & there were rulers in Egypt for centuries after Nebuchadnezzar, & still are today. I don't go by what John MacArthur claims. I go by what proven history shows.

MoonlitWaves · Sep 23, 2007, 12:00 AM

Also God says after the 40 years he would bring the Egyptians back from where they were scattered and it would be a base kingdom. It will be the basest of kingdoms and won't be above the nations as it once was.
Quoting from The MacArthur Bible Commentary...
Ezekiel 29:13-16 Egypt eventually regained normalcy, but never again reached the pinnacle of international prominence she once enjoyed.

deist · Sep 23, 2007, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by MoonlitWaves

Also God says after the 40 years he would bring the Egyptians back from where they were scattered and it would be a base kingdom. It will be the basest of kingdoms and won't be above the nations as it once was.
Quoting from The MacArthur Bible Commentary...
Ezekiel 29:13-16 Egypt eventually regained normalcy, but never again reached the pinnacle of international prominence she once enjoyed.

You're missing the point. I don't know if you're doing it on purpose or you're really unable to see the truth. Egypt was never, never, uninhabited for 40 years as the prophecy stated. And there has always been a ruler in Egypt whether it became a base kingdom or not. The prophecy was that there would be no more (no more means never again) ruler in Egypt. One more time... the prophecy must be fulfilled exactly as prophesied in order for it to be validated. It fails the test of true prophecy.

MoonlitWaves · Sep 23, 2007, 12:32 AM

(quoted from you) Also, Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre as prophesied, though he tried & failed.

Did you even read Ezk 29:18?

(quoted from you) A reign of 3 months & 10 days is still a reign. Jeremiah's prophecy is invalidated, for the prophecy was that Jehoiakim would have no successor to the throne, not one who would reign temporarily.

Ezekiel uses symbolic language. So did Isaiah and Jeremiah.
It's like having only 10 bucks to your name and you have to use it for gas. Someone ask to borrow money and you say you have none. You do have 10 dollars but to you, you don't because you need gas.
Jeconiah did succeed his father but to Jeremiah it was not a rule because it was short and menial.
You truly are nitpicking.

(Quoted from you) I don't go by what John MacArthur claims. I go by what proven history shows.

Seeing as how you weren't there to see for yourself, I can safely deduce that you gained your information from reading or what have you. Who's to say your information is any more accurate the information John MacArthur gained his information from?

deist · Sep 23, 2007, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by MoonlitWaves

(quoted from you) Also, Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre as prophesied, though he tried & failed.

Did you even read Ezk 29:18?

(quoted from you) A reign of 3 months & 10 days is still a reign. Jeremiah's prophecy is invalidated, for the prophecy was that Jehoiakim would have no successor to the throne, not one who would reign temporarily.

Ezekiel uses symbolic language. So did Isaiah and Jeremiah.
It's like having only 10 bucks to your name and you have to use it for gas. Someone ask to borrow money and you say you have none. You do have 10 dollars but to you, you don't because you need gas.
Jeconiah did succeed his father but to Jeremiah it was not a rule because it was short and menial.
You truly are nitpicking.

(Quoted from you) I don't go by what John MacArthur claims. I go by what proven history shows.

Seeing as how you weren't there to see for yourself, I can safely deduce that you gained your information from reading or what have you. Who's to say your information is any more accurate the the information John MacArthur gained his information from?

It is convenient to say that Ezekiel was using symbolic language, that way if something doesn't literally come to pass you have a way out of it. Also, the history I go by is verified history from many historical sources. Why should I take a biased christian's view such as MacArthur over verified history ? Are you saying all the bible prophecy scholars & the bible itself is wrong when they say the test of true prophecy is that they must be 100% accurate & must be fulfilled exactly as stated ? And just what parts are we to take symbolically ? Did the prophecy really refer to Nebuchadnezzar at all, or Egypt at all ? Saying it is symbolic is just a poor way to explain why it wasn't fulfilled literally.

MoonlitWaves · Sep 23, 2007, 01:21 AM

Where are you getting your verified history? What did you read that rebuked Egypt being uninhabited? I would like to read it. No you shouldn't take anyone's view just for the sake of taking it. Just as I shouldn't take yours just for the sake of taking it. I need and would like to study it. That's how we gain our knowledge and can compare.

Quoting you) Saying it is symbolic is just a poor way to explain why it wasn't fulfilled literally.

It's obvious that symbolic language was used whether you like the fact that they used it or not. It would probably be easier to understand if they didn't, but that's not the way they chose to do it. If it's not enough for you, then it's not enough for you. That's where faith comes in.

deist · Sep 23, 2007, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by MoonlitWaves

Where are you getting your verified history? What did you read that rebuked Egypt being uninhabited? I would like to read it. No you shouldn't take anyone's view just for the sake of taking it. Just as I shouldn't take yours just for the sake of taking it. I need and would like to study it. That's how we gain our knowledge and can compare.

Quoting you) Saying it is symbolic is just a poor way to explain why it wasn't fulfilled literally.

It's obvious that symbolic language was used whether you like the fact that they used it or not. It would probably be easier to understand if they didn't, but that's not the way they chose to do it. If it's not enough for you, then it's not enough for you. That's where faith comes in.

There are all kinds of historical sources on the internet & at your local library, I've researched both, & in none of them did I find reference to Egypt ever having been uninhabited for 40 years or for any amount of time. Also, according to prophecy scholars, a rule to interpreting bible prophecy is that if the literal sense makes no sense seek some other sense. If the literal sense makes good sense seek no other sense. Take the prophecies of Daniel & Revelation, they are clearly symbolic because of their fantastical nature. However, there is nothing fantastical about Ezekiel's prophecy regarding Egypt. Ezekiel meant for it to be taken literally. There are christians & bible scholars who admit the prophecy was not literally fulfilled. They claim it is to be fulfilled in the yet to be future. However, as I just pointed out, there is nothing fantastical about the prophecy. It was meant literally, the reference was to Nebuchadnezzar, not to some future leader of Babylon. It was meant for the Egypt of Ezekiel's time.

SarahMVA · Dec 1, 2008, 02:59 PM

deist,
I don't understand your point in all of this. If you have made your decision that the Bible is inaccurate based on your belief that this prophecy is unfullfilled. Then why ask the question? You have made up your mind, and it is obviously not going to be changed no matter what someone says, so why get on here and ask the question unless you are looking to get into a argument. I have not studied this area of prophecy, so I don't have an answer for you. But, I think if you are going to ask a question then you need to be more open to hearing people's answer's.

450donn · Dec 2, 2008, 07:31 AM

You have two choices.
Believe all of the bible and in the life/death/reserection of Jesus Christ or not. Your choice!

Galveston1 · Dec 2, 2008, 03:11 PM

So Deist accepts ancient history other than Bible as fact, and rejects ancient history that is Biblical.

We will all believe whichever account we want to. We have to since we were not there.

I am always amazed that non-believers accord absolute accuracy to profane history and none to Biblical history. Go figure!

Your whole point rests on Egypt not being inhabited. When Israel went into captivity to Babylon, it was considered complete, and YET, Nebuchadnezzar left the poorer people in their land.

We know that Babylon imported complete nations in order to build the empire. The Bible says that Egypt was one of them. I doubt you can prove otherwise.

Micah99 · Dec 29, 2009, 09:33 PM

If you asked if I had ten dollars and I needed it for gas and said no, I lied. So does the Bible. Everything is literal until proven not to be, then it's metaphorical. Everything is literally and straightforwardly true, until shown not to be, and you can explain it away. But each time, you retreat further from the truth. Well, go ahead. We'll take the truth and you can have your falsehoods.

arcura · Dec 30, 2009, 12:14 AM

The bible never was meant to be a history book.
It is the story of the people who believe in Yahwehism and others related to them in some way over a long period.
It is a religious text, not history, or science or something else.
It also contains much that of figurative and/or symbolic ro both.
I have not studied those particular prophesies and related history and a present am not going to take the time to do so though I do find what was said to be of interest.
Perhaps later I'll take a look.
I am not motivated to attempt to prove the bible to someone who has shown to have his/her mine already made up on the so called accuracy of Holy Scripture.
If a person had demonstrated that the have an open mind then that is a different picture to work with.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

UppsalaDragby · Jul 24, 2010, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by deist

Ezek.26:14 prophesied that it would be Nubuchadnezzar who destroyed Tyre, but he failed. Tyre wasn't destroyed until 1700 years later in A.D. 1291. Remember, the prophecy must be fulfilled exactly as stated. It said Nebuchadnezzar would destroy it. He didn't. Also, you did not explain how Ezekiel's prophecy regarding Egypt failed to be fulfilled, or Jeremiah's prophecy regarding Jehoiakim. Why did you avoid dealing with them ?

The Bible does NOT say that Nebuchadnezzar alone would demolish Tyre. This is a false assumption. On the contrary, it says that “many nations” would do so in “waves” (see v. 3). If these verses were all referring to Nebuchadnezzar then how on earth could the prophecy EVER be fulfilled?

Nebuchadnezzar’s attack was the first wave and was confined to “THE MAINLAND” settlements (v. 8). Notice that he came with horses and chariots (v. 10), not ships!

In order to understand scripture you need to take into consideration the fact that the original hebrew text had neither punctuation marks nor paragraphs, which in this case makes it necessary to pay closer attention to what pronouns are used. In verse 11 there is a switch from “he” to “they”. “They” refers to many nations, not Nebuchadnezzar, otherwise the text would continue to use the pronoun “he”.

Also, the original city of Tyre was thrown into the sea by Alexander the great, just as the prophecy declared. The modern day Tyre is NOT a “rebuilt Tyre”. The old city was demolished and is submerged and it’s original location cannot be found.

materialgirl · Apr 10, 2011, 07:15 AM

"It's obvious that symbolic language was used whether you like the fact that they used it or not. It would probably be easier to understand if they didn't, but that's not the way they chose to do it. If it's not enough for you, then it's not enough for you. That's where faith comes in."

Ahhh good old faith! Facepalm* of course. That's all we need! :)

materialgirl · Apr 10, 2011, 07:18 AM

Lol

materialgirl · Apr 10, 2011, 07:37 AM

@ deist don't waste your breathe. You are clearly never going to win.. I'd say take your reasoning and logic with you and run with it otherwise you'll just wear yourself out. You're clearly in " the christian zone" now. It'll be easier to wrestle a bone out of a pack of rabid dogs' mouths than it would be to convince these people. I agree with arcura. We av all been programmed to believe that there is only one way out of eternal punishment.
Christians have been programmed to believe that the bible is absolute truth and infallible and they base most of this on faith and their explanations of biblical scriptures based on "infallible history". "unbelievers" and "believers" can never agree. To the christian the bible is like 5 star restaurant food in a desert -AMAZING or even disney-land full of free rides (ALSO AMAZING) just like the koran is the true word for muslims.

Just live your life, be happy, help your fellow human beings, help the poorer 3rd world communities, love life, have an open mind, don't be a slave for the machine, form friendships, stop global warming, and you're done. Or believe in jesus.. and be saved..