Where did it say that?
We are talking about what actually happened vs what is said should have happened.
You need to read what it actually says, you need to see what actually happened. The prophecy never came true.
Ezekiel 30:10-11
Did not put an end to the hordes of Egypt, did not destroy the land, thus prophecy failed.
Ahhh... hanging on to the tiniest of threads, are we.
That link specifically stated Nebuchadnezzar never defeated Egypt, which is the breadth of that "failed prophecy", and was proven false by history. Destroying the land wasn't something the link was contending.
And now you're gonna find other details to nitpick at to look "right". I can see this will end up going nowhere.
I don't even need the link. The prophecy specifically states 'destroy the land'. Egypt is STILL HERE. Nobody destroyed it, yet. And unless someone names a nuclear warhead Nebuchadnezzar, I don't see it happening.
But, go ahead and try and pretend it happened. Whatever helps you sleep at night I suppose.
Now, I get it. You think it was referring to permanent destruction. Firstly, it did not say Egypt would lay desolate forever.... and just so you know, cities have been destroyed and rebuilt, like Jerusalem in the Bible.... so you're assuming it was speaking about permanent destruction.
LOL
It didn't say Egypt would not be rebuilt either, did it?
This little detail you placed there yourself, is the reason why you say the prophecy failed.
And all this time, I thought I was missing something.
Did he destroy Egypt? He drove them back, but never destroyed anything resembling Egypt. So, if you have information he razed Egypt, please do share.
You guys initiated the claim Egypt was not destroyed -- the burden is on you to prove it.
You clearly read the prophecy as speaking about permanent destruction, which it didn't say. Secondly, history disproved the part of the link that stated Nebuchadnezzar only invaded Egypt ONE TIME and was defeated.
You're 0-2 now.
Lastly, it's up to the claimant (you) to show Egypt was never destroyed during that defeat at the hands of Babylon. No conspiracies, but evidence.
Um, no. I can easily prove Egypt was never destroyed. It is still there. I can go there today. It is up to YOU, the believer of the prophecy, to show Nebuchannezzar invaded and destroyed Egypt and it was rebuilt. Because, from what I can see, it wasn't. The prophecy YOU believe in is false.
I can't even find where he INVADED Egypt, let alone destroyed it. From what I can find, it was near modern day Syria he drove the Egyptians out of.
You continuously try and pass the burden of miraculous claims onto others. "Since you can't prove this untestable theory, it is obviously right" is a rather stupid stance to take. You have also, multiple times, claimed to have done 'critical research' on the validity of the Bible and it's claim, yet have offered none of that knowledge except "If you believe it God, it is easy to believe in the Bible!"
You are claiming the prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar is not false correct? Well, it states he destroys the land, referring to Egypt. Egypt was not destroyed in any recorded history I can find. It was annexed by Rome and eventually conquered by the Islamic empire.What? I didn't come into this thread talking about prophecies that failed.
Whoever makes that claim has to back it.
Secondly, I never claimed Egypt was invaded or destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar -- that link spoke about a failed invasion, the Bible didn't say it was invaded by him, but that he defeated the army.
Thirdly, I was responding to your point that since Egypt still stands, that means it wasn't ever destroyed.
The twin towers stand, does that mean they were never destroyed?
Are you even reasoning on what you say?
Well, it states he destroys the land, referring to Egypt. Egypt was not destroyed in any recorded history I can find. It was annexed by Rome and eventually conquered by the Islamic empire.
You are claiming the prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar is not false correct?
So, unless you have proof to the contrary, the prophecy regarding ol' Neb and destroying the land of Egypt is a big false.
What? I didn't come into this thread talking about prophecies that failed.
Whoever makes that claim has to back it.
Secondly, I never claimed Egypt was invaded or destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar -- that link spoke about a failed invasion, the Bible didn't say it was invaded by him, but that he defeated the army.
Thirdly, I was responding to your point that since Egypt still stands, that means it wasn't ever destroyed.
The twin towers stand, does that mean they were never destroyed?
Are you even reasoning on what you say?
edit: or the tower in place of the fallen
towers, my bad.
I don't disagree, personally, but my point was that if you allow for the existence of some inscrutable "ultimate good" which has unlimited justification power, then you cannot trust that your own judgements are accurate. How do you know that the killing of millions of people didn't serve that "ultimate good"? And if you admit that it may, then you cannot be sure that it is really evil.
This is correct. Justifying evil acts based on the 'outcome' of said evil acts is an ethically bankrupt argument. If you say "the ultimate arbiter of GOOD, GOD HIMSELF" said to do the evil thing, then your God is evil too.I don't disagree, personally, but my point was that if you allow for the existence of some inscrutable "ultimate good" which has unlimited justification power, then you cannot trust that your own judgements are accurate. How do you know that the killing of millions of people didn't serve that "ultimate good"? And if you admit that it may, then you cannot be sure that it is really evil.
If you can honestly say that about this example I quoted then we are so different that I will ever reach you, and I can only hope that your ideas never reach anyone else. This is literally the end of any discussion that we can have about ethics; I apologize.Good and evil isn't something that is just black and white. It is entirely dependent on the viewpoint of the person classifying it.A man pleasuring himself with a 18 month old baby is evil
This is correct. Justifying evil acts based on the 'outcome' of said evil acts is an ethically bankrupt argument. If you say "the ultimate arbiter of GOOD, GOD HIMSELF" said to do the evil thing, then your God is evil too.
If you can honestly say that about this example I quoted then we are so different that I will ever reach you, and I can only hope that your ideas never reach anyone else. This is literally the end of any discussion that we can have about ethics; I apologize.
There is objective evil: intentionally hurting others to selfishly advance your lusts. This is the only definition of 'sin' I can find the the bible, and I think it's the right one. If you agree with hurting others to selfishly advance your own lusts then you are anti-human-species. Not to say that all of us don't do this to some degree; but to say that if you've decided this is the right way to do things, then you're morally lost.
I felt compelled to note that these conditions are problematic for those that hold good and evil to be objective, and I will address our divergence on that issue below.This is correct. Justifying evil acts based on the 'outcome' of said evil acts is an ethically bankrupt argument. If you say "the ultimate arbiter of GOOD, GOD HIMSELF" said to do the evil thing, then your God is evil too.
I think it is a mistake to outright dismiss a person that can intellectually acknowledge the subjectivity of good and evil, because it does not mean that you and he could not still commiserate with any given moral circumstance.If you can honestly say that about this example I quoted then we are so different that I will ever reach you, and I can only hope that your ideas never reach anyone else. This is literally the end of any discussion that we can have about ethics; I apologize.
I don't agree that there exists objective evil, and it seems to me your argument by extreme example is akin to arguing that there's no such thing as infinity because nobody has ever counted to infinity.There is objective evil: intentionally hurting others to selfishly advance your lusts.
Interesting thought.I think there's a differentiation to make here. There are evil acts but there are not evil people.
:hmm: I'll accept this point and (happily) retract my dismissal of H-Baby because I think you're right about this:I think it is a mistake to outright dismiss a person that can intellectually acknowledge the subjectivity of good and evil, because it does not mean that you and he could not still commiserate with any given moral circumstance.
This distinction though does not, I think, mandate that we dismiss absolute evil.Moreover, it's important to distinguish between absolute evil and objective evil.
That said hurting others in order to to serve your lust or pride is the kind of evil that no word game might eliminate, but that many an evil man works around often by appealing to a 'final good', I simply can't see any word game rationally covering up the molestation I indicated. It may be 'final good' justified; but to make it a good doesn't make sense to me."Hurting others" is bad by definition, not by fact of reality
No, my comments were not intended to imply that.This distinction though does not, I think, mandate that we dismiss absolute evil.
I agree.That said hurting others in order to to serve your lust or pride is the kind of evil that no word game might eliminate, but that many an evil man works around often by appealing to a 'final good', I simply can't see any word game rationally covering up the molestation I indicated. It may be 'final good' justified; but to make it a good doesn't make sense to me.
I don't mean to suggest, strictly, that "evil" is just a word, and that without words we'd lack evil. Evil and good are feelings. We'd still have those feelings even if we had no words to symbolize them. Feelings are real -- they are just subjective, not objective.Language and the action of engaging of a word-world are what make us human. I can imagine a world where we have no language and thus we have no evil; but once we start abstracting acts in a social-way it seems we fundamentally necessitate the concept of evil and good, no matter how we formulate the word-game.
I would say that there are objective circumstances which humans regard as evil, but it does not make sense to say that those circumstances are evil unto themselves. Objectvely, they simply exist. Evil and good are evaluations of those circumstances that are made by valuers.And it seems a constant anthropological phenomenon, and an intuitive one if we take human material conditions as a reality that co-creates our social-reality, that there is evil objectively situated in the human condition.
You guys initiated the claim Egypt was not destroyed -- the burden is on you to prove it.
You clearly read the prophecy as speaking about permanent destruction, which it didn't say. Secondly, history disproved the part of the link that stated Nebuchadnezzar only invaded Egypt ONE TIME and was defeated.
You're 0-2 now.
Lastly, it's up to the claimant (you) to show Egypt was never destroyed during that defeat at the hands of Babylon. No conspiracies, but evidence.
Uh, Egypt is still on the map. Serious question, are you trolling?
YOU are the one making the positive claim that prediction is true. The burden of proof rests on YOUR shoulders to show that it is true. It is not our burden to disprove your claim. Destroyed means destroyed. Removed. Gone. Done. No longer existing. Destroyed doesn't mean sacked once. You're changing the meaning of words, injecting subjective bullshit in a desperate attempt to support a bullshit claim.
Widespread Destruction
The collapse of the two towers had brought on the destruction of the five other buildings in the Trade Center complex, including Number 7, a 47-story tower that fell at 5:20pm, after burning for most of the day.
Rapid Rebuilding
Within weeks, work began on the replacement or restoration of many of these essential systems. Within a year, the subway tunnel had been rebuilt, and service restored,
Because it was gone. Destroyed. Dust. Egypt is still there. Sacking one city doesn't mean the country or the people are destroyed.
Destroying Egypt means destroying every city. Destroying their way of life. Destroying everyone who calls themselves Egyptian.
Ooooo some buildings got blowed up and some people got bonked on the head, LOOK AT EGYPT COMPLETELY DESTROYED
....that's like saying that the USA was destroyed because WTC towers were downed.
You were owned...and now you're trying to save face.
Your intellectual dishonesty is on full display.... take it easy.
Except there is no evidence that they at any point destroyed Egypt, or put an end to the hordes of Egypt.
You were owned...and now you're trying to save face.
Your intellectual dishonesty is on full display.... take it easy.
Except there is no evidence that they at any point destroyed Egypt, or put an end to the hordes of Egypt.