Reasonable "proof" that the Bible is accurate.

[Dezran]

In my science book, I read something on the first Biblical prophecy, it came from Ezekiel, chapter 26, verses 3-21
...Therefore, thus says the Lord God,"Behold I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her bare rock. She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken...Also her daughters on the mainland will be slain by the sword...I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon...He will slay your duaghters on the mainland by the sword;and he will make siege walls against you...Also, they will make a spoil of your riches...and throw stones and your timbers and your debris into the water...And I will make you bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more"

This prophecy came true to the letter! Tyre had been one of the greatest cities in the ancient world! Ezekiel's prophecy went against common sense of the day. Had he been trying to make his prophecy up and actually have it come true, he most likely would have tried to predict the fall of a city which was a little weaker than the fortress of Tyre! Nebuchadnadnezzar, king of Babylon, laid siege to Tyre(this is in the history books) he destroyed the mainland city, but was unable to effectively attack the island city. As a result, he simply ladi a 13-year siege, stopping all supplies from entering the island city. This pressure forced Tyre to accept Babylonian rule, but the island city remained intact. These historical facts are in perfect agreement with the predictions of Ezekiel. The prophecy says that many nations, not just Nebuchadnezzar, would stand against Tyre. It states that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city, it says that "they" will throw Tyre's stones and timbers into the sea. In using the pronoun "they" instead of "he", the prophecy makes the distinction between Nebuchadnezzar and the others that will stand against Tyre. Thus, the pronoun "they" does not refer to Nebuchadnezzar; it refers to the other leaders which will try to destroy Tyre. As history tells us, other leaders did, indeed, lead a march against Tyre.
Alexander the Great demanded that Tyre allow him to occupy the island city. The King of Tyre was willing to let Alexander have power over Tyre, but was unwilling to let him and his army occupy the city. Alexander was then forced to attack Tyre in order to gain full control over her strtegic location. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Alexander had no fleet with which to attack the city of Tyre, so he hcompletely destroyed the mainland city and dumped all of its debris into the ocean. There was so much rubble and debris that Alexander was able to construct a 200-ft wide bridge from the mainland city to the island city, making it possible for his armyto march straight to Tyre and conquer it.
The "bridge" that Alexander constructed was predicted by Ezekiel almost 250 years before it was built! His prophecy specifically states that Tyre's debries would be thrown into the ocean by someone other than Nebuchadnezzar, and that's exactly what happened!

According to historian, Nina Jidejian, "The port of Tyre has become a haven today for fishing boats and a place for spreading nets."


(I got my information from Exploring Creation with General Science, by Dr. Jay L. Wile)

[Dermezel]

Or maybe they wrote about it after it was done....

[Dezran]

Dermezel

Or maybe they wrote about it after it was done....

The Old Testament was written no later than 2250 B.C., because the Greek Septuagint, a copy of the entire Old Testament, was initiated with the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphius(285-246 B.C.) This is a historical fact. So we know that the Old Testament, in its entirety existed by 250 B.C., the generally accepted time of writing Ezekiel was 592-570 B.C.. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre through 585-587, and Alexander attacked in 333 B.C.

[Mugetsu Ookamiza]

Dermezel

Or maybe they wrote about it after it was done....

or edited that area after the fact.

[Magnum Large Condom]

I always thought Ezekial was in the NT. Strange. I'm rusty. It gets too confusing. One reason I don't believe in it. It's been changed so much over the course of history.

[Dezran]

We know for a fact that the entire Old Testament was copied less than 100 years after Alexander's battle against Tyre. It's very unlikely that a document which was so revered could be altered so significantly taht the altered version could become generally accepted in less than a century.

[Dermezel]

Dezran

Dermezel

Or maybe they wrote about it after it was done....

The Old Testament was written no later than 2250 B.C., because the Greek Septuagint, a copy of the entire Old Testament, was initiated with the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphius(285-246 B.C.) This is a historical fact. So we know that the Old Testament, in its entirety existed by 250 B.C., the generally accepted time of writing Ezekiel was 592-570 B.C.. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre through 585-587, and Alexander attacked in 333 B.C.

Proof? Also many note it could have been edited after the fact as well. You should know we don't have an original copy of the "Old Testament".

[Mugetsu Ookamiza]

Dezran

We know for a fact that the entire Old Testament was copied less than 100 years after Alexander's battle against Tyre. It's very unlikely that a document which was so revered could be altered so significantly taht the altered version could become generally accepted in less than a century.

dude, the Bible has been edited many times, and in the old days it was written in a language the common person couldn't read and they had to rely on what the priests told them it said instead of reading it themselves. they could alter it all they wanted and the common man wouldn't have a clue.

[Magnum Large Condom]

There have been many, many adaptations of both the OT and the NT.

[Dermezel]

Dezran

We know for a fact that the entire Old Testament was copied less than 100 years after Alexander's battle against Tyre. It's very unlikely that a document which was so revered could be altered so significantly taht the altered version could become generally accepted in less than a century.

Nonsense, how do you know a revered document cannot be altered? The KJV Bible is different then others, and that was long after those books had been around a while. The fact is over thousands of years any document is likely to be altered, no matter how "revered". In fact if they revere it enough and want it to be true bad enough they may alter it just for that reason.

[Whom]

Assuming that the information you provide is accurate (which is doubtful if it came from a creation "science" textbook) that prophecy came true because it was based on observation and probability, just like cold reading is done.

None of these predictions were certainties, but they were certainly far from impossibilities, and the prophesy was vague. The sense of wonder that you attached suggests that Ezekiel knew absolutely nothing of the politics, geography, and military strategy of the time, which is almost certainly a false assumption. If Nebuchadnezzar was an enemy to the city of Tyre, and was powerful enough to seige it, it was obvious that he would do so. He also leaves no timeframe, so it would naturally happen eventually.

As for the mention of the debris going in the water: where else would it have gone?

And as for your statement about the nets, I don't think that it was even intended as a prediction. If it's the site of a prosperous city that is near a source of water, it will certainly be used as a fishing site by later civilizations after it is wiped out.

Also, there is another thing about prophesy: Generally, you only hear about the ones that turn out to be historically accurate. Given the volume of predictions that would-be prophets have made, and the vagueness with which they make them, many of them will come true by shear chance, and open interpretation can make them seem like every little detail fits.

[Dezran]

Quote:

As for the mention of the debris going in the water: where else would it have gone?

"She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken"
Just as the Bible said, it happened. Exactly as it was prophecied!

Quote:

She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken

This was written 250 something years BEFORE the events occured.

Quote:

Assuming that the information you provide is accurate (which is doubtful if it came from a creation "science" textbook)

Why wouldn't it be accurate? Just because it's based on a creationist view, doesn't mean it's going to be lying about scientific method and how a hypothesis turns into a theory!

[Psilan]

Dezran

In my science book, I read something on the first Biblical prophecy, it came from Ezekiel, chapter 26, verses 3-21

-snip snip-

Yeah? So? That the Bible contains a true prophecy does not imply or suggest that the rest of it is necessarilly also true.

[Yinda Ansel]

Exerpt from AMG's Encyclopedia of Bible Facts

"The existence of the unique manuscript evidence of the New Testament confirms it's reliability. The accurate transmission of the Bible is supported by more and better manuscripts than any other ancient piece of literature.

"The works of several ancient authors are preserved to us by the thinnest possible thread of transmission. In contrast the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material."
Bruce Metzger, Princeton professor, and leading biblical text critic

"To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament Books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament."
John Warwick Montgomery

"Jews preserved it as no other manuscript has ever been preserved. With their massora (parva, magna, and finalis) they kept tabs on every letter, syllable, word and paragraph. They had special classes of men within their culture whose sole duty was to preserve and tansmit these documents with practically perfect fidelity - scribes, lawyers, massoretes. Who ever counted the letters and syllables and words of Plato or Aristotle? Cicero or Seneca?"
Bernard Ramm, speaking on the accuracy and number of biblical manuscripts

Like any other ancient book transmitted through a number of handwritten manuscripts, the question to ask about the biblical manuscripts is: How confident can we be that our present day Bibles resemble the original autographs?

"Although 250-300 years sounds like a long time from the writing of the original to the date of the first copy we have, the normal time for Greek classical writers is 1000 years from the original to our first copy."
F.W. Hall, expert on ancient manuscripts

"If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must declare it marvelously exact."
Benjamin Warfield

"The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text than comparable ancient writings."
Norman Geisler

[LadyTL87]

i retract my statement i misread the post