This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bible prophecy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article currently states "Jeremiah prophesies that Jehoiakim will have no successor to the throne. His son Jehoiachin succeeded him at the age of eighteen reigned three months before being taken captive along with his mother, wives, servants, princes, and officers. However, the supporting reference to 2 Kings 24:6 contains no prophecy that Jehoiakim will have no successor, and I can't find any such prophecy on a concordance search. I'm going to remove this whole bullet point; if someone finds supporting evidence please put it back with a supporting reference. Nathan Cole
I can only assume it is an error. The curse is for descendants of Jehoiachin (hence the kingship passes to his uncle) ( Philosophystephen ( talk) 07:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC))
would be nice to see the following information added: hermeneutics and prophecy as well as a link to biblical hermeneutics examples of biblical prophecy with different opinions on each examples interpretations more information regarding dating specific books of the bible (for example, as well as for daniel, it is important for christians that the gospels be dated before the destruction of the second temple) information on the critics claim that the bible has been falsified addition of more diverse theological and rationalist views of prophecy which branches of christianity today believe that prophecy still occurs within the church and which branches believe that prophecy ended at the destruction of the temple? how do the churches practicing prophecy, organize and deal with their prophets and prophecy?
though I dont totally agree with the npov nomination, I think that adding information on the differences between judaic and christian interpretations of key verses would help...an example is, I believe, Psalms 22. Christians often say these verses are about the messiah, Judaism however does not believe this. Also when discussing specific verses, please discuss translation issues.
A new section has been included to help settle the matter on biblical dating. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ideology guarantees interpretation that coincides with the identity of a denomination. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think if one complains about NPOV they should state why in the talksection. It is just common courtesy and shows you are serious.
Radical man 7 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I could have added a lot more resources on the pro-Bible side.
For example:
BIBLE PROPHETS VERSUS NON-BIBLE MEDIUMS/PSYCHICS
Brookside Church in Ohio states the following regarding the Bible's laws regarding prophets and the accuracy of modern day psychics as reported by a recent study:
"A true prophet is correct 100% of the time. A test of a prophet was whether they prophesied an event that did not come to pass. Prophets whose predictions failed to come to pass were stoned [It should be said that some prophecies were conditional. For example, if a certain people did not repent then they would suffer judgement.] Some prophecies w. People would think twice before revealing any kind of prophecy. Yet the Bible contains more prophecy about Jesus than any other book on any other founder of ancient religion.
Today there are people who claim to have psychic power. In 1975, The People's Almanac did a study of 25 of the best psychics. Out of 72 predictions, 66 (92%) were totally wrong. The remaining 8% could be explained away."
Taken from the following website: http://www.brooksidechurch.com/etw/jc7.htm
Also:
GENERAL ARTICLE: PROPHECY AS A DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE
http://www.equip.org/free/DA151.htm
SOME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE
http://www.100prophecies.org/default.htm]
MESSIANIC PROPHECY FULFILLED IN JESUS
http://www.messianic-prophecy.net/
ken 23:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
If nobody gives a reason why the POV tag was placed and nobody complains about its removal I think it should be removed
16:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Actually it was a POV-check tag, not a POV tag. There is a substantial difference. POV check is a request that the article be peer-reviewed for POV because at first glance it looks like it could be POV. See Wikipedia:POV check ~~~~ 17:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I am new. Thank you for the clarification.
ken 15:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
MORE INFORMATION
it would be nice if someone included information from judaic ideas and words for prophecy (multiple words with different meanings), the christian church often uses the word "prophecy" in the sense of the future, where as biblical this is not always the case with the idea of prophecy [[Dan
I covered the foretelling verses not foretelling already.
I wrote:
"Those who hold to the doctrine of Biblical inspiration hold that the God of the Bible spoke through the Biblical prophets in order to provide moral teaching, guidance, comfort, warning, or to foretell important events.
ken 02:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I believe that the bible code section should get its own subsection. Also how about someone making subsections for some of the books of the bible, discussing different views of the propechy in each individual book. The new sections added should help settle this matter. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[DanteDanti]
a link to the Wikipedia Book of Daniel article will reveal that not only Porphyry but many modern scholars believe that chapters 7-11 were all written after the desecration of the Temple in 168.BCE by Antiochus. - Indeed, a lot of scholars believe the whole book was written at this time, possibly incorporating earlier stories in chapters 1-6. And a link to the article on Apocalyptic literature tells us that The Book of Daniel is "a fully matured and classic example of this genre of literature." 82.38.88.156 23:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)David Goss
This debate is included in one of the new sections added. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
1) I am unsure of how I feel about the opening sentence to this article, but I want to think about that more, maybe some of you can think about it too. There is just something wrong with it and I cant put my finger on it. 2) I'm going to clean up some not so good word usage that is unnecessary or vague. and also do some grammatical checks. 3) In my opinion, the sentence on biblical heremeneutics is not accurate. I'm going to posts something on the biblical hermeneutics page also. I might reword that sentence later. Thanks Dantedanti 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
A new methodology and perspective is shown in the sections just added, hopefully these should help settle this matter. Radical man 7 18:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I get annoyed by people who say the Bible points to the European Union as the new Roman Empire but two points have just struck me and I was wondering if anyone can shed light on them:
The emphasis on Rome totally misses the point. The role of the four empires is to confirm the decription of the age of the Gentiles which only appears in Daniel. The age of the Gentiles is the conceptual framework for the last days. The idea of confirming messages is present in the many repeated themes within the prophets. There are situations where the theme and message of one prophet confirms the ministry of another. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Roughly one quarter of Bible verses are regarded to have some form of prophecy? This is unsourced and probably nonsense--I'm replacing it with "many" or "several" or some other unspecific word until a source appears, okay? Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Sweatin out the use of microsoft excel should be able to verify the claim. One problem will be that of establishing a functional criteria for choosing texts. Radical man 7 18:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The suggested article merge seems like a bad idea to me. It would tend to make this article pov since the other article is clearly pov and is even stated as such. Mystylplx 16:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The bible is multi-themed, each theme is revealed, described and dealt with in revelations. The themes are addressed starting from Genesis through Revelations. Looking at this perspective makes the need for the different disciplines unnecessary, the revelation is one. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
NPOV dispute: I don't see the point in removing the entire article under the subheading "Modern Perspectives by non evangelicals" due to the claim it was a POV article. The entire subsection has been removed with it now. To remove the entire sub section is to make the entire Wikpedia page a POV from the Evangelical perspective. The article conformed to the subheading and referenced a major non evangelical site as one example of the perspective in question. After all, the subheading is (was) seeking for a perspective from the non evangelical POV. It was for anybody to read and come to their own conclusion. Removing the entire sub section can be construed as a Wikpedian merely not approving of the perspective.
(erroneously added to top of talk page and unsigned - moved from top of talk page to here by Clinkophonist)
"Another example, would be that Arthur C. Custance (weblink) maintained that the Ezekiel Tyre prophecy (Ezek. 26: 1-11; 29:17-20) was very remarkable. On the other hand, scholar Gustave Holscher maintained that certain passages of the book of Ezekiel were not written by a pre-Exilic prophet of Israel but were later added in the Persian period."
This is rather misleading. It gives the impression that there IS an apparent "fulfilled prophecy" here, which (for a skeptic) would require an explanation such as "written later". But actually the failure of the Tyre prophecy seems readily apparent (Tyre does still exist, after all: contrary to the prophecy) and requires no such explanation. Indeed, I've seen it argued that Ezekiel must have been edited because the failure is so obvious (i.e. Ezekiel's enemies must have done it to discredit him). I haven't been able to find out whether this is Gustave Holscher's position. Otherwise, the evident failure is used by skeptics as evidence against the notion of after-the-event authorship, on the assumption that Ezekiel wouldn't have retrospectively written an already-failed prophecy. Tyre is moot, the reason that tyre is included is not as a prophecy, but a confirmation of other prophecies that describe cities, to include those described as women and revealed in the text related to the fall of babylon in revelations where, as in the case of tyre, describes the capitol of an empire and its international commerce. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, What's going on with "External Links"?
"Prophecy in the news currently - Fulfillment of end time prophecy taking place now". The title of the linked article is "Prophecy in the news currently": the additional comment "fulfillment of end time prophecy taking place now" appears to be a POV. At best, the word "Alleged... should be inserted.
Ditto with "Fulfilled Prophecy - Unfolding events prophesied in the book of Revelation." The phrase "Unfolding events prophesied..." appears to be unjustifiable.
"Messianic Prophecy: Messianic prophecy - Compelling predictions". The title of the article DOES include the phrase "Compelling predictions", but if the phrase is to be included, why not include it in the title of the link? As it stands, it gives the impression of a Wikipedia endorsement.
Ditto for "...Revealing the future through Bible prophecy". It IS in the title, so why isn't it part of the link text?
There is also a shortage of external links critical of the notion of Biblical prophesy. Should there be "Pro" and "Con" sections? -- Robert Stevens 12:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: as nobody seems to be raising an objection, I've removed the POV comments on various external links as described above, and added Farrell Till's "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled" and Curt van den Heuvel's "Revealing Daniel". -- Robert Stevens 11:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
...And I've now replaced "On the other hand, scholar Gustave Holscher maintained that certain passages of the book of Ezekiel were not written by a pre-Exilic prophet of Israel but were later added in the Persian period" with "On the other hand, others consider the failure of the Tyre prophecy to be self-evident [1] (as Tyre still exists, contrary to the prophecy), and scholar Gustave Holscher maintained that certain passages of the book of Ezekiel were not written by a pre-Exilic prophet of Israel but were later added in the Persian period". I've deliberately left Holscher's exact position somewhat ambiguous, pending further information. -- Robert Stevens 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC) The new sections provided in this article should provide some insight into the mechanics behind this sub-topic. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The section on the "Tyre prophecy" is being continually reverted, most notably by user User:Kdbuffalo, with no comment on this Talk page and the comment "no exegesis done" for the actual deletion. But the article cites a legitimate, citation-supported critical view of this Biblical prophecy: that many reject the notion of the "Tyre prophecy" because it apparently failed. Even if "Biblical exegesis" could somehow solve this problem (and I know from experience that it cannot), that wouldn't change the fact that this is a common reason given by skeptics for THEIR view regarding this issue. It is entirely appropriate to include it. -- Robert Stevens 19:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the name be "Biblical prophecy", since "biblical" is an adj, whereas "bible" is a noun? It sounds wrong to me. Lostcaesar 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the term "Bible Prophecy" has long been the accepted term for it. Though technically from a linguistic standpoint you are correct, there are many other examples such as, "Relativity Theory".-- RichG 11:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with a nice compund noun... e.g. 'science fiction'.
==You will have to excuse me, in adding a few sections, I inadvertedly erase the title of a following topic== Radical man 7 08:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The link list seems to have passed the spam event horizon. Please decide which ones provide significant additional context over and above what would be included in a great article. Guy ( Help!) 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added the templates to suggest merging information from the Biblical Last Days article to this one. I believe that the information does overlap, and that the Biblical Last Days writing does not have enough information or context to be a seperate article. Hopefully it can be merged here and improved by someone with more knowledge in the subject. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 19:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Before deciding on whether to criticize or ask for the removal of these new sections, try to make use of this new methodology, give it a try over any topic, let me know if it works for you... Oh, being that the conceptual background of the last days mirrors that of the last days , the small section on the last days should be removed Radical man 7 18:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
As in other disciplines, technicians are created with the help of texts by established authorities, acquiring a basic knowledge of how to use the Bible. This is supposed to mean that a good thematic knowledge of the bible and a good methodology should be enough to explore and use any topic. However, the current age that we are a part of requires not only the stating of facts and opinions, today the methodology itself is now subject to public scrutiny. The use of commentary and methods are part of all professions, these texts and commentaries are the foundation of this discipline and should be treated as such. However, I find that the over-reliance on commentary which is only designed for the training of those that deal with theology, creates a situation where an individual's insight or methodology is dismissed out of hand and not by the merits of a given idea or methodology. This also means that the authoritive use of scripture is nullified because the opinion of a doctor of theology is used instead of what comes from experience, insight and conviction of the person that has to deal with life in the trenches. The use of concepts and being able to follow the development of a given concept throughout the Bible can only result in a methodology that not only provides insight into a given theme or situation, it also means that the functional aspect is put to the test, and in virtue of its functionality, is likely to be accepted as a new standard. Radical man 7 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Check out this website. http://www.tkic.piczo.com With the permission of Wiki I will post the information given. CWHJr 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't anybody of the type that is allowed to be quoted in Wikipedia (e.g. academics) done a study showing that biblical prophecy is nonsense? The reason I ask is that I have been involved in a very long web forum debate, in which I demonstrated that in those parts of the bible in which there are lots of prophecies, for every prophecy which could, with generous refereeing, possibly be said to have come true, there are several prophecies which very clearly have not. It was not particularly difficult for me to make this case - so if it has not been done formally, then I am surprised. New Thought 13:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This article presents a confusing perspective and multiple sections that seem to either violate NPOV by using an in-group perspective, or an assumption of culture (for example references to "Ancient Hebrew law and our current legal system"... which legal system? Israels?). Entire sections, or major premises of sections lack citations, and the phrasing is often confusing. The "Scientific Process" section makes no sense, though it appears as an attempt to discuss Biblical prophecy from a scientific standpoint.
Since 'prophecy' is by its nature often self-fulfilling, or at least horribly subjective in interpretation, i suggest that this article merely present an overview of what Biblical Prophecy is (or how it is used), and perhaps some specific examples of prophetic claims (not the veracity, just the claims). for example, examples in this article should be limited to "In 7XX CE, Bob McProphet claimed that Person X was the AntiChrist". Or perhaps it would be better to merge this into the appropriate Apologetics articles, since that is the essential application of "biblical prophecy".
Another idea would be to simply remove this page, or merge it with a larger article exploring the scientific understanding of prophetic claims and any neutral, scientific process for verifying such claims, since many claims of prophecy are so subjectively interpreted.
If i knew how to do it, i would tag this article with a merger suggestion , a POV tag, and most importantly the lack of sources tag, as information without support is useless, misleading, or malicious.
69.108.166.204 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Avidya, 2007 July 11, 11:13am PDT 69.108.166.204 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[10]... I believe that there are some Jews which do not advocate for rebuilding Solomon's Temple, right? ScienceApologist ( talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This section looks like a place people can promote their books. If the books are really that useful, then they can add information from them and include them in the reference format. As such, is there any reason this section should not be deleted? Carl.bunderson ( talk) 12:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Much of the article at present expresses a purely Christian viewpoint. A particular example of this is the Literalism v. Skepticisms section. Orthodox Jews believe in an explanatory oral tradition which often involves highly nonliteral interpretations of Moses' writings. They also believe as an article of Jewish faith that only Moses spoke directly to God and hence the other prophets aren't as clear as Moses, hence there's no problem not taking what they said literally. This is held as a matter of belief, not a matter of skepticism. The whole dichotomy between literalism and skepticism is simply irrelevant. -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose we change the name of this article to "Debunking Bible prophecy" and give fulfilled Biblical prophecy a page of it's own since this article appears to be concerned with showing how Bible prophecy is, in fact, no such thing. What do others think on this? Fritleyfrisp ( talk) 08:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see a source from any ancient Jewish literature, a midrashic interpretation, an ancient Christian source or any modern Bible scholar who considers this prophetic and not historical reportage. Cain is not prophesying, he is commenting and he can get it wrong just like any other human being. Qualifications for a prophecy in the Bible are clearly laid out in Deuteronomy and other books in the Torah. A writer reporting an historical event in which someone says something that is wrong does not constitute failed prophecy or an inaccuracy on any part of the Bible other than that person who is being reported. In order for a writing to qualify as prophectic it has to be a document that is made before the event, specifically to a coming event and then fulfilled. The use of the Bible in this way to show instances of "unfulfilled" "prophecy" is intellectually bankrupt. It should be changed. Fritleyfrisp ( talk) 16:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Jeremiah 30 (NIV version) describes the Holocaust, restoration of Israel, and the countries being destroyed that the Jews have been exiled in while the Jews still remain. This of course would have to contain both views to be NPOV and be from third party sources, but the chapter is not even mentioned right now:
1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you. 3 The days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,' says the LORD."
4 These are the words the LORD spoke concerning Israel and Judah: 5 "This is what the LORD says: " 'Cries of fear are heard— terror, not peace.
6 Ask and see: Can a man bear children? Then why do I see every strong man with his hands on his stomach like a woman in labor, every face turned deathly pale?
7 How awful that day will be! None will be like it. It will be a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it.
8 " 'In that day,' declares the LORD Almighty, 'I will break the yoke off their necks and will tear off their bonds; no longer will foreigners enslave them.
9 Instead, they will serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.
10 " 'So do not fear, O Jacob my servant; do not be dismayed, O Israel,' declares the LORD. 'I will surely save you out of a distant place, your descendants from the land of their exile. Jacob will again have peace and security, and no one will make him afraid.
11 I am with you and will save you,' declares the LORD. 'Though I completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will not completely destroy you. I will discipline you but only with justice; I will not let you go entirely unpunished.'
12 "This is what the LORD says: " 'Your wound is incurable, your injury beyond healing.
13 There is no one to plead your cause, no remedy for your sore, no healing for you.
14 All your allies have forgotten you; they care nothing for you. I have struck you as an enemy would and punished you as would the cruel, because your guilt is so great and your sins so many.
15 Why do you cry out over your wound, your pain that has no cure? Because of your great guilt and many sins I have done these things to you.
16 " 'But all who devour you will be devoured; all your enemies will go into exile. Those who plunder you will be plundered; all who make spoil of you I will despoil.
17 But I will restore you to health and heal your wounds,' declares the LORD, 'because you are called an outcast, Zion for whom no one cares.'
18 "This is what the LORD says: " 'I will restore the fortunes of Jacob's tents and have compassion on his dwellings; the city will be rebuilt on her ruins, and the palace will stand in its proper place.
19 From them will come songs of thanksgiving and the sound of rejoicing. I will add to their numbers, and they will not be decreased; I will bring them honor, and they will not be disdained.
20 Their children will be as in days of old, and their community will be established before me; I will punish all who oppress them.
21 Their leader will be one of their own; their ruler will arise from among them. I will bring him near and he will come close to me, for who is he who will devote himself to be close to me?' declares the LORD.
22 " 'So you will be my people, and I will be your God.' "
23 See, the storm of the LORD will burst out in wrath, a driving wind swirling down on the heads of the wicked.
24 The fierce anger of the LORD will not turn back until he fully accomplishes the purposes of his heart. In days to come you will understand this.
Critics would be right to point out vagueness as to when these events will occur, but it is important to notice that God told Jeremiah to write these words in a book indicating a need to preserve these words for a significant amount of time.
-- Jorfer ( talk) 18:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well if they weren't at first they usually soon became enemies. The Persian Empire began killing all the Jews in Esther due to Haman, Antiochus did not make the Greeks look much better, the Romans burned Jerusalem, the Jews were persecuted during the Inquisition, the Russians gave them pogroms,and we all know what the Germans did. Sure Jews are scattered all over the world now and the Spanish, Russians, and Germans have not been completely destroyed, but this part of the prophecy is indefinite; it cannot be fully evaluated until the Apocalypse happens, but so far it has remained true. The Jews are persecuted, and the civilizations that persecute them are eventually destroyed, while the Jews retain their cultural identity. The passage does mention that the message is being spoken to Judah and Israel, but the passage speaks in terms of one Israel; Jacob is predominantly used and Judah is not mentioned in the actual prophecy. The point of the matter is that this passage should be discussed from both sides for the article not to be slanted by omission.-- Jorfer ( talk) 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Another example of this nonsense:
"Jonah
* Jonah prophesies that in forty days Nineveh shall be overthrown, but Nineveh was spared for turning from their evil ways.[41]"
Jonah prophesies that Nineveh will be overthrown in forty days if they do not turn from their evil ways. Go figure. Fritleyfrisp ( talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
These all seem to be unscholarly and or unsourced original research. A cleanup is in order. -- Ali M Saad ( talk) 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous inaccuracies in the Ezekiel section regarding the "Tyre prophecy". (which is often cited by apologists as a successful prophecy, and also by sceptics as a failed prophecy). For the time being, I'll just delete the stuff that's simply wrong. Alexander never "destroyed" Tyre (he damaged it), the city recovered, the claims that the city was "never rebuilt" are bogus, and "Sur" is simply the actual original name of the city that the Greeks called "Tyre" (and it has a population in excess of 100,000, it isn't a "fishing village"). Probably best to delete that paragraph entirely, and just put in a link to Tyre. -- Robert Stevens ( talk) 12:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Tyre was destroyed. http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/alexander/07.shtml "Alexander was so furious that this one city had halted his progress for so long, that he gave the city over to plunder and his soldiers sacked it without mercy." Cities were rebuilt on the site, but they were cities of other empires; the phoenician tyre was gone. Its inhabitants were sold into slavery. Sur is in fact a fishing village that is mostly known for the ancient ruins of the phoenician seaport city of tyre. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You deleted historical facts. The article never stated that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the island city. The article never directly stated that the prophecy was either fulfilled or whehter it failed. The content you deleted were all historical facts.
The island city was destroyed by Alexander, you did not dispute that. Cities were rebuilt on that site, but the Phoenician Tyre. You did not dispute that. You erased historical facts when it never directly stated whether the prohpecy succeeded or failed, and you justified it by saying it failed. Back2back2back ( talk) 14:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Explain to me how plundering a city and displacing its inhabitants is not destroying it.
You have not provided any sources that say the Pheonician Tyre was rebuilt. Nor have you provided any sources which say that the site of the old Tyre is now a city. The fact that the remains of the Phoenician Tyre are still there is solid evidence against the thesis that the site is now a city. It is insufficient to just say "look at Google earth"
Sur and Tyre was in fact distinct. The ancient Tyre is Phoenician. The modern Sur, which is sometimes known as Tyre is part of Lebanon.
The part you deleted also never said that all of its inhabitants were enslaved. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
When its residents are displaced, and half of the buildings are gone, how is the city not destroyed? A city by definition, has to have a high density of inhabitants.
Furthermore, the ancient Phoenician city is now known as Tyre, distinct from the modern Sur.
The Romans took control of Tyre and plundered it, the Phoenicians did not control that territory as the empire was ended when Tyre was destroyed. The territory of Tyre was under the control of the romans. Antigonus was fighting the other successsors of Alexander.
http://www.historyofwar.org/Maps/maps_Diadoch3.html 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The prophecy mentioned that Nebuchadnezzar will ravage the mainland and that the city would be destroyed. Why would it not be suitable to include Alexander since he destroyed the island city? Furthermore, only historical facts are presented. If this was apologetics, things like building the causeway out of the rubble of the mainland made it "as bare as a rock" would be mentioned. No where in the content you deleted where there any direct statement that the prophecy succeeded or failed. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The most recent version by Robert is fine. While Roberts comments on the talk page has asserted certainty as to the meaning of the prophecy on the talk page which can't be made do to the vague wording of the prophecy itself, the discussion afterwards sticks only to the facts.
"Your walls and demolish your towers" does not need to refer to those on the island...just those under Tyre's control which includes the mainland...this is why the semicolon is used after "He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword". The whole first paragraph could be argued as applying only to the mainland settlements.
The reason why the other part of the prophecy is argued as applying to Alexander is that "I will scrape away her rubble" seems to describe the land bridge that Alexander used to conquer the island...now the prophecy is not broken into two clear parts in Ezekiel but prophets often jump around from prophecy to prophecy in the bible without any clear separation or chronology.
The damaging aspect of the prophecy is that even given the first paragraph speaks just of the mainland, the term "rebuilt" must refer to "built in a manner similar to the original" rather than "built upon once more" to be counted as fulfilled (i.e. Ancient Rome has been built upon but has not been rebuilt). That evaluation requires knowledge of the original language as well as culture of the book. -- Jorfer ( talk) 03:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: I see that the inaccuracies continue! More from Back2back2back:
We have here a repetition of the falsehood that "the Phoenicians never rebuilt Tyre". Tyre was in fact rebuilt by the Tyrians (information that has been conveniently erased), and was therefore just as "Phoenician" after Alexander as it had been before Alexander. We also have ongoing ignorance of the fact that Tyre was part of the Persian empire, and a new claim that Tyre was rebuilt "under Roman control" which would have to involve erasing a whole section of Tyre's history in which it was under Seleucid control before throwing that off and becoming self-governing again! And it's still trying to juggle with the names "Tyre" and "Sur" as if they were separate names ("ancient Tyre", "modern city of Sur": the ancient city was in fact called SUR).
And what do we have as a source? Some crazy cultish website with headings such as "Beginning of the Cultural Age of Aries", "Beginning of the Sun Regency of the Archangel Micheal until 200 B.C." and "Beginning of the Saturn Regency of the Archangel Oriphiel until 150 A.D.". Please read WP:RS, this source is entirely unacceptable (it's also entirely clueless: "Babylon begins a 13-year siege of the mainland of the Phoenician city of Tyre", when actually Babylon overran the mainland villages immediately and then began a 13-year siege of the island fortress of Tyre). Yet even this bizarre travesty doesn't contain "The city was rebuilt under Roman control", and the reference in the text there is MY reference to the rebuilding by the TYRIANS.
Major surgery will be required here. -- Robert Stevens ( talk) 17:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You added information, saying that the mainland was only a series of villages, without providing any sources. You also stated that only the island was part of the city, also without providing any sources.
Furthermore, you changed the paragraph so it mentioned whether or not Alexander should not interpreted as having fulfilled the prophecy before the historical facts, without giving any reason at all.
You also removed information about the ancient ruins still visible, and the information about fishing activities on the island when it was part of the prophecy, without giving any reasons at all.
You also said that the city was repopulated by Tyrian colonists when that's not what the source said.
You also included the invasion by Antigonus when it's totally irrelevant to the prophecy or to the issue of whether or not Tyre was rebuilt. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 21:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
some of your sources (See Jidejian, Nina, Tyre Through the Ages, 1969, for further information about the history Tyre and its present condition. Lorenzi, Rossella (May 21, 2007). Sandbar Aided Alexander the Great. Discovery News. (Bikai, P., "The Land of Tyre," in Joukowsky, M., The Heritage of Tyre, 1992, chapter 2, p. 13)) were copied word for word from the Tyre, Lebanon wikipedia page, and the information that is cited doesn't even match!
Moreover, you keep saying that my version is nonsense and yet you have given no reason why you have deleted a lot of the cited materials.
As a resolution, I recommend that all opinions be left out of the section, and only historical facts are presented, historical facts which are relevant to the prophecy such as the alleged destruction and rebuilding of the city. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 23:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would delete all apologist and skeptical opinions but you don't seem to be interested in that. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Why shouldn't Alexander be included? Readers can make up their minds themselves about whether or not the passage only talks about Nebuchadnezzar destroying Tyre and not any other nations. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 16:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The prophecy said that Tyre would be destroyed. Alexander destroyed the city. Or as you would like to say, he plundered the city, set half the city on fire, and displaced all the residents. Why shouldn't he be mentioned? 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a historical fact that Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Egypt, and it is a historical fact that Amasis II (the pharaoh who stopped him) conquered Cyprus (and held it until 545 BC, long after Nebuchadnezzar's death). Ezekiel's writings end with the end of the siege of Tyre in 573 BC. I will revert and delete the ad-hominem attempt to discredit Herodotus: there are cases where Herododus included "traveller's tales" about strange beasts in far-off lands, but the claim of his "inaccuracy" is selectively taken from a source [12] that actually says:
"Herodotus was not the first historian, but he was the first to make investigation the key to history. The word "history" comes from a Greek word which means "inquiry" or "investigation." He wanted to find what actually happened, so he traveled extensively in the Eastern Mediterranean, including visits to Egypt and Persia. He talked to many people, including people who actually witnessed the events he wrote about. While people today might criticize him for his tendency to include inaccurate and often implausible information, he nevertheless established the notion that history must begin with research."
He went there. He researched. He talked to those who had direct knowledge. And, of course, he isn't the only source of information on this period: whereas NO historical source has been provided which contradicts this account. Egypt did not fall until the Persians invaded it. I will revert. -- Robert Stevens ( talk) 07:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The empires added ruled over Egypt, those empires weren't ruled by Egypt.
Furthermore, it is perfectly reasonable to include criticism about a historian's accuracy if that historian is going to be quoted.
The Ezekiel 29:15 prophecy talks about a future conditions.
"WILL make Egypt so weak that it will never rule again over other nations." The "will never rule again over nations" start at a point in the future, not when the prophecy is made.
All opinions has also been removed. Back2back2back ( talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I am going to agree with Back2back here. On the first part, Egypt would seem to just be a vassal in the larger Arab empire rather the head of the empire, but this is subjective. In order to keep the article as objective as possible, we better leave that out lest we be forced to tell the entire history of Egypt on this page.
In this case the ad-hominem statement is valid since the credibility of the fact depends on the credibility of the individual unlike arguments on viewpoint where the logic of the individual is the only thing that matters.
The Ezekiel 29:15 should be allowed to stand alone without the Nebuchadnezzar prophecy below, since 17-21 were added later. The first prophecy is made in 587 or 586 BC, while the second was supposedly made in 570 BC. An interesting aspect is that the failed prophecies seemed to have been added by another author later on. If you look up the word "year" in Ezekiel, you will find that Ezekiel dated his entries in the same format and the order he received them. Ezekiel: In the [a] thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day In the sixth year, in the sixth month on the fifth day In the seventh year, in the fifth month on the tenth day In the ninth year, in the tenth month on the tenth day
In the Tyre passage: In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month
More interesting...the Egypt prophecy: In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day
Ezekiel received visions on the fifth and tenth of the month but not in these cases apparently. Also, what are the chances of him receiving a vision on the anniversary of the 597 BC exile of the elites unless there was a specific reason for that day? Extremely low. Also, the two questionable passages are dated to the first on the month. Of course this can't be included, because until I find a source from an expert who has done such an analysis (if it has been done...which is probably the case), it is original research, but it reinforces the point that could be made by itself that the tenth year prophecy should be included on its own. -- Jorfer ( talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the reference to the Phoenician name since there were no other references to it, and merged the two quotes. Back2back2back ( talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You misworded the Egypt prophecy. It doesn't say that "Egypt will never rule over other nations".
Furthermore, it is perfectly reasonable to include OBJECTIVE CRITICISM of a historian if that historian is going to be quoted.
Furthermore, if Alexander the Great is not included in the Tyre prophecy, readers can figure that out for themselves. The prophecy said that Tyre would be destroyed, if someone destroys it, why shouldn't it be included? Furthermore, it doesn't matter that alexander wasn't mentioned, prophecies does not have to mention every little fact. Back2back2back ( talk) 12:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The prophecy never says that Nebuchanezzar would be the one to destroy the city. Herodotus has been known to be inaccurate, that's why it's included.
Furthermore, this article is supposed to be objective.
Language like "and, in the current version of the book, it plainly belongs with the rest of the failed prophecy regarding Nebby's conquest and depopulation." is not objective. Back2back2back ( talk) 13:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is supposed to be objective. There should be no mention of whether prophecies failed or succeeded except giving historical facts.
The Tyre prophecy never said that Tyre would be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, but did say that it was going to be destroyed. If Alexander destroyed the city, why shouldn't he be included? Why not let readers draw their own conclusions? Wanting to include skeptics' opinion is no reason to write something.
You also deleted information about Egypt never ruling over any nations since 545 BC.
Please don't delete historical facts that are relevant to the prophecy without giving any explanations.
And we don't need to quote the entire chapter of Ezekiel 29 since the prophecy can be easily summarized. Furthermore, the readers can easily find the context if they wish to read the passage.
Moreover, the fact that someone disagrees with the authorship should not be included. That can be easily looked up on other wikipedia pages. Otherwise, the article would get too long. This article isn't here to inform the reader about apologetic or skeptical opinions or secular or Christian historians believe about the authorship and date of each book.
This is an objective article, and collaboration will not work if everyone wanted their opinion reflected in the article. Back2back2back ( talk) 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no controversy as to matters of fact. The apologetic and skeptical viewpoints are matters of interpretation of facts. Hence they should not be included.
The Ptolemaic Empire ruled OVER Egypt, and was the result of Alexander the Great dividing his empire. The Ptolemaics were Macedonian.
Furthermore, you haven't given any reason for most of your reverts. Back2back2back ( talk) 12:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no dispute as to matters of fact. Wikipedia never says you must include every opinion as to interpretation of the facts.
"For the next two-and-a-half centuries, the Ptolemaic dynasty of the Greeks would successfully rule Egypt, mingling Hellenic traditions with the mighty legacy of the Pharaohs.
It was under the Ptolemaic Dynasty that Alexandria truly became the cultural and economic center of the ancient world. Egypt was ruled from Alexandria by Ptolemy's descendants until the death of Cleopatra VII in 30 BC."
http://www.touregypt.net/alexhis1.htm
Furthermore, you have deleted historical facts without giving any reasons at all and have also not given any reasons for most of your reverts. Back2back2back ( talk) 13:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Egypt was under foreign control under the Ptolemaic dynasty. During that era, Egypt was ruled by the macedonian Royal family. The capital of the empire, Alexandria was Greek. The ruling class was Greek. Greek even became the official language. The claim that Egypt ruled over nations when Egypt itself was under greek control is absurd. Do you have any sources which say that directly states that Egypt was not under foreign rule?
all these sources say that Egypt was under Greek rule
http://www.goegypt.org/aboutegy/history/10-greekrule.htm http://www.touregypt.net/alexhis1.htm http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/egypt/history/greeks.htm http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/rule.html
"They lived under Greek law, received a Greek education, were tried in Greek courts, and were citizens of Greek cities, just as they had been in Greece. The Egyptians were rarely admitted to the higher levels of Greek culture, in which most Egyptians were not in any case interested."
"Ptolemy I established the Greek colony of Ptolemais Hermiou to be its capital"
"Greeks were planted in colonies and garrisons or settled themselves in the villages throughout the country."
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/History/PtolemaicEgypt.html
The Egyptians were under Greek rule, there's no controversy whatsoever.
" During the Ptolemies era, a number of rebellions against foreign rule were suppressed. Consequently, the monuments were not spared devastation. In the same manner, the Romans plundered the city on stages, that city of great civilization and the centre of tourism. "
http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/magazin/spring1996/110202000000000002.htm
"The last native dynasty fell to the Persians in 343 BC. Later, Egypt was under the rule of Greeks, Romans and Byzantines, which resulted in almost two thousand years of foreign rule."
http://www.placesonline.com/africa/egypt/culture_and_geography.asp Back2back2back ( talk) 21:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Back2back2back: Egypt was NOT under the rule of Greece or any other nation during the Ptolemaic period. They were under the rule of people who came from Greece. Just as the USA after independence was ruled by people who came from Britain (mostly) rather than the Native Americans, but was NOT under British rule. Egypt had become an INDEPENDENT nation, with a ruling class of foreign origin: just like the United States of America is today. -- Robert Stevens ( talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The British ruled over other British. The ruling class ruled over their own nationals. One origin, one country, no foreign rule.
The Greeks ruled over native Egyptians. The ruling class ruled over citizens of other countries. Foreign rule.
Furthermore, you're ignoring all the sources which say Egypt was under foreign rule.
If the British ruled over the Native Americans, declared independence, set up a British capital city and British settlements, made English the official language, have British nationals live under British law, and dominated the ruling class and higher levels of society, the Native Americans would be under foreign control. Back2back2back ( talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Egypt won the war for independence? What are you talking about?
And you've ignored the differences between America and Ancient Egypt. In America, the ruling class ruled over its own people. There was no foreign rule.
The government was Greek. The ruling class was Greek. The capital was Greek. There were greek colonies, Greek was the official language. The fact that it was called "Egypt" doesn't change the fact that the Greeks ruled the country.
Furthermore, the kingdom wasn't even called Egypt; it was called the Ptolemaic Kingdom. And whichever nations ruled by the Kingdom would be under Greek control since the kingdom itself was under Greek control anyway.
Actually Alexander the Great's Greece was divided into several kingdoms, one of them being ptolemaic kingdom. The Ptolemaic Kingdom wasn't actually independent from Greece, it was one of several Greek kingdoms.
The argument that Egypt ruled over other nations simply because both Egypt and other nations was under Greek control is flawed on many levels. Back2back2back
I suggest moving the ezekiel discussion topics (29 and 30) to the sandbox.( talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You didn't really address the main points. First you said that Egypt won its war for independence. What war? Egypt was taken over by the Ptolemaic empire when the war started. I don't see how that is a war for independence.
You've also ignored the fact that Greece was divided into several parts, Ptolemaic Kingdom being one of them. Egypt actually became part of a foreign empire.
I don't see how I was contradicting myself when I said both foreign rule and foreign control.
In addition, the Ptolemaic Empire is one of the divided parts of Greece. The Ptoemaic Empire is a Greek Empire. You haven't made any arguments as to why Egypt should be considered as ruling over other nations. Back2back2back ( talk) 19:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"The Ptolemaic Kingdom (Greek: Πτολεμαϊκό Βασίλειο) in and around Egypt began following Alexander the Great's conquest in 332 BC and ended with the death of Cleopatra VII and the Roman conquest in 30 BC. It was founded when Ptolemy I Soter declared himself Pharaoh of Egypt, creating a powerful Hellenistic state stretching from southern Syria to Cyrene and south to Nubia. Alexandria became the capital city and a center of Greek culture and trade. To gain recognition by the native Egyptian populace, they named themselves as the successors to the Pharaohs. The later Ptolemies took on Egyptian traditions by marrying their siblings, had themselves portrayed on public monuments in Egyptian style and dress, and participated in Egyptian religious life. Hellenistic culture thrived in Egypt until the Muslim conquest. The Ptolemies had to fight native rebellions and were involved in foreign and civil wars that led to the decline of the kingdom and its annexation by Rome."
You seem to be thinking that Ptolemaic Kingdom = Egypt
Furthermore, what is your source? Back2back2back ( talk) 12:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That does not change the fact that Ptolemaic Kingdom =/= Egypt.
The Ptolemaic Kingdom is Greek, it is not even Egyptian. Furthermore, the kingdom consisted of nations other than Egypt when Greece was split into four kingdoms.
The quote just reinforces the notion that the Greek Empire was divided, with the Ptolemaic Kingdom being one of the four pieces. Back2back2back ( talk) 12:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The Ptolemaic Kingdom was a Hellenistic (Greek) Empire. Egypt is simply the name of the conquered nation. You haven't provided any sources which say that the Ptolemaic Kingdom is not a Greek kingdom, but Egypt.
It is not out of the ordinary to call the conquered land "Egyptian" or the affairs "egyptian affairs".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Egypt
references were made to Egyptian forces, Egyptian affairs.
Furthermore, saying that Ptolemaic Kingdom = Egypt is very far-fetched since the capital was Greek, there were Greek colonies, a greek ruling class, and Greek was the official language, and that the Ptolemaic Kingdom was one of four kingdoms Alexander's empire split into, so in fact, Ptolemaic Kingdom = Greece. Back2back2back ( talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Why would I argue that America = Britain? Furthermore, why would I deny that America conquered lands? Your inference makes no sense.
"not rule over other nations for a while." implied that it did rule over other nations when in fact it was conquered by Alexander and then its kingdom was divided.
However, in the later Ptolemaic period, Egyptian rule stretched from southern Syria to Cyrene and south to Nubia (see Ptolemaic Kingdom).
No. Ptolemaic Kingdom rule (a Greek kingdom split off from Alexander) stretched from southern Syria to Cyrene and south to Nubia (see Ptolemaic Kingdom).
Some apologists claim that Ptolemaic Egypt is a different political entity to the one Ezekiel was referring to, due to the Macedonian Greek origin of the ruling class (however, it was an independent nation at this time, not actually a vassal of Greece)."
No. The Ptolemaic Kingdom was one of the kingdoms split from Alexander the Great's Greece. Furthermore, you neglected to mention that the capital city was Greek.
If you plan to edit, use the sandbox to prevent edit-warring and give reasons for your edit, and use its discussion page.
Let's summarize the reasons why Ptolemaic Kingdom =/= Egypt, most of which you neglect to address.
Alexander the Great conquered Egypt; afterwards, his kingdom was split, with the Ptolemaic Kingdom being one of the pieces, thus the Ptolemaic Kingdom is Greece.
The Ruling class was Greek, the capital, named after Alexander the Great, was Greek, there were Greek colonists, the official language was Greek.
No source describes the Ptolemaic Kingdom as something other than a Greek Kingdom.
Even if the Ptolemaic Kingdom is not a Greek Kingdom (which it is), Egypt was already conquered by Alexander anyway, so Egypt was part of Alexander the Great's Greece to being with.
Even if the Ptolemaic Kingdom is Egyptian (which it is not) and ruled over other lands, the ruling class was Greek.
Furthermore, to say that the Ptolemys became Greek makes no sense because the Egypt before the Ptolemaic Kingdom came into being was part of Alexander the Great's Empire. Back2back2back ( talk) 12:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Your example of Native Americans, America, and Britain makes no sense. You have still not articulated how that parallels Egypt and Ptolemaic Kingdom. I suppose Britain would be Greece, and America would be the Ptolemaic Kingdom, and the native americans would be the Egyptians. The Ptolemaic Kingdom was one of the pieces split off Alexander the Great's Greece, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom occupied Egypt.
You're saying that Egypt became independent after Alexander the Great occupied it. It makes no sense. A nation doesn't become independent when one conquerer drives out another.
Alexander the Great's Kingdom was split up into pieces, Ptolemaic Kingdom being one of them. How is that incorrect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#History
references were made to "hellenistic Greece" and "greek kingdoms"
Explain how Egypt can rule over other nations when it was conquered by the Persians, then Alexander, and then one of Alexander's generals after the kingdom was split
You keep thinking that the Ptolemaic Kingdom = Egypt when in fact, it is really a Greek kingdom split from Alexander's Greece and that the Ptolemaic Kingdom just happened to rule over Egypt. At that time, Egypt has been under foreign control for hundreds of years.
references were made to "Egypt", so what? Egypt was a conquered land and under Greek control.
You will find many references of just about every conquered nation which exists as an independent one today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_and_Byzantine_Greece
Furthermore, sandboxes are not made for major changes. Back2back2back ( talk) 17:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Ptolemaic Kingdom was independent, but it was an independent Greek Kingdom, one of four pieces of Alexander the Great's divided kingdom. Ptolemaic Kingdom would be equivalent to America, and the Native Americans would be equivalent to the Egyptians.
If the British empire controlled the Eastern seaboard for 100 years, and then America split from the empire, you would be arguing that somehow, that gives the Native Americans independence.
You have never even been close to establish that Egypt was independent.
References to Ptolemaic Egypt doesn't show that Egypt was independent, there were references to Roman Egypt, Roman Greece after IT was conquered, etc. The term "Ptolemaic Egypt" doesn't prove a thing, the fact of the matter is, Egypt was part of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. You have not yet shown any evidence that Ptolemaic Kingdom = Egypt.
"Despite being a powerful nation in ancient times, Egypt has since been ruled by the Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantine Empire, Ottomans, British and the French.
However, it has also enjoyed periods of independence from external rule, and has occasionally ruled over other nations in turn".
Independence? Explain to me how being part of a Greek Kingdom is independence, how the Greek dominating the upper class, the capital city being Greek, the language being Greek, is being independent.
Look at the entire picture. Egypt was first part of the Persian empire, then Alexander's. And then Alexander's Kingdom split. And now you're saying, that one of the pieces, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, equates to an independent Egypt when in fact, is just one of the pieces of Alexander's empire.
Furthermore, Ezekiel never says that Nebuchadnezzar will desolate and depopulate Egypt. Simply that Nebuchadnezzar will take Egypt's spoil. Back2back2back ( talk) 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
So just because I disagree with you means I'm refusing dispute resolution? I've given reasons for every change I've made, if you continue to revert indiscriminately, I will report you. You proceeded to edit and revert before you proposed to move the disputed section to the talk pages.
There is no dispute about the fact that Egypt was ruled by many foreign powers, there is no reason not to include it in the article. Saying that the article fails to mention some fact is no reason to delete others. However, I am willing to move the entire section to the sandbox and leave only the basic theme of the prophecy. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Back2back2back/Sandbox)
You keep saying that Egypt is an independent nation when in fact it was part of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. The only reason you've given for that is because of references to "Ptolemaic Egypt". I've pointed out many times that when nations are conquered and are part of an empire, they can still be referred to such as "Roman Greece". references such as "Ptolemaic Egypt" does not prove a thing.
Furthermore, multitude does not necessarily mean "population", it is used in many contexts. Back2back2back ( talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it'll be better to start discussion on the sandbox talkpage. Back2back2back ( talk) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed this material completely for the time being - I think it is much too "far out" to assert that, eg, the mark of the beast is a computer-chip, wholly without reference and argument. ALL of this article is extremely poorly presented, but this is just unacceptable. Redheylin ( talk) 05:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Although there are many variations in perspective among religious believers, a few specific events which are commonly held by those of the dispensationalist school of thought have been attributed to the below Bible passages:
Additionally, some popular conjectures on the progression of currently existing situations into prophecy fulfilment include:
I don't think whether Jesus qualifies as the Messiah or Jesus' lineage should be part of the prophecy of David's kingdom lasting forever. The section is very lengthy and I feel unnecessary. Back2back2back ( talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A page detailing specific predictions in the Bible is valuable and interesting. But one or two friends here appear to believe this page is intended to uphold a particular class of beliefs ABOUT this, and are inserting apologies without proper references, without balance and without edit notes. Clearly this is a misuse of wiki. Please desist from attempting to make wiki a platform for your own research and beliefs, and understand that this amounts to disruptive editing. Thanks. Redheylin ( talk) 03:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It's also worth mentioning that extensive Bible quotes of material hardly relevant to the subject of the page devalues the page. Redheylin ( talk) 03:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I am splitting the Davidic line section into a new article to limit the size of the section on this page as Back2back has expressed valid concern over the size of the section.-- Jorfer ( talk) 23:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I put the Davidic Kingdom article up for "Do You Know" and this was the response:
Bible verses are not appropriate for DYK. Also, I'm concerned about reliability of some of the sources used in the article. In no way is this an exhaustive analysis: Self-published by a group of like-minded Christians and their minister (not clear he has any professional training), Published by lulu.com, which allows anyone to publish their material, "Attorney puts Jesus on trial" is the beginning of the Google description and the book is not written by a credentialed theologian or religious studies academic, self-published thoughts of a web developer, self-published thoughts of an IT exec, etc. Awadewit ( talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
We need to improve sourcing on both sides of the article, and this probably applies equally to the sources used on this page (especially if the same sources are used).-- Jorfer ( talk) 17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Details in the following link: http://www.archive.org/details/The_Absolute_Truth_About_Muhammad_in_the_Bible_With_Arabic_Subtitles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.34.104 ( talk) 22:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't you need to identify where it is said that some scholars dont find prophecies in the bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.35.102 ( talk) 00:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
In Levituss Tyre is being admonished and is being said to have once been a garden. Was14:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC) 174.96.99.186 ( talk) this the garden of eden?
If a non Christian point of view is necessary, can this article be reorganised to separate Christian and non Christian points of view. I personally think Bible prophecy should be explained by Christians, and not by Muslims or atheists or others. After all, the objective of an encyclopedia should be to describe and explain what a topic is rather than what it is not. SLWG ( talk) 19:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is not a neutral exposition of what bible prophecy is.
It is full of passages that reveal people's points of view, some stating that it is true, others mainly negative (eg. the word "Supposed"). I am a Christian, but I'm sure I could write a neutral objective article on Atheism, describing what it is, what atheists think, what it's roots are and so on without putting in what my personal view is. Surely this should be about what people believe, rather than whether what they believe is true or not or, even worse, whether the author thinks it is true or not.
I rarely post my opinion, but my hope is that someone can be objective about the material.
This kind of thing just undermines and chips away at Wikipedia's credibility.
AbsoluteZero01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsoluteZero01 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bible prophecy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Bible prophecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Bible prophecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bible prophecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted WP:OR which violates WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bible prophecy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article currently states "Jeremiah prophesies that Jehoiakim will have no successor to the throne. His son Jehoiachin succeeded him at the age of eighteen reigned three months before being taken captive along with his mother, wives, servants, princes, and officers. However, the supporting reference to 2 Kings 24:6 contains no prophecy that Jehoiakim will have no successor, and I can't find any such prophecy on a concordance search. I'm going to remove this whole bullet point; if someone finds supporting evidence please put it back with a supporting reference. Nathan Cole
I can only assume it is an error. The curse is for descendants of Jehoiachin (hence the kingship passes to his uncle) ( Philosophystephen ( talk) 07:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC))
would be nice to see the following information added: hermeneutics and prophecy as well as a link to biblical hermeneutics examples of biblical prophecy with different opinions on each examples interpretations more information regarding dating specific books of the bible (for example, as well as for daniel, it is important for christians that the gospels be dated before the destruction of the second temple) information on the critics claim that the bible has been falsified addition of more diverse theological and rationalist views of prophecy which branches of christianity today believe that prophecy still occurs within the church and which branches believe that prophecy ended at the destruction of the temple? how do the churches practicing prophecy, organize and deal with their prophets and prophecy?
though I dont totally agree with the npov nomination, I think that adding information on the differences between judaic and christian interpretations of key verses would help...an example is, I believe, Psalms 22. Christians often say these verses are about the messiah, Judaism however does not believe this. Also when discussing specific verses, please discuss translation issues.
A new section has been included to help settle the matter on biblical dating. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ideology guarantees interpretation that coincides with the identity of a denomination. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think if one complains about NPOV they should state why in the talksection. It is just common courtesy and shows you are serious.
Radical man 7 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I could have added a lot more resources on the pro-Bible side.
For example:
BIBLE PROPHETS VERSUS NON-BIBLE MEDIUMS/PSYCHICS
Brookside Church in Ohio states the following regarding the Bible's laws regarding prophets and the accuracy of modern day psychics as reported by a recent study:
"A true prophet is correct 100% of the time. A test of a prophet was whether they prophesied an event that did not come to pass. Prophets whose predictions failed to come to pass were stoned [It should be said that some prophecies were conditional. For example, if a certain people did not repent then they would suffer judgement.] Some prophecies w. People would think twice before revealing any kind of prophecy. Yet the Bible contains more prophecy about Jesus than any other book on any other founder of ancient religion.
Today there are people who claim to have psychic power. In 1975, The People's Almanac did a study of 25 of the best psychics. Out of 72 predictions, 66 (92%) were totally wrong. The remaining 8% could be explained away."
Taken from the following website: http://www.brooksidechurch.com/etw/jc7.htm
Also:
GENERAL ARTICLE: PROPHECY AS A DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE
http://www.equip.org/free/DA151.htm
SOME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE
http://www.100prophecies.org/default.htm]
MESSIANIC PROPHECY FULFILLED IN JESUS
http://www.messianic-prophecy.net/
ken 23:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
If nobody gives a reason why the POV tag was placed and nobody complains about its removal I think it should be removed
16:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Actually it was a POV-check tag, not a POV tag. There is a substantial difference. POV check is a request that the article be peer-reviewed for POV because at first glance it looks like it could be POV. See Wikipedia:POV check ~~~~ 17:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I am new. Thank you for the clarification.
ken 15:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
MORE INFORMATION
it would be nice if someone included information from judaic ideas and words for prophecy (multiple words with different meanings), the christian church often uses the word "prophecy" in the sense of the future, where as biblical this is not always the case with the idea of prophecy [[Dan
I covered the foretelling verses not foretelling already.
I wrote:
"Those who hold to the doctrine of Biblical inspiration hold that the God of the Bible spoke through the Biblical prophets in order to provide moral teaching, guidance, comfort, warning, or to foretell important events.
ken 02:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I believe that the bible code section should get its own subsection. Also how about someone making subsections for some of the books of the bible, discussing different views of the propechy in each individual book. The new sections added should help settle this matter. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[DanteDanti]
a link to the Wikipedia Book of Daniel article will reveal that not only Porphyry but many modern scholars believe that chapters 7-11 were all written after the desecration of the Temple in 168.BCE by Antiochus. - Indeed, a lot of scholars believe the whole book was written at this time, possibly incorporating earlier stories in chapters 1-6. And a link to the article on Apocalyptic literature tells us that The Book of Daniel is "a fully matured and classic example of this genre of literature." 82.38.88.156 23:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)David Goss
This debate is included in one of the new sections added. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
1) I am unsure of how I feel about the opening sentence to this article, but I want to think about that more, maybe some of you can think about it too. There is just something wrong with it and I cant put my finger on it. 2) I'm going to clean up some not so good word usage that is unnecessary or vague. and also do some grammatical checks. 3) In my opinion, the sentence on biblical heremeneutics is not accurate. I'm going to posts something on the biblical hermeneutics page also. I might reword that sentence later. Thanks Dantedanti 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
A new methodology and perspective is shown in the sections just added, hopefully these should help settle this matter. Radical man 7 18:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I get annoyed by people who say the Bible points to the European Union as the new Roman Empire but two points have just struck me and I was wondering if anyone can shed light on them:
The emphasis on Rome totally misses the point. The role of the four empires is to confirm the decription of the age of the Gentiles which only appears in Daniel. The age of the Gentiles is the conceptual framework for the last days. The idea of confirming messages is present in the many repeated themes within the prophets. There are situations where the theme and message of one prophet confirms the ministry of another. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Roughly one quarter of Bible verses are regarded to have some form of prophecy? This is unsourced and probably nonsense--I'm replacing it with "many" or "several" or some other unspecific word until a source appears, okay? Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Sweatin out the use of microsoft excel should be able to verify the claim. One problem will be that of establishing a functional criteria for choosing texts. Radical man 7 18:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The suggested article merge seems like a bad idea to me. It would tend to make this article pov since the other article is clearly pov and is even stated as such. Mystylplx 16:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The bible is multi-themed, each theme is revealed, described and dealt with in revelations. The themes are addressed starting from Genesis through Revelations. Looking at this perspective makes the need for the different disciplines unnecessary, the revelation is one. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
NPOV dispute: I don't see the point in removing the entire article under the subheading "Modern Perspectives by non evangelicals" due to the claim it was a POV article. The entire subsection has been removed with it now. To remove the entire sub section is to make the entire Wikpedia page a POV from the Evangelical perspective. The article conformed to the subheading and referenced a major non evangelical site as one example of the perspective in question. After all, the subheading is (was) seeking for a perspective from the non evangelical POV. It was for anybody to read and come to their own conclusion. Removing the entire sub section can be construed as a Wikpedian merely not approving of the perspective.
(erroneously added to top of talk page and unsigned - moved from top of talk page to here by Clinkophonist)
"Another example, would be that Arthur C. Custance (weblink) maintained that the Ezekiel Tyre prophecy (Ezek. 26: 1-11; 29:17-20) was very remarkable. On the other hand, scholar Gustave Holscher maintained that certain passages of the book of Ezekiel were not written by a pre-Exilic prophet of Israel but were later added in the Persian period."
This is rather misleading. It gives the impression that there IS an apparent "fulfilled prophecy" here, which (for a skeptic) would require an explanation such as "written later". But actually the failure of the Tyre prophecy seems readily apparent (Tyre does still exist, after all: contrary to the prophecy) and requires no such explanation. Indeed, I've seen it argued that Ezekiel must have been edited because the failure is so obvious (i.e. Ezekiel's enemies must have done it to discredit him). I haven't been able to find out whether this is Gustave Holscher's position. Otherwise, the evident failure is used by skeptics as evidence against the notion of after-the-event authorship, on the assumption that Ezekiel wouldn't have retrospectively written an already-failed prophecy. Tyre is moot, the reason that tyre is included is not as a prophecy, but a confirmation of other prophecies that describe cities, to include those described as women and revealed in the text related to the fall of babylon in revelations where, as in the case of tyre, describes the capitol of an empire and its international commerce. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, What's going on with "External Links"?
"Prophecy in the news currently - Fulfillment of end time prophecy taking place now". The title of the linked article is "Prophecy in the news currently": the additional comment "fulfillment of end time prophecy taking place now" appears to be a POV. At best, the word "Alleged... should be inserted.
Ditto with "Fulfilled Prophecy - Unfolding events prophesied in the book of Revelation." The phrase "Unfolding events prophesied..." appears to be unjustifiable.
"Messianic Prophecy: Messianic prophecy - Compelling predictions". The title of the article DOES include the phrase "Compelling predictions", but if the phrase is to be included, why not include it in the title of the link? As it stands, it gives the impression of a Wikipedia endorsement.
Ditto for "...Revealing the future through Bible prophecy". It IS in the title, so why isn't it part of the link text?
There is also a shortage of external links critical of the notion of Biblical prophesy. Should there be "Pro" and "Con" sections? -- Robert Stevens 12:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: as nobody seems to be raising an objection, I've removed the POV comments on various external links as described above, and added Farrell Till's "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled" and Curt van den Heuvel's "Revealing Daniel". -- Robert Stevens 11:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
...And I've now replaced "On the other hand, scholar Gustave Holscher maintained that certain passages of the book of Ezekiel were not written by a pre-Exilic prophet of Israel but were later added in the Persian period" with "On the other hand, others consider the failure of the Tyre prophecy to be self-evident [1] (as Tyre still exists, contrary to the prophecy), and scholar Gustave Holscher maintained that certain passages of the book of Ezekiel were not written by a pre-Exilic prophet of Israel but were later added in the Persian period". I've deliberately left Holscher's exact position somewhat ambiguous, pending further information. -- Robert Stevens 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC) The new sections provided in this article should provide some insight into the mechanics behind this sub-topic. Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The section on the "Tyre prophecy" is being continually reverted, most notably by user User:Kdbuffalo, with no comment on this Talk page and the comment "no exegesis done" for the actual deletion. But the article cites a legitimate, citation-supported critical view of this Biblical prophecy: that many reject the notion of the "Tyre prophecy" because it apparently failed. Even if "Biblical exegesis" could somehow solve this problem (and I know from experience that it cannot), that wouldn't change the fact that this is a common reason given by skeptics for THEIR view regarding this issue. It is entirely appropriate to include it. -- Robert Stevens 19:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the name be "Biblical prophecy", since "biblical" is an adj, whereas "bible" is a noun? It sounds wrong to me. Lostcaesar 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the term "Bible Prophecy" has long been the accepted term for it. Though technically from a linguistic standpoint you are correct, there are many other examples such as, "Relativity Theory".-- RichG 11:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with a nice compund noun... e.g. 'science fiction'.
==You will have to excuse me, in adding a few sections, I inadvertedly erase the title of a following topic== Radical man 7 08:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The link list seems to have passed the spam event horizon. Please decide which ones provide significant additional context over and above what would be included in a great article. Guy ( Help!) 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added the templates to suggest merging information from the Biblical Last Days article to this one. I believe that the information does overlap, and that the Biblical Last Days writing does not have enough information or context to be a seperate article. Hopefully it can be merged here and improved by someone with more knowledge in the subject. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 19:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Before deciding on whether to criticize or ask for the removal of these new sections, try to make use of this new methodology, give it a try over any topic, let me know if it works for you... Oh, being that the conceptual background of the last days mirrors that of the last days , the small section on the last days should be removed Radical man 7 18:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
As in other disciplines, technicians are created with the help of texts by established authorities, acquiring a basic knowledge of how to use the Bible. This is supposed to mean that a good thematic knowledge of the bible and a good methodology should be enough to explore and use any topic. However, the current age that we are a part of requires not only the stating of facts and opinions, today the methodology itself is now subject to public scrutiny. The use of commentary and methods are part of all professions, these texts and commentaries are the foundation of this discipline and should be treated as such. However, I find that the over-reliance on commentary which is only designed for the training of those that deal with theology, creates a situation where an individual's insight or methodology is dismissed out of hand and not by the merits of a given idea or methodology. This also means that the authoritive use of scripture is nullified because the opinion of a doctor of theology is used instead of what comes from experience, insight and conviction of the person that has to deal with life in the trenches. The use of concepts and being able to follow the development of a given concept throughout the Bible can only result in a methodology that not only provides insight into a given theme or situation, it also means that the functional aspect is put to the test, and in virtue of its functionality, is likely to be accepted as a new standard. Radical man 7 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Check out this website. http://www.tkic.piczo.com With the permission of Wiki I will post the information given. CWHJr 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't anybody of the type that is allowed to be quoted in Wikipedia (e.g. academics) done a study showing that biblical prophecy is nonsense? The reason I ask is that I have been involved in a very long web forum debate, in which I demonstrated that in those parts of the bible in which there are lots of prophecies, for every prophecy which could, with generous refereeing, possibly be said to have come true, there are several prophecies which very clearly have not. It was not particularly difficult for me to make this case - so if it has not been done formally, then I am surprised. New Thought 13:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This article presents a confusing perspective and multiple sections that seem to either violate NPOV by using an in-group perspective, or an assumption of culture (for example references to "Ancient Hebrew law and our current legal system"... which legal system? Israels?). Entire sections, or major premises of sections lack citations, and the phrasing is often confusing. The "Scientific Process" section makes no sense, though it appears as an attempt to discuss Biblical prophecy from a scientific standpoint.
Since 'prophecy' is by its nature often self-fulfilling, or at least horribly subjective in interpretation, i suggest that this article merely present an overview of what Biblical Prophecy is (or how it is used), and perhaps some specific examples of prophetic claims (not the veracity, just the claims). for example, examples in this article should be limited to "In 7XX CE, Bob McProphet claimed that Person X was the AntiChrist". Or perhaps it would be better to merge this into the appropriate Apologetics articles, since that is the essential application of "biblical prophecy".
Another idea would be to simply remove this page, or merge it with a larger article exploring the scientific understanding of prophetic claims and any neutral, scientific process for verifying such claims, since many claims of prophecy are so subjectively interpreted.
If i knew how to do it, i would tag this article with a merger suggestion , a POV tag, and most importantly the lack of sources tag, as information without support is useless, misleading, or malicious.
69.108.166.204 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Avidya, 2007 July 11, 11:13am PDT 69.108.166.204 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[10]... I believe that there are some Jews which do not advocate for rebuilding Solomon's Temple, right? ScienceApologist ( talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This section looks like a place people can promote their books. If the books are really that useful, then they can add information from them and include them in the reference format. As such, is there any reason this section should not be deleted? Carl.bunderson ( talk) 12:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Much of the article at present expresses a purely Christian viewpoint. A particular example of this is the Literalism v. Skepticisms section. Orthodox Jews believe in an explanatory oral tradition which often involves highly nonliteral interpretations of Moses' writings. They also believe as an article of Jewish faith that only Moses spoke directly to God and hence the other prophets aren't as clear as Moses, hence there's no problem not taking what they said literally. This is held as a matter of belief, not a matter of skepticism. The whole dichotomy between literalism and skepticism is simply irrelevant. -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose we change the name of this article to "Debunking Bible prophecy" and give fulfilled Biblical prophecy a page of it's own since this article appears to be concerned with showing how Bible prophecy is, in fact, no such thing. What do others think on this? Fritleyfrisp ( talk) 08:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see a source from any ancient Jewish literature, a midrashic interpretation, an ancient Christian source or any modern Bible scholar who considers this prophetic and not historical reportage. Cain is not prophesying, he is commenting and he can get it wrong just like any other human being. Qualifications for a prophecy in the Bible are clearly laid out in Deuteronomy and other books in the Torah. A writer reporting an historical event in which someone says something that is wrong does not constitute failed prophecy or an inaccuracy on any part of the Bible other than that person who is being reported. In order for a writing to qualify as prophectic it has to be a document that is made before the event, specifically to a coming event and then fulfilled. The use of the Bible in this way to show instances of "unfulfilled" "prophecy" is intellectually bankrupt. It should be changed. Fritleyfrisp ( talk) 16:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Jeremiah 30 (NIV version) describes the Holocaust, restoration of Israel, and the countries being destroyed that the Jews have been exiled in while the Jews still remain. This of course would have to contain both views to be NPOV and be from third party sources, but the chapter is not even mentioned right now:
1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you. 3 The days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,' says the LORD."
4 These are the words the LORD spoke concerning Israel and Judah: 5 "This is what the LORD says: " 'Cries of fear are heard— terror, not peace.
6 Ask and see: Can a man bear children? Then why do I see every strong man with his hands on his stomach like a woman in labor, every face turned deathly pale?
7 How awful that day will be! None will be like it. It will be a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it.
8 " 'In that day,' declares the LORD Almighty, 'I will break the yoke off their necks and will tear off their bonds; no longer will foreigners enslave them.
9 Instead, they will serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.
10 " 'So do not fear, O Jacob my servant; do not be dismayed, O Israel,' declares the LORD. 'I will surely save you out of a distant place, your descendants from the land of their exile. Jacob will again have peace and security, and no one will make him afraid.
11 I am with you and will save you,' declares the LORD. 'Though I completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will not completely destroy you. I will discipline you but only with justice; I will not let you go entirely unpunished.'
12 "This is what the LORD says: " 'Your wound is incurable, your injury beyond healing.
13 There is no one to plead your cause, no remedy for your sore, no healing for you.
14 All your allies have forgotten you; they care nothing for you. I have struck you as an enemy would and punished you as would the cruel, because your guilt is so great and your sins so many.
15 Why do you cry out over your wound, your pain that has no cure? Because of your great guilt and many sins I have done these things to you.
16 " 'But all who devour you will be devoured; all your enemies will go into exile. Those who plunder you will be plundered; all who make spoil of you I will despoil.
17 But I will restore you to health and heal your wounds,' declares the LORD, 'because you are called an outcast, Zion for whom no one cares.'
18 "This is what the LORD says: " 'I will restore the fortunes of Jacob's tents and have compassion on his dwellings; the city will be rebuilt on her ruins, and the palace will stand in its proper place.
19 From them will come songs of thanksgiving and the sound of rejoicing. I will add to their numbers, and they will not be decreased; I will bring them honor, and they will not be disdained.
20 Their children will be as in days of old, and their community will be established before me; I will punish all who oppress them.
21 Their leader will be one of their own; their ruler will arise from among them. I will bring him near and he will come close to me, for who is he who will devote himself to be close to me?' declares the LORD.
22 " 'So you will be my people, and I will be your God.' "
23 See, the storm of the LORD will burst out in wrath, a driving wind swirling down on the heads of the wicked.
24 The fierce anger of the LORD will not turn back until he fully accomplishes the purposes of his heart. In days to come you will understand this.
Critics would be right to point out vagueness as to when these events will occur, but it is important to notice that God told Jeremiah to write these words in a book indicating a need to preserve these words for a significant amount of time.
-- Jorfer ( talk) 18:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well if they weren't at first they usually soon became enemies. The Persian Empire began killing all the Jews in Esther due to Haman, Antiochus did not make the Greeks look much better, the Romans burned Jerusalem, the Jews were persecuted during the Inquisition, the Russians gave them pogroms,and we all know what the Germans did. Sure Jews are scattered all over the world now and the Spanish, Russians, and Germans have not been completely destroyed, but this part of the prophecy is indefinite; it cannot be fully evaluated until the Apocalypse happens, but so far it has remained true. The Jews are persecuted, and the civilizations that persecute them are eventually destroyed, while the Jews retain their cultural identity. The passage does mention that the message is being spoken to Judah and Israel, but the passage speaks in terms of one Israel; Jacob is predominantly used and Judah is not mentioned in the actual prophecy. The point of the matter is that this passage should be discussed from both sides for the article not to be slanted by omission.-- Jorfer ( talk) 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Another example of this nonsense:
"Jonah
* Jonah prophesies that in forty days Nineveh shall be overthrown, but Nineveh was spared for turning from their evil ways.[41]"
Jonah prophesies that Nineveh will be overthrown in forty days if they do not turn from their evil ways. Go figure. Fritleyfrisp ( talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
These all seem to be unscholarly and or unsourced original research. A cleanup is in order. -- Ali M Saad ( talk) 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous inaccuracies in the Ezekiel section regarding the "Tyre prophecy". (which is often cited by apologists as a successful prophecy, and also by sceptics as a failed prophecy). For the time being, I'll just delete the stuff that's simply wrong. Alexander never "destroyed" Tyre (he damaged it), the city recovered, the claims that the city was "never rebuilt" are bogus, and "Sur" is simply the actual original name of the city that the Greeks called "Tyre" (and it has a population in excess of 100,000, it isn't a "fishing village"). Probably best to delete that paragraph entirely, and just put in a link to Tyre. -- Robert Stevens ( talk) 12:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Tyre was destroyed. http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/alexander/07.shtml "Alexander was so furious that this one city had halted his progress for so long, that he gave the city over to plunder and his soldiers sacked it without mercy." Cities were rebuilt on the site, but they were cities of other empires; the phoenician tyre was gone. Its inhabitants were sold into slavery. Sur is in fact a fishing village that is mostly known for the ancient ruins of the phoenician seaport city of tyre. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You deleted historical facts. The article never stated that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the island city. The article never directly stated that the prophecy was either fulfilled or whehter it failed. The content you deleted were all historical facts.
The island city was destroyed by Alexander, you did not dispute that. Cities were rebuilt on that site, but the Phoenician Tyre. You did not dispute that. You erased historical facts when it never directly stated whether the prohpecy succeeded or failed, and you justified it by saying it failed. Back2back2back ( talk) 14:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Explain to me how plundering a city and displacing its inhabitants is not destroying it.
You have not provided any sources that say the Pheonician Tyre was rebuilt. Nor have you provided any sources which say that the site of the old Tyre is now a city. The fact that the remains of the Phoenician Tyre are still there is solid evidence against the thesis that the site is now a city. It is insufficient to just say "look at Google earth"
Sur and Tyre was in fact distinct. The ancient Tyre is Phoenician. The modern Sur, which is sometimes known as Tyre is part of Lebanon.
The part you deleted also never said that all of its inhabitants were enslaved. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
When its residents are displaced, and half of the buildings are gone, how is the city not destroyed? A city by definition, has to have a high density of inhabitants.
Furthermore, the ancient Phoenician city is now known as Tyre, distinct from the modern Sur.
The Romans took control of Tyre and plundered it, the Phoenicians did not control that territory as the empire was ended when Tyre was destroyed. The territory of Tyre was under the control of the romans. Antigonus was fighting the other successsors of Alexander.
http://www.historyofwar.org/Maps/maps_Diadoch3.html 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The prophecy mentioned that Nebuchadnezzar will ravage the mainland and that the city would be destroyed. Why would it not be suitable to include Alexander since he destroyed the island city? Furthermore, only historical facts are presented. If this was apologetics, things like building the causeway out of the rubble of the mainland made it "as bare as a rock" would be mentioned. No where in the content you deleted where there any direct statement that the prophecy succeeded or failed. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The most recent version by Robert is fine. While Roberts comments on the talk page has asserted certainty as to the meaning of the prophecy on the talk page which can't be made do to the vague wording of the prophecy itself, the discussion afterwards sticks only to the facts.
"Your walls and demolish your towers" does not need to refer to those on the island...just those under Tyre's control which includes the mainland...this is why the semicolon is used after "He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword". The whole first paragraph could be argued as applying only to the mainland settlements.
The reason why the other part of the prophecy is argued as applying to Alexander is that "I will scrape away her rubble" seems to describe the land bridge that Alexander used to conquer the island...now the prophecy is not broken into two clear parts in Ezekiel but prophets often jump around from prophecy to prophecy in the bible without any clear separation or chronology.
The damaging aspect of the prophecy is that even given the first paragraph speaks just of the mainland, the term "rebuilt" must refer to "built in a manner similar to the original" rather than "built upon once more" to be counted as fulfilled (i.e. Ancient Rome has been built upon but has not been rebuilt). That evaluation requires knowledge of the original language as well as culture of the book. -- Jorfer ( talk) 03:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: I see that the inaccuracies continue! More from Back2back2back:
We have here a repetition of the falsehood that "the Phoenicians never rebuilt Tyre". Tyre was in fact rebuilt by the Tyrians (information that has been conveniently erased), and was therefore just as "Phoenician" after Alexander as it had been before Alexander. We also have ongoing ignorance of the fact that Tyre was part of the Persian empire, and a new claim that Tyre was rebuilt "under Roman control" which would have to involve erasing a whole section of Tyre's history in which it was under Seleucid control before throwing that off and becoming self-governing again! And it's still trying to juggle with the names "Tyre" and "Sur" as if they were separate names ("ancient Tyre", "modern city of Sur": the ancient city was in fact called SUR).
And what do we have as a source? Some crazy cultish website with headings such as "Beginning of the Cultural Age of Aries", "Beginning of the Sun Regency of the Archangel Micheal until 200 B.C." and "Beginning of the Saturn Regency of the Archangel Oriphiel until 150 A.D.". Please read WP:RS, this source is entirely unacceptable (it's also entirely clueless: "Babylon begins a 13-year siege of the mainland of the Phoenician city of Tyre", when actually Babylon overran the mainland villages immediately and then began a 13-year siege of the island fortress of Tyre). Yet even this bizarre travesty doesn't contain "The city was rebuilt under Roman control", and the reference in the text there is MY reference to the rebuilding by the TYRIANS.
Major surgery will be required here. -- Robert Stevens ( talk) 17:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You added information, saying that the mainland was only a series of villages, without providing any sources. You also stated that only the island was part of the city, also without providing any sources.
Furthermore, you changed the paragraph so it mentioned whether or not Alexander should not interpreted as having fulfilled the prophecy before the historical facts, without giving any reason at all.
You also removed information about the ancient ruins still visible, and the information about fishing activities on the island when it was part of the prophecy, without giving any reasons at all.
You also said that the city was repopulated by Tyrian colonists when that's not what the source said.
You also included the invasion by Antigonus when it's totally irrelevant to the prophecy or to the issue of whether or not Tyre was rebuilt. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 21:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
some of your sources (See Jidejian, Nina, Tyre Through the Ages, 1969, for further information about the history Tyre and its present condition. Lorenzi, Rossella (May 21, 2007). Sandbar Aided Alexander the Great. Discovery News. (Bikai, P., "The Land of Tyre," in Joukowsky, M., The Heritage of Tyre, 1992, chapter 2, p. 13)) were copied word for word from the Tyre, Lebanon wikipedia page, and the information that is cited doesn't even match!
Moreover, you keep saying that my version is nonsense and yet you have given no reason why you have deleted a lot of the cited materials.
As a resolution, I recommend that all opinions be left out of the section, and only historical facts are presented, historical facts which are relevant to the prophecy such as the alleged destruction and rebuilding of the city. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 23:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would delete all apologist and skeptical opinions but you don't seem to be interested in that. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Why shouldn't Alexander be included? Readers can make up their minds themselves about whether or not the passage only talks about Nebuchadnezzar destroying Tyre and not any other nations. 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 16:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The prophecy said that Tyre would be destroyed. Alexander destroyed the city. Or as you would like to say, he plundered the city, set half the city on fire, and displaced all the residents. Why shouldn't he be mentioned? 64.231.99.114 ( talk) 17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a historical fact that Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Egypt, and it is a historical fact that Amasis II (the pharaoh who stopped him) conquered Cyprus (and held it until 545 BC, long after Nebuchadnezzar's death). Ezekiel's writings end with the end of the siege of Tyre in 573 BC. I will revert and delete the ad-hominem attempt to discredit Herodotus: there are cases where Herododus included "traveller's tales" about strange beasts in far-off lands, but the claim of his "inaccuracy" is selectively taken from a source [12] that actually says:
"Herodotus was not the first historian, but he was the first to make investigation the key to history. The word "history" comes from a Greek word which means "inquiry" or "investigation." He wanted to find what actually happened, so he traveled extensively in the Eastern Mediterranean, including visits to Egypt and Persia. He talked to many people, including people who actually witnessed the events he wrote about. While people today might criticize him for his tendency to include inaccurate and often implausible information, he nevertheless established the notion that history must begin with research."
He went there. He researched. He talked to those who had direct knowledge. And, of course, he isn't the only source of information on this period: whereas NO historical source has been provided which contradicts this account. Egypt did not fall until the Persians invaded it. I will revert. -- Robert Stevens ( talk) 07:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The empires added ruled over Egypt, those empires weren't ruled by Egypt.
Furthermore, it is perfectly reasonable to include criticism about a historian's accuracy if that historian is going to be quoted.
The Ezekiel 29:15 prophecy talks about a future conditions.
"WILL make Egypt so weak that it will never rule again over other nations." The "will never rule again over nations" start at a point in the future, not when the prophecy is made.
All opinions has also been removed. Back2back2back ( talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I am going to agree with Back2back here. On the first part, Egypt would seem to just be a vassal in the larger Arab empire rather the head of the empire, but this is subjective. In order to keep the article as objective as possible, we better leave that out lest we be forced to tell the entire history of Egypt on this page.
In this case the ad-hominem statement is valid since the credibility of the fact depends on the credibility of the individual unlike arguments on viewpoint where the logic of the individual is the only thing that matters.
The Ezekiel 29:15 should be allowed to stand alone without the Nebuchadnezzar prophecy below, since 17-21 were added later. The first prophecy is made in 587 or 586 BC, while the second was supposedly made in 570 BC. An interesting aspect is that the failed prophecies seemed to have been added by another author later on. If you look up the word "year" in Ezekiel, you will find that Ezekiel dated his entries in the same format and the order he received them. Ezekiel: In the [a] thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day In the sixth year, in the sixth month on the fifth day In the seventh year, in the fifth month on the tenth day In the ninth year, in the tenth month on the tenth day
In the Tyre passage: In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month
More interesting...the Egypt prophecy: In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day
Ezekiel received visions on the fifth and tenth of the month but not in these cases apparently. Also, what are the chances of him receiving a vision on the anniversary of the 597 BC exile of the elites unless there was a specific reason for that day? Extremely low. Also, the two questionable passages are dated to the first on the month. Of course this can't be included, because until I find a source from an expert who has done such an analysis (if it has been done...which is probably the case), it is original research, but it reinforces the point that could be made by itself that the tenth year prophecy should be included on its own. -- Jorfer ( talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the reference to the Phoenician name since there were no other references to it, and merged the two quotes. Back2back2back ( talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You misworded the Egypt prophecy. It doesn't say that "Egypt will never rule over other nations".
Furthermore, it is perfectly reasonable to include OBJECTIVE CRITICISM of a historian if that historian is going to be quoted.
Furthermore, if Alexander the Great is not included in the Tyre prophecy, readers can figure that out for themselves. The prophecy said that Tyre would be destroyed, if someone destroys it, why shouldn't it be included? Furthermore, it doesn't matter that alexander wasn't mentioned, prophecies does not have to mention every little fact. Back2back2back ( talk) 12:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The prophecy never says that Nebuchanezzar would be the one to destroy the city. Herodotus has been known to be inaccurate, that's why it's included.
Furthermore, this article is supposed to be objective.
Language like "and, in the current version of the book, it plainly belongs with the rest of the failed prophecy regarding Nebby's conquest and depopulation." is not objective. Back2back2back ( talk) 13:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is supposed to be objective. There should be no mention of whether prophecies failed or succeeded except giving historical facts.
The Tyre prophecy never said that Tyre would be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, but did say that it was going to be destroyed. If Alexander destroyed the city, why shouldn't he be included? Why not let readers draw their own conclusions? Wanting to include skeptics' opinion is no reason to write something.
You also deleted information about Egypt never ruling over any nations since 545 BC.
Please don't delete historical facts that are relevant to the prophecy without giving any explanations.
And we don't need to quote the entire chapter of Ezekiel 29 since the prophecy can be easily summarized. Furthermore, the readers can easily find the context if they wish to read the passage.
Moreover, the fact that someone disagrees with the authorship should not be included. That can be easily looked up on other wikipedia pages. Otherwise, the article would get too long. This article isn't here to inform the reader about apologetic or skeptical opinions or secular or Christian historians believe about the authorship and date of each book.
This is an objective article, and collaboration will not work if everyone wanted their opinion reflected in the article. Back2back2back ( talk) 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no controversy as to matters of fact. The apologetic and skeptical viewpoints are matters of interpretation of facts. Hence they should not be included.
The Ptolemaic Empire ruled OVER Egypt, and was the result of Alexander the Great dividing his empire. The Ptolemaics were Macedonian.
Furthermore, you haven't given any reason for most of your reverts. Back2back2back ( talk) 12:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no dispute as to matters of fact. Wikipedia never says you must include every opinion as to interpretation of the facts.
"For the next two-and-a-half centuries, the Ptolemaic dynasty of the Greeks would successfully rule Egypt, mingling Hellenic traditions with the mighty legacy of the Pharaohs.
It was under the Ptolemaic Dynasty that Alexandria truly became the cultural and economic center of the ancient world. Egypt was ruled from Alexandria by Ptolemy's descendants until the death of Cleopatra VII in 30 BC."
http://www.touregypt.net/alexhis1.htm
Furthermore, you have deleted historical facts without giving any reasons at all and have also not given any reasons for most of your reverts. Back2back2back ( talk) 13:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Egypt was under foreign control under the Ptolemaic dynasty. During that era, Egypt was ruled by the macedonian Royal family. The capital of the empire, Alexandria was Greek. The ruling class was Greek. Greek even became the official language. The claim that Egypt ruled over nations when Egypt itself was under greek control is absurd. Do you have any sources which say that directly states that Egypt was not under foreign rule?
all these sources say that Egypt was under Greek rule
http://www.goegypt.org/aboutegy/history/10-greekrule.htm http://www.touregypt.net/alexhis1.htm http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/egypt/history/greeks.htm http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/rule.html
"They lived under Greek law, received a Greek education, were tried in Greek courts, and were citizens of Greek cities, just as they had been in Greece. The Egyptians were rarely admitted to the higher levels of Greek culture, in which most Egyptians were not in any case interested."
"Ptolemy I established the Greek colony of Ptolemais Hermiou to be its capital"
"Greeks were planted in colonies and garrisons or settled themselves in the villages throughout the country."
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/History/PtolemaicEgypt.html
The Egyptians were under Greek rule, there's no controversy whatsoever.
" During the Ptolemies era, a number of rebellions against foreign rule were suppressed. Consequently, the monuments were not spared devastation. In the same manner, the Romans plundered the city on stages, that city of great civilization and the centre of tourism. "
http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/magazin/spring1996/110202000000000002.htm
"The last native dynasty fell to the Persians in 343 BC. Later, Egypt was under the rule of Greeks, Romans and Byzantines, which resulted in almost two thousand years of foreign rule."
http://www.placesonline.com/africa/egypt/culture_and_geography.asp Back2back2back ( talk) 21:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Back2back2back: Egypt was NOT under the rule of Greece or any other nation during the Ptolemaic period. They were under the rule of people who came from Greece. Just as the USA after independence was ruled by people who came from Britain (mostly) rather than the Native Americans, but was NOT under British rule. Egypt had become an INDEPENDENT nation, with a ruling class of foreign origin: just like the United States of America is today. -- Robert Stevens ( talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The British ruled over other British. The ruling class ruled over their own nationals. One origin, one country, no foreign rule.
The Greeks ruled over native Egyptians. The ruling class ruled over citizens of other countries. Foreign rule.
Furthermore, you're ignoring all the sources which say Egypt was under foreign rule.
If the British ruled over the Native Americans, declared independence, set up a British capital city and British settlements, made English the official language, have British nationals live under British law, and dominated the ruling class and higher levels of society, the Native Americans would be under foreign control. Back2back2back ( talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Egypt won the war for independence? What are you talking about?
And you've ignored the differences between America and Ancient Egypt. In America, the ruling class ruled over its own people. There was no foreign rule.
The government was Greek. The ruling class was Greek. The capital was Greek. There were greek colonies, Greek was the official language. The fact that it was called "Egypt" doesn't change the fact that the Greeks ruled the country.
Furthermore, the kingdom wasn't even called Egypt; it was called the Ptolemaic Kingdom. And whichever nations ruled by the Kingdom would be under Greek control since the kingdom itself was under Greek control anyway.
Actually Alexander the Great's Greece was divided into several kingdoms, one of them being ptolemaic kingdom. The Ptolemaic Kingdom wasn't actually independent from Greece, it was one of several Greek kingdoms.
The argument that Egypt ruled over other nations simply because both Egypt and other nations was under Greek control is flawed on many levels. Back2back2back
I suggest moving the ezekiel discussion topics (29 and 30) to the sandbox.( talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You didn't really address the main points. First you said that Egypt won its war for independence. What war? Egypt was taken over by the Ptolemaic empire when the war started. I don't see how that is a war for independence.
You've also ignored the fact that Greece was divided into several parts, Ptolemaic Kingdom being one of them. Egypt actually became part of a foreign empire.
I don't see how I was contradicting myself when I said both foreign rule and foreign control.
In addition, the Ptolemaic Empire is one of the divided parts of Greece. The Ptoemaic Empire is a Greek Empire. You haven't made any arguments as to why Egypt should be considered as ruling over other nations. Back2back2back ( talk) 19:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"The Ptolemaic Kingdom (Greek: Πτολεμαϊκό Βασίλειο) in and around Egypt began following Alexander the Great's conquest in 332 BC and ended with the death of Cleopatra VII and the Roman conquest in 30 BC. It was founded when Ptolemy I Soter declared himself Pharaoh of Egypt, creating a powerful Hellenistic state stretching from southern Syria to Cyrene and south to Nubia. Alexandria became the capital city and a center of Greek culture and trade. To gain recognition by the native Egyptian populace, they named themselves as the successors to the Pharaohs. The later Ptolemies took on Egyptian traditions by marrying their siblings, had themselves portrayed on public monuments in Egyptian style and dress, and participated in Egyptian religious life. Hellenistic culture thrived in Egypt until the Muslim conquest. The Ptolemies had to fight native rebellions and were involved in foreign and civil wars that led to the decline of the kingdom and its annexation by Rome."
You seem to be thinking that Ptolemaic Kingdom = Egypt
Furthermore, what is your source? Back2back2back ( talk) 12:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That does not change the fact that Ptolemaic Kingdom =/= Egypt.
The Ptolemaic Kingdom is Greek, it is not even Egyptian. Furthermore, the kingdom consisted of nations other than Egypt when Greece was split into four kingdoms.
The quote just reinforces the notion that the Greek Empire was divided, with the Ptolemaic Kingdom being one of the four pieces. Back2back2back ( talk) 12:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The Ptolemaic Kingdom was a Hellenistic (Greek) Empire. Egypt is simply the name of the conquered nation. You haven't provided any sources which say that the Ptolemaic Kingdom is not a Greek kingdom, but Egypt.
It is not out of the ordinary to call the conquered land "Egyptian" or the affairs "egyptian affairs".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Egypt
references were made to Egyptian forces, Egyptian affairs.
Furthermore, saying that Ptolemaic Kingdom = Egypt is very far-fetched since the capital was Greek, there were Greek colonies, a greek ruling class, and Greek was the official language, and that the Ptolemaic Kingdom was one of four kingdoms Alexander's empire split into, so in fact, Ptolemaic Kingdom = Greece. Back2back2back ( talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Why would I argue that America = Britain? Furthermore, why would I deny that America conquered lands? Your inference makes no sense.
"not rule over other nations for a while." implied that it did rule over other nations when in fact it was conquered by Alexander and then its kingdom was divided.
However, in the later Ptolemaic period, Egyptian rule stretched from southern Syria to Cyrene and south to Nubia (see Ptolemaic Kingdom).
No. Ptolemaic Kingdom rule (a Greek kingdom split off from Alexander) stretched from southern Syria to Cyrene and south to Nubia (see Ptolemaic Kingdom).
Some apologists claim that Ptolemaic Egypt is a different political entity to the one Ezekiel was referring to, due to the Macedonian Greek origin of the ruling class (however, it was an independent nation at this time, not actually a vassal of Greece)."
No. The Ptolemaic Kingdom was one of the kingdoms split from Alexander the Great's Greece. Furthermore, you neglected to mention that the capital city was Greek.
If you plan to edit, use the sandbox to prevent edit-warring and give reasons for your edit, and use its discussion page.
Let's summarize the reasons why Ptolemaic Kingdom =/= Egypt, most of which you neglect to address.
Alexander the Great conquered Egypt; afterwards, his kingdom was split, with the Ptolemaic Kingdom being one of the pieces, thus the Ptolemaic Kingdom is Greece.
The Ruling class was Greek, the capital, named after Alexander the Great, was Greek, there were Greek colonists, the official language was Greek.
No source describes the Ptolemaic Kingdom as something other than a Greek Kingdom.
Even if the Ptolemaic Kingdom is not a Greek Kingdom (which it is), Egypt was already conquered by Alexander anyway, so Egypt was part of Alexander the Great's Greece to being with.
Even if the Ptolemaic Kingdom is Egyptian (which it is not) and ruled over other lands, the ruling class was Greek.
Furthermore, to say that the Ptolemys became Greek makes no sense because the Egypt before the Ptolemaic Kingdom came into being was part of Alexander the Great's Empire. Back2back2back ( talk) 12:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Your example of Native Americans, America, and Britain makes no sense. You have still not articulated how that parallels Egypt and Ptolemaic Kingdom. I suppose Britain would be Greece, and America would be the Ptolemaic Kingdom, and the native americans would be the Egyptians. The Ptolemaic Kingdom was one of the pieces split off Alexander the Great's Greece, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom occupied Egypt.
You're saying that Egypt became independent after Alexander the Great occupied it. It makes no sense. A nation doesn't become independent when one conquerer drives out another.
Alexander the Great's Kingdom was split up into pieces, Ptolemaic Kingdom being one of them. How is that incorrect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#History
references were made to "hellenistic Greece" and "greek kingdoms"
Explain how Egypt can rule over other nations when it was conquered by the Persians, then Alexander, and then one of Alexander's generals after the kingdom was split
You keep thinking that the Ptolemaic Kingdom = Egypt when in fact, it is really a Greek kingdom split from Alexander's Greece and that the Ptolemaic Kingdom just happened to rule over Egypt. At that time, Egypt has been under foreign control for hundreds of years.
references were made to "Egypt", so what? Egypt was a conquered land and under Greek control.
You will find many references of just about every conquered nation which exists as an independent one today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_and_Byzantine_Greece
Furthermore, sandboxes are not made for major changes. Back2back2back ( talk) 17:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Ptolemaic Kingdom was independent, but it was an independent Greek Kingdom, one of four pieces of Alexander the Great's divided kingdom. Ptolemaic Kingdom would be equivalent to America, and the Native Americans would be equivalent to the Egyptians.
If the British empire controlled the Eastern seaboard for 100 years, and then America split from the empire, you would be arguing that somehow, that gives the Native Americans independence.
You have never even been close to establish that Egypt was independent.
References to Ptolemaic Egypt doesn't show that Egypt was independent, there were references to Roman Egypt, Roman Greece after IT was conquered, etc. The term "Ptolemaic Egypt" doesn't prove a thing, the fact of the matter is, Egypt was part of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. You have not yet shown any evidence that Ptolemaic Kingdom = Egypt.
"Despite being a powerful nation in ancient times, Egypt has since been ruled by the Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantine Empire, Ottomans, British and the French.
However, it has also enjoyed periods of independence from external rule, and has occasionally ruled over other nations in turn".
Independence? Explain to me how being part of a Greek Kingdom is independence, how the Greek dominating the upper class, the capital city being Greek, the language being Greek, is being independent.
Look at the entire picture. Egypt was first part of the Persian empire, then Alexander's. And then Alexander's Kingdom split. And now you're saying, that one of the pieces, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, equates to an independent Egypt when in fact, is just one of the pieces of Alexander's empire.
Furthermore, Ezekiel never says that Nebuchadnezzar will desolate and depopulate Egypt. Simply that Nebuchadnezzar will take Egypt's spoil. Back2back2back ( talk) 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
So just because I disagree with you means I'm refusing dispute resolution? I've given reasons for every change I've made, if you continue to revert indiscriminately, I will report you. You proceeded to edit and revert before you proposed to move the disputed section to the talk pages.
There is no dispute about the fact that Egypt was ruled by many foreign powers, there is no reason not to include it in the article. Saying that the article fails to mention some fact is no reason to delete others. However, I am willing to move the entire section to the sandbox and leave only the basic theme of the prophecy. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Back2back2back/Sandbox)
You keep saying that Egypt is an independent nation when in fact it was part of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. The only reason you've given for that is because of references to "Ptolemaic Egypt". I've pointed out many times that when nations are conquered and are part of an empire, they can still be referred to such as "Roman Greece". references such as "Ptolemaic Egypt" does not prove a thing.
Furthermore, multitude does not necessarily mean "population", it is used in many contexts. Back2back2back ( talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it'll be better to start discussion on the sandbox talkpage. Back2back2back ( talk) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed this material completely for the time being - I think it is much too "far out" to assert that, eg, the mark of the beast is a computer-chip, wholly without reference and argument. ALL of this article is extremely poorly presented, but this is just unacceptable. Redheylin ( talk) 05:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Although there are many variations in perspective among religious believers, a few specific events which are commonly held by those of the dispensationalist school of thought have been attributed to the below Bible passages:
Additionally, some popular conjectures on the progression of currently existing situations into prophecy fulfilment include:
I don't think whether Jesus qualifies as the Messiah or Jesus' lineage should be part of the prophecy of David's kingdom lasting forever. The section is very lengthy and I feel unnecessary. Back2back2back ( talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A page detailing specific predictions in the Bible is valuable and interesting. But one or two friends here appear to believe this page is intended to uphold a particular class of beliefs ABOUT this, and are inserting apologies without proper references, without balance and without edit notes. Clearly this is a misuse of wiki. Please desist from attempting to make wiki a platform for your own research and beliefs, and understand that this amounts to disruptive editing. Thanks. Redheylin ( talk) 03:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It's also worth mentioning that extensive Bible quotes of material hardly relevant to the subject of the page devalues the page. Redheylin ( talk) 03:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I am splitting the Davidic line section into a new article to limit the size of the section on this page as Back2back has expressed valid concern over the size of the section.-- Jorfer ( talk) 23:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I put the Davidic Kingdom article up for "Do You Know" and this was the response:
Bible verses are not appropriate for DYK. Also, I'm concerned about reliability of some of the sources used in the article. In no way is this an exhaustive analysis: Self-published by a group of like-minded Christians and their minister (not clear he has any professional training), Published by lulu.com, which allows anyone to publish their material, "Attorney puts Jesus on trial" is the beginning of the Google description and the book is not written by a credentialed theologian or religious studies academic, self-published thoughts of a web developer, self-published thoughts of an IT exec, etc. Awadewit ( talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
We need to improve sourcing on both sides of the article, and this probably applies equally to the sources used on this page (especially if the same sources are used).-- Jorfer ( talk) 17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Details in the following link: http://www.archive.org/details/The_Absolute_Truth_About_Muhammad_in_the_Bible_With_Arabic_Subtitles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.34.104 ( talk) 22:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't you need to identify where it is said that some scholars dont find prophecies in the bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.35.102 ( talk) 00:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
In Levituss Tyre is being admonished and is being said to have once been a garden. Was14:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC) 174.96.99.186 ( talk) this the garden of eden?
If a non Christian point of view is necessary, can this article be reorganised to separate Christian and non Christian points of view. I personally think Bible prophecy should be explained by Christians, and not by Muslims or atheists or others. After all, the objective of an encyclopedia should be to describe and explain what a topic is rather than what it is not. SLWG ( talk) 19:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is not a neutral exposition of what bible prophecy is.
It is full of passages that reveal people's points of view, some stating that it is true, others mainly negative (eg. the word "Supposed"). I am a Christian, but I'm sure I could write a neutral objective article on Atheism, describing what it is, what atheists think, what it's roots are and so on without putting in what my personal view is. Surely this should be about what people believe, rather than whether what they believe is true or not or, even worse, whether the author thinks it is true or not.
I rarely post my opinion, but my hope is that someone can be objective about the material.
This kind of thing just undermines and chips away at Wikipedia's credibility.
AbsoluteZero01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsoluteZero01 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bible prophecy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Bible prophecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Bible prophecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bible prophecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted WP:OR which violates WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)