Fulfilled prophesy convincing evidence of Bible's authorship

[McCulloch]

JehovahsWitness claims that the contents of the bible present convincing evidence of its Divine origin. The third reason of three given is that it records history before it has happened.

Questions for debate:

1. Is the Bible a reliable predictor of future events?
2. Have any of the Biblical prophesies failed?
3. Is fulfilled prophesy convincing evidence of the Bible's divine authorship?

QUESTION How do we know the bible (canon) is the word of God?

The contents of the bible present convincing evidence of its Divine origin.

#3 It records history before it has happened. The bible records historical dtails and events long before (in some cases hundreds of years) before they happened. This presents its most convincing evidence of Divine authorship since humans do not have the ability to see into the future.

CONCLUSION: The contents of the bible, its historical and scientific accuracy, its prophetic detail, as well as the practical benefits millions have drawn from applying its principles, convinces many that it is not just an exceptional book but, is what it claims to be, "the word of God".

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 6 by rikuoamero]

Did I say that...hmm...

how about reading it again?

Question from McCulloch
Is the Bible a reliable predictor of future events?

Liam's response
I don't know, hasn't happened yet.


My interpretation
Liam doesn't know of (any) prophecies within the Bible, and as far as he is aware of or concerned, accurate/reliable Bible prophesying has not happened yet.

[McCulloch]

Have any of the Biblical prophesies failed?

I dont know any.

I'll give you two from Ezekiel.

In chapter 26 to 28, Ezekiel predicted the total and permanent destruction of the city of Tyre. Today, you can travel to Tyre as Paul did as recorded in Acts 21.

In chapter 29, Ezekiel predicted a forty year devastation and depopulation of Egypt at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. Egypt has never had a forty year devastation. Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt.

[1213]

In chapter 26 to 28, Ezekiel predicted the total and permanent destruction of the city of Tyre. Today, you can travel to Tyre as Paul did as recorded in Acts 21.

Tyre seems to mean the coastal area near old city of Tyre that is still ruins, at least if we look at these pictures:
https://www.google.fi/search?q=ancient+ ... 66&bih=809

If modern people call some other place with same name than old city, it has really nothing to do with the fulfilled prophesy.

In chapter 29, Ezekiel predicted a forty year devastation and depopulation of Egypt at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. Egypt has never had a forty year devastation. Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt.

Bible says:
Therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
Eze. 29:19

It doesnt claim Egypt will be conquered, it says it will be robbed.

And about the desolation:
therefore, behold, I am against you, and against your rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt an utter waste and desolation, from the tower of Seveneh even to the border of Ethiopia
I will make the land of Egypt a desolation in the midst of the countries that are desolate; and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be a desolation forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.
Eze. 29:10,12

Do you know what is the tower of Seveneh?

How do you know that Egyptians were not scattered 40 years?

[JehovahsWitness]

In chapter 26 to 28, Ezekiel predicted the total and permanent destruction of the city of Tyre. Today, you can travel to Tyre as Paul did as recorded in Acts 21.

Did the bible wrongly predict the permenent destruction of the city of Tyre? [Ezekiel 26:14]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 428#824428

In chapter 29, Ezekiel predicted a forty year devastation and depopulation of Egypt at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar.

Did the bible predict permanent destruction following the Babylonian conflict?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 896#868896

In chapter 29, Ezekiel predicted a forty year devastation and depopulation of Egypt [...] Egypt has never had a forty year devastation. Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt.

Was Egypt ever subject to 40 years of desolation? [Ezekiel 29:9-11]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 431#824431

[Kenisaw]

In chapter 26 to 28, Ezekiel predicted the total and permanent destruction of the city of Tyre. Today, you can travel to Tyre as Paul did as recorded in Acts 21.

Did the bible wrongly predict the permenent destruction of the city of Tyre? [Ezekiel 26:14]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 428#824428

I find your claim at the link above to be in serious error. In Ezekiel 26 it specifically claims that the Babylonians were going to be the ones to destroy Tyre.
They besieged it for 13 years (586 BC-573 BC) but never took the city. Tyre was conquered by the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BC and became a vassal state along with other major Phoenician cities (except Carthage). It stopped being a Phoenician city at that point. Then Alexander destroyed it in 332 BC, using the stones and timber from the old city (now called Ushu) to build a causeway to reach the island city as per Ezekiel 26:12 (even though Ezekiel 26 says Nebuchadrezzar was going to throw that party). Some of the people of Tyre went to Carthage. The Seuclids rebuilt Tyre, then it was destroyed again, then it was rebuilt and even became independent for a while, until the Romans came in 64 BC.

Your claim is not supported by history...

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]

Which verse are you referring to? Ezekiel 26:14 doesn't even contain the word Babylonians.

Your claim is not supported by history...

Which claim would that be?


JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]

Which verse are you referring to? Ezekiel 26:14 doesn't even contain the word Babylonians.

Your claim is not supported by history...

Which claim would that be?


JW

You're correct, the word Babylonians is not in verse 14. However if one scrolls up the page to verse 7, one finds the following
For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army.
Either you yourself are unfamiliar with the chapter you have publicly claimed was a prophecy that came to pass...or you are being disingenuous to readers in trying to make it out as if Ezekiel 26 does NOT 'predict' that it is Nebuchadnezzar who is supposed to destroy Tyre.
Even if we ignore entirely the identity of Tyre's supposed destroyer, the fact that several times throughout the chapter mention is made of Tyre being destroyed for all time, in many different ways and yet it still exists, with about 174,000 people at last count no less, shows that the Bible contains at least one thing that was claimed to have/or will occur and yet didn't.

[cnearing]

So, Tyre is an obvious example of a failed biblical prophecy (Nebuchadnezzar never razed nor sacked Tyre, and Tyre still stands, populated, today, contrary to the prophecy) but I don't doubt we could find others.

[cnearing]

Note, too, that the preserve archaelogical ruins of Tyre do not represent nearly the entire ancient city, and that they are surrounded by a populated metropolitan area of modern Tyre. Though the island of Tyre is now attached to the mainland, courtesy of Alexander's man-made land-bridge, it remains populated.

No question that that biblical prophecy failed on every front.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 15 by Kenisaw]

Which verse are you referring to? Ezekiel 26:14 doesn't even contain the word Babylonians.

26:7 mentions "Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon". I thought you knew your Bible better than that. That is who the god creature promises to "bring upon Tyrus"...

Your claim is not supported by history...

Which claim would that be?


JW

From my post #15, the first sentence reads: "I find your claim at the link above to be in serious error."...