Talk:Bible prophecy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Queries re specific points[edit]

2 Kings prophecy re Jehoiakim[edit]

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))

to be added please[edit]

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.

dantedanti

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)

npov[edit]

I think if one complains about NPOV they should state why in the talksection. It is just common courtesy and shows you are serious.

After having just read this article for the first time I agreed with the tag placed in one section that it seemed to be presenting a certain perspective persuasively using non-NPOV language. It wasn't that it was poorly written, it's just in the wrong place for a appologetic article on 7th day adventism. It also lacked citations and sources and thus appeared to be original research on the part of the author. I removed the section but not to worry, it's still in the history if anyone would like to rework it to NPOV stance, using citations and appropriate neutrality. Thanks! --DjSamwise 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added a few small sections that give practical insight into the actual mechanics behind prophecy, I hope that it helps.

Radical man 7 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

more resources[edit]

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

QUICK NOTE[edit]

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

TO: dante[edit]

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

organization[edit]

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]

Book of Daniel[edit]

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

A good point (and this really should have been edited by now). The late authorship of Daniel is now the mainstream scholarly view: Britannica, for instance, states this as fact. It is disingenuous to imply that this was just Porphyry's view. I have edited accordingly: "(a view now shared by many modern scholars)". I was tempted to say "most", but I expect someone might challenge me on the actual numbers. --Robert Stevens 11:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This debate is included in one of the new sections added.Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

to be added or corrected[edit]

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)

Roman Empire[edit]

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:

  • 1) The Roman Empire was alive and well when the New Testament was written, so how can the Bible foresee the re-creation of an empire which had not yet fallen apart? Did the Bible foresee the collapse of the Roman Empire in the first place? Is there a specific section of the Bible which specifically mentions the collapse of the Empire, then the re-creation of the Empire, or is it just the way a particular verse is interpreted? I've just googled the specific passages of Daniel mentioned in the article and they don't seem to have anything to do with this prediction. Also, wasn't Daniel written before the Roman Empire? How can it predict the re-formation of an empire which hadn't even been established for the first time, never mind a second time?
  • 2) Why do people say that the European Union is the reformed Roman Empire? Why do they not point to Napoleon's Empire, or the Third Reich, or the Byzantine Empire, or the Empire of Charlemagne, or the Holy Roman Empire or any of the other large supra-national political entities which have been created in Europe between the end of the Roman Empire and the present day? Why is the finger pointed at the EU and none of these previous entities? It seems a strange choice, considering that the EU is mostly made up of countries which weren't in the Roman Empire in the first place. Rusty2005 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Roughly one quarter?[edit]

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)

Article merge[edit]

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)

I also agree that the merger is a bad idea. Messianic propheyc is a subdivision of Bible prophecy which is a larger article. ken 21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
At the moment its [the messianic prophecy article] just a list of quotes, rather than a proper article. I think it should be merged before it gets removed to Wikisource or Wikiquote completely. I can see how (Alleged) Messianic Prophecy is significant among notable literalist groups in Christianity (american conservative Protestants etc.), and that there could probably be an article written about it, but all we have now is a big list of quotes; there is very little actual article. Clinkophonist 13:12, 15 July 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 (moved from top of talk page)[edit]

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)

Misleading Language?[edit]

"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)

I see that user 136.183.146.137 has reverted these additions. But the existence of Tyre is not a "point of view" as claimed: it is a fact that can easily be verified by consulting any atlas (in fact, modern Tyre is the fourth-largest city in Lebanon). Is the existence of Jerusalem "POV" too? This is ridiculous.
It is also silly to suggest that a citation is need for the claim that "many modern scholars" regard Daniel as written late. This is common knowledge, and there's a Wikipedia page on Daniel which dicusses this in detail! It appears that this editor wishes the original misleading wording to remain: the implication that only Porphyry held this view.
As for his previous edit: if he wants a citation for " In the last century this view has been accepted by many in Judaism, Catholic Christianity, in theologically liberal branches of Protestant Christianity, and in Unitarian Universalism. However, this view is totally rejected by Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians", then surely a "citation needed" tag would have been more appropriate than outright deletion? I am reverting to the version prior to these changes. --Robert Stevens 22:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Update: I have reverted another attempt to censor the existence of Tyre (including deletion of my link to the Tyre page), by user 136.183.146.158, with the comment "no exegesis done for claim". Tyre EXISTS: this is a fact, and "Biblical exegesis" won't change that fact. Nor will it change the fact that Ezekiel prophesied permanent destruction. I am well aware of apologetic attempts to get around this problem (e.g. Tyre was to be permanently destroyed in a "metaphorical sense"), and I know why such arguments fail. But Wikipedia is not the place for apologetics. The section is intended to point out the reason why skeptics consider the prophecy to have failed: regardless of whether you agree with it or not. And, in my experience, many of the more clueless apologists actually don't know that Tyre exists: I've seen claims that "the island sank" and that Tyre is "just a fishing village". This sort of very basic factual error needs correcting, and that IS within the remit of an encyclopaedia.

Repeated deletions by user Kdbuffalo[edit]

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)

The critic Farrell Till has merely English degrees and is no Bible exegesis expert. ken 21:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
...Then would you mind explaining why you have elsewhere posted material from J. P. Holding, a Christian apologist who has no relevant credentials whatsoever? Farrell Till is a notable authority, his work has passed scholarly peer-review, and he represents a legitimate and widely-held view. Hence, I will revert this (again). Besides, this view of the Tyre prophecy is common among Christians too (other than inerrantists, of course). Even if "they all got it wrong", it would still be a common and notable view. --Robert Stevens 19:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
When has the work of Farell Till passed scholarly peer review? Please demonstrate what you assert. ken 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Till has numerous articles in the Secular Web's "Modern Documents" library, which has a peer-review process on submissions[2]. In any case, exegesis doesn't require any specific qualifications: it's merely reading what the author actually wrote (in context) to determine what he meant, rather than imposing one's own views on the text. As a former Church-Of-Christ pastor and missionary, who attended two of their colleges and obtained his degrees there, Till is well aware of Christian interpretations of scripture, but his English degrees are relevant to his expertise in semantics and the structure of language, which helps to determine meaning. In the Till/Hogan discussion ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), his exegesis of the Tyre prophecy was a major factor in his victory.
It's worth comparing this with Holding's sloppy exegesis of the Tyre prophecy[9]. In his interpretation of "many nations", Holding failed to notice that Ezekiel described Nebby as "King of kings" (i.e. an overking, a ruler of many nations) in Ezekiel 26:7. He also failed to notice that the separation of the prophecy into "Nebby's part" and "Alexander's part" doesn't really help, because Nebby's failure to breach the walls of Tyre and enter the city means that the part allocated specifically to HIM failed (Ezekiel 26:9-11). Holding was apparently unaware of the fact that the city of Tyre was on the island, even though Ezekiel himself apparently understood this, consistently referring to Tyre as "in the midst of the sea", likening attackers to waves of the sea, and playing with the "top of a rock" metaphor (referring to the great rock of the island fortress that gave the city its name). --Robert Stevens 11:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but I still do not believe that Farrell Till passed scholarly peer review. ken 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
...And do you seriously imagine that Turkel/Holding has? Both Till AND the Secular Web are notable AND authoritative sources. --Robert Stevens 11:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Name of article[edit]

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)

Links[edit]

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)

Merge Biblical Last Days[edit]

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)

New sections[edit]

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 removedRadical man 7 18:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A new standard[edit]

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)

There is a new interpritation of Bible prophecy coming down the pipe[edit]

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)

This is not the type of reliable source required by Wikipedia. JonHarder talk 22:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

basic point missing[edit]

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)

Confusing, Lack of Citations, violates NPOV[edit]

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 PDT69.108.166.204 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain this edit?[edit]

[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)

I suppose some Jews may advocate whatever they like, but that does not alter the unified Jewish approach. Would it be proper to assert that "Jews revere the Old Testament, but not the New Testament"? Classically, the Jewish people are the "People of the Book," referring to the Old Testament. If some decide they profess more allegiance to the TV Guide, does that change the essence of the construct that Jews are followers of the Old Testament? The answer is a resounding 'no'.
Similary, Judaism espouses that there were two temples built in Jerusalem and both were destroyed, and with the coming of the Messiah, the third and final temple will once again grace the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is not an ultra-orthodox sentiment, but one that is mentioned extensively in the daily prayers, possessing considerable sourcing througout the books of Prophets, Writings and the Talmud. How would you suggest wording the sentence in a way that reflects truth rather than pandering to the politically correctness that is seemingly leaching into the fabric of reality? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it part of Reform Judaism creed? Seems to me that it is not. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed, no, it is not. Obviously not all Jews believe this, so we must qualify. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Please check this edit for discussion on the matter. I changed this to "Orthodox Jews" to be clear. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Books on Christian Eschatology[edit]

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)

Done, in absense of opposition. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Literalism v. Skepticism[edit]

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)

Article name change[edit]

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)

This article as it is currently mostly discusses events that would be considered prophetic failures, but that does not mean the title should be changed. To do what you are saying would be POV forking. The content just needs to include events that would be considered prophetic successes such as the restoration of Israel. If you have the time, go ahead and add this to the article with proper sourcing of course, preferably with sources outside of the Bible to make sure it is not Original Research.--Jorfer (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure that the instances cited in the article are prophecies at all. What do you think? Fritleyfrisp (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


Here is an example:
Cain says "...I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."[1] God then proceeds to offer Cain protection "...Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over. Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him."[2] Cain then impregnates his wife and she gave birth to a son named Enoch, while he built a city.[3]

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)

One problem: I'm pretty sure there aren't any verifiably-fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. Indeed, I've even seen some of the more clued-up Christians say this (on discussion groups and so forth). So the allegedly "fulfilled" Biblical prophecies would have to be provided with their own debunkings. For instance, every alleged reference to the restoration of Israel that I've ever seen is actually an out-of-context reference to either the return from the Babylonian Captivity, or the hoped-for return from the earlier Assyrian Captivity (which didn't actually happen, hence the legend of the "Lost Tribes of Israel"), or something too vague to be counted as a specific claim. --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's unworkable for another reason too: in many cases, we're not even talking about separate lists of prophecies here. Many of the prophecies claimed as successes by apologists are not merely unverifiable, but are actually verifiable as failures. Examples include Ezekiel's "Tyre prophecy", the "Babylon prophecy" of Isaiah and Jeremiah (Babylon wasn't destroyed by the Medes as prophesied, but went on to become the biggest city in the world during the time it was supposed to be "permanently uninhabited"), and Ezekiel's prophecy of the restoration of Israel (in Ezekiel's time, this name referred specifically to the northern kingdom, whose inhabitants had been carried off by the Assyrians shortly before: as previously mentioned, they never actually came back). --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:09, 12 May 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)

Jeremiah was written around the time of the Babylonian Captivity. Note that Jeremiah 30:3 still refers to the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah: the people of Israel had been taken by the Assyrians, and those of Judah had been taken by the Babylonians. Taking this out of its historical context and applying it to the Diaspora and the Holocaust would be problematic because of verse 11: most of the nations that the Jews were later scattered to were not enemies, and were not destroyed by God. Of course, apologists have applied it in this fashion nonetheless... --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You're mis-reading the text. The text doesn't say anything about God destroying (leaving aside the definition of 'destroy') the nations that he sends them into. Neither does it say anything about the nations in which God will send his people would be enemies as you have asserted. Read it carefully,you will see that God describes himself as the judge of the nations as in "I am God and this is what I do." Verse 11 is not a prophecy of the destruction of the nations into which God sends the Israelites but a prophecy of his preservation of them despite his ability to destroy all because of his sovereignty. With this in mind, verse 11 is actually a good example of at least a partially fulfilled prophecy from a Christian perspective since the ancient Semite race do still exist. I'm sure that you will find that many dispensational Christians would also teach that Jer 30 is referring to a fulfillment which is yet to come but is currently in the process of being fulfilled. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"most of the nations that the Jews were later scattered to were not enemies"

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)

Are you implying that God will destroy (for instance) the United States of America for harboring Jews? When set in its proper historical context, there's no problem: Jeremiah is invoking God's wrath against Assyria and Babylon (and probably Egypt too). --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not saying the United States will be destroyed for harboring the Jews. All nations except Israel will be destroyed for collaborating with the anti-Christ. Historical criticism is just one tool for looking at prophecy; textual criticism is just as valid. The command to write it in a book was an indication the message was not for Jeremiah's generation, and the use of Jacob indicates a corporal suffering for all of the Jews. This is not a discussion board. The point is that a discussion of this chapter by third-party sources is important to have in the article regardless of personal opinion of the validity of it.--Jorfer (talk) 17:17, 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)

I agree the text makes it clear that this is a warning, not a prophecy..."...and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened" (Jonah 3:10). Threatened makes it clear that it was conditional. I will erase it.--Jorfer (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

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 :)

  • "messiah2" :
    • * He will gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel.<ref>Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 27:12-13
    • [http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html Messiah Truth: A Jewish Response to Missionary Groups<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Prophecies[edit]

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)

These statements are not original research...Islamic scholars and imams will argue the Bible foreshadows Muhammad...I will admit the sources are not very good, but if you were to challenge the statements rather than the sourcing, most of these statements would likely be found in scholarly analysis.--Jorfer (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Errors in Ezekiel section[edit]

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)

No, that is simply incorrect. "Sacked" is not synonymous with "destroyed". The survivors (those not sold into slavery) repaired the city: in fact, a couple of decades later, the Tyrians were able to hold off the army of Alexander's former general Antigonus for more than a year. And Phoenician Tyre eventually regained its indepencence from the Seleucids, the successors of Alexander. And "Sur" is actually the Phoenician name of the city we call "Tyre": just as (for instance) "Moskva" is the actual Russian name of the city that English-speakers call "Moscow". --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
...Not that Alexander is particularly relevant here anyhow. It was Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon who was supposed to destroy the city of Tyre. Apologists like to argue that later conquerors would be included (expanding on Ezekiel's "many nations" reference, which was apparently referring to the "many nations" of Nebuchadnezzar's multinational army), but this doesn't really matter, as Nebuchadnezzar failed to perform the actions that Ezekiel specified that HE, Nebuchadnezzar, would perform. And Tyre was supposed to be left as a bare rock, never to be rebuilt... by anyone. Ezekiel later admits that Nebuchadnezzar never gained the promised riches from Tyre, which is why he promised that Nebuchadnezzar would sack Egypt instead: however, Nebuchadnezzar's army was defeated by Egypt's Pharaoh Amasis II, so this never happened either.
There's probably enough material on the "Tyre prophecy" for an entire article. But if we want to avoid giving excessive space to just this one prophecy, we should at least ensure that what's left here is historically accurate, and not state apologetics as fact. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:15, 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)

Here is what I deleted:
"The island city was destroyed by Alexander the Great during the Siege of Tyre and its residents were enslaved. Alexander used the debris from the destroyed mainland city to build a causeway to the island city. The Phoenicians never rebuilt Tyre. Numerous other empires and countries have rebuilt the city at or near the site of the original only to have them destroyed. The fishing village of Sur is now located at the original site of Tyre.[47]"
1. It is not a historical fact that Alexander destroyed Tyre (he damaged it, but did not destroy it).
2. It is not a historical fact that ALL its residents were enslaved (actually, 15,000 people were rescued by the Sidonians: add to this those spared by Alexander in the Temple of Herakles, those who fled the city before the siege began, and those Phoenicians living on the nearby mainland, and it's easy to see how Tyre recovered so easily).
3. It is not a historical fact that the Phoenicians never rebuilt Tyre (as Tyre was not destroyed, and it was in fact repaired sufficiently to hold off Antigonus for a year, less than two decades later).
4. It is not a historical fact that "numerous other empires and countries have rebuilt the city at or near the site of the original only to have them destroyed". After throwing off Seleucid rule in 126 BC, if enjoyed over a thousand years of peace before being conquered by the Crusaders (who did not destroy it). And it still exists today. Cities aren't "destroyed" whenever the government changes!
5. It is not a historical fact that there is a separate settlement called "Sur" ("Sur" is, and always has been, "Tyre"), nor is it a fact that Tyre is a "fishing village" (it is a major city, the 4th largest in Lebanon). Go to the Tyre (Lebanon) article and read it. Check out the references. Find Tyre on Google Earth and have a good look at it. Other than the part of the former island that is now an archaeological site, Tyre occupies the northern part of the former island (still using the original harbour), and sprawls across the isthmus and onto the mainland.
Stop re-inserting factually incorrect material. I will revert you. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have now given up trying to justify your actions, and are simply reverting me without comment. OK, I will revert you, and report you if this continues. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:06, 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 half the buildings survive, and maybe half the population escapes: the city isn't "destroyed". And as for sources: there are plenty mentioned in the Tyre (Lebanon) article. Who do you imagine Antigonus was fighting... ghosts? And what about the 100,000+ inhabitants of modern Tyre? And the ruins are only visible on part of the former island: the rest are buried under that part of the modern city that occupies the northern half.
The Phoenicians called their city "Sur". That is the Phoenician name. It's exactly the same place that the Greeks called "Tyre": the Phoenician word for "rock", the rock of the island fortress. Again, you could easily have checked this by going to the Tyre (Lebanon) article and reading the list of names in various languages:
"Tyre (Arabic صور Ṣūr, Phoenician צור Ṣur, Hebrew צור Tzor, Tiberian Hebrew צר Ṣōr, Akkadian Ṣurru, Greek Τύρος Týros, Turkish: Sur) is a city..." --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:30, 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.html64.231.99.114 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reported you for violation of WP:3RR. Meanwhile I see that you've come up with a new fantasy: that the Romans "plundered" Tyre. Tyre did well out of Roman rule, being allowed to retain a semi-autonomous status. Just where are you getting all this parallel-Universe stuff from? (BTW, another correction for you: when Alexander attacked Tyre, it was part of the Persian empire, not the "Phoenician empire"). --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
As I see it, there are two ways this can proceed:
1. State only the prophecies themselves, plus the most directly pertinent historical facts. On this basis, we should remove all references to Alexander anyhow (as Ezekiel specifically names Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians as the agents of destruction, not Alexander or the Greeks).
2. Allow apologetics and counter-apologetics. The apologetic attempts to retrofit the prophecy to Alexander can be mentioned, but skeptical sources explaining why this doesn't work must be included. Warning: this can get quite long-winded, probably requiring a spinoff article anyhow, specifically devoted to the "Tyre prophecy" (and then what do we leave on this page? Certainly not unchallenged apologetics... so even this is liable to be problematic). --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:04, 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 prophecy says that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the mainland settlements and then attack Tyre (which he did)... and then breach the walls, topple the towers and rampage throgugh all the streets (which, after 13 years of trying, he utterly failed to do). Alexander is dragged in by apologists only because Nebby failed: there is no indication within the prophecy that the Greeks would be involved in any way. And how many times do I need to point out that "Alexander destroyed the city" is NOT a historical fact? Alexander didn't even destroy an independent "kingdom of Tyre", as some apologists claim. You really need to get this part right: there was no "Phoenician Tyre" at this time, there was only Persian Tyre (which may well have regarded itself as "Phoenician", but how would a transition from Persian to Greek rule change that?). BTW, it was Tyre itself (not the mainland villages) that was supposed to become a "bare rock" (another error you've slipped in). And I am perfectly aware of the fact that the content I deleted didn't specify that the prophecy was either successful or unsuccessful (and neither did MY version, by the way): my point, all along, is that the stuff I deleted was just plain incorrect. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:02, 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:

"Alexander used debris from the mainland to build a causeway to the island and captured the city after a 7 month siege. Most of the residents were either killed in battle or sold into slavery, and Alexander plundered and sacked the city without mercy. Some apologists claim that "many nations" allows for the possibility that later conquerors might fulfill the prophecy (skeptics disagree, citing the "many nations" within Nebucadnezzar's army as the explanation of this reference). However, the prophecy never states that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy Tyre. Apologists point to Alexander using the debris from the mainland as fulfillment of the prophecy that "Tyre will be made a bare rock". The Phoenicians never rebuilt Tyre as the fall of that city marked the end of the Phoenician empire. The city was rebuilt under Roman control. and later regained its independence from Alexander's successors, the Seleucids Ruins of ancient Tyre are still visible on the south part of the former island. Part of the modern city of Sur lies on the northern part of the former island. As with many coastal cities, fishing is common along the northern coast of what was ancient Tyre."

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)

The mainland was indeed a series of villages, according to the sources you are still refusing to read (those in Tyre (Lebanon)). The city was on the island, according to ALL genuine historical sources. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense to explain why Alexander is being introduced (as he isn't actually in Ezekiel anywhere) before actually introducing him. And "fishing activities" isn't part of any prophecy, because Tyre is a seaport and fishing has been going on there throughout history, including in Ezekiel's time: what Ezekiel actually said was that Tyre would become a "bare rock" suitable only for the spreading of fishing nets (which didn't happen), not "there will be fishing". And the source does indeed say that the city was repopulated by escapees (Tyrians, of course) and colonists (who would have been Phoenicians: you seem to have missed the fact that Tyre spawned Phoenician colonies, which is where the colonists would have returned from). And Antigonus is relevant because this proves that Tyre was strong again by this time.
Meanwhile you have re-inserted fabricated, baseless, utter nonsense about the end of a "Phoenician empire" (you STILL won't grasp the fact that Tyre was in the PERSIAN empire at this time), and you still have time-travelling Romans directing the rebuilding of Tyre when imperial Rome did not yet exist!
So you're deleting historical information and adding nonsense, while destroying my own attempt to build upon an article that was at least accurate until you wrecked it again. Oh, well... revert and carry on, I guess. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
...And I see that you've reverted me AGAIN, restoring your babble while I was in the process of working on improving the correct version, with no discussion here first. I will report you again for edit-warring. --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:13, 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)

Yes, I got my references from the Tyre page, but the information is accurate. I am familiar with the Nina Jidejian source, which describes Tyre in far more detail than I have done. The other uses are almost word-for-word identical in both articles (e.g. "defensive walls 150 feet high" vs "massive walls 150 feet high").
Two of your references were duplicated: I removed one duplicate but left the other. As far as I can see, my last edit removed none of your references, and only one other reference, to material added by another user (or another IP address, at least), which was also (unfortunately) inaccurate: the southern half of the island is not "scraped bare", but has been preserved because it has ancient ruins on it (if it was not a UNESCO protected archeological site, it would surely have been swamped by the modern city). As far as I can determine, this source was a book written in 1891 or thereabouts (which is why it's on Project Gutenberg: the copyright has expired), before the expansion of modern Tyre: conditions are very different now (UNESCO did not exist, for starters) and bears no relevance to the current situation.
Now you're suggesting that "only historical facts are presented", but you're still talking about the "alleged destruction and rebuilding of the city". It's a historical fact that Alexander did not destroy it, and a historical fact that it was rebuilt: furthermore, your later two edits (reverted by Adam Bishop) were not historical facts, but speculation (and one unsupported assertion stated as if it were fact: "the scraped bare region was rebuilt by another empire", the mainland settlement was probably rebuilt by the Tyrians themselves after Alexander's army left, as apparently Tyre had always made use of that area throughout history). And you made those several hours after this offer to post only historical facts. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:21, 3 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)

That is essentially what Jorfer's version was [11] before your edit: no mention of the attempt by apologists to drag Alexander in (and hence no counter-apologetics either). Yes, we could go back to that (though, if so, I think we should keep the brief description of Tyre that was added later, to provide context).
I'm undecided on that. On the one hand, we'd avoid dragging a lot of extra-Biblical speculation into an article that's (arguably) supposed to be primarily about what the Bible says, not about what others say about the Bible: but, on the other hand, it's all fairly notable speculation that comes up whenever the validity of the Tyre prophecy is debated, and if it's not here, readers will constantly be saying "hey, where's the Alexander interpretation I've heard about? Why is that not here?" --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:48, 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)

Because Alexander isn't mentioned by Ezekiel. Drag him in, and the arguments must be presented, as per NPOV. --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:14, 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)

He wasn't in the prophecy. He cannot be included without an explanation. --Robert Stevens (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar and Amasis[edit]

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)

The Egyptian Mamluk dynasties ruled from Egypt, and they appear to have become independent from external control for a while. Probably not the best example, so I don't mind that one being left out: it isn't clear-cut, either way. But we should likewise leave out the claim that Egypt has not ruled over other nations. The version provided by Back2back2back, "...Egypt has not ruled over other nations since Ezekiel's time" is of course blatantly false, because Egypt has definitely ruled over Cyprus since Ezekiel's time.
As for Herodotus: nothing we know about him would lead us to believe that he would conceal the conquest and depopulation of Egypt by Nebuchadrezzar, or fabricate an alternative timeline. Also, historians do have independent confirmation of the rule of Amasis, plus Babylonian records which fail to mention this alleged event: whereas there is nothing at all that contradicts this historical account. Nebuchadrezzar's failure to conquer and depopulate Egypt is as much a "historical fact" as anything else that happened (or, in this case, failed to happen) in antiquity. This is a prophecy failure, pure and simple. IIRC, even the Bible itself does not claim that Nebuchadrezzar actually conquered and depopulated Egypt (though I've seen some apologists get confused by references to his victory over an earlier Pharaoh at the Battle of Carchemish: this was before the attack on Tyre, and wasn't an invasion of Egypt itself). Hence, adding criticism of Herodotus is unwarranted and superfluous (do we need to go through all of Wikipedia and add this to everything from Herodotus? Of course not: so why do it here?). As I mentioned before, the goofs attributed to Herodotus involve hearsay he passed on, "traveller's tales" from far-off lands (e.g. giant camel-eating ants in India) or the size of some armies in great battles: not the relatively recent political history of places he actually visited and researched. At worst, the "20,000 cities" (presumably including towns and villages) might be suspect: we could simply drop that, as it's not especially relevant.
As for the uncertainty regarding authorship: perhaps that should be mentioned (as the fact that there is uncertainty does not seem controversial, though details are sadly lacking at Book of Ezekiel), with its possible implications regarding Cyprus. However, detaching the start of the prophecy from any specific time makes it a banal remark rather than a prophecy, as no nation lasts forever: eventually every nation becomes incapable of conquering its neighbours (at some unspecified time in the future, the United States will become incapable of conquering other lands: lo, I have prophesied). --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:30, 6 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)

Correction: the prophecy said that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre. At least, that's how most people read it: the whole thing is all about the upcoming attack on Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, not some distant event centuries later that Ezekiel had no reason to care about. And, of course, Alexander didn't fulfil the prophecy either (which was all about Tyre's permanent, never-to-be-rebuilt destruction): so, why mention him at all? The fact that some apologists have included him, despite his failure to fulfil the prophecy, is the only reason to mention him at all: so, let's explain why he's here, in the article. Why on Earth not? What are you afraid of?
As for Herodotus: I have deleted the only remotely contentious aspect of the Herodotus quote (20,000 cities), so there's no need to put the caveat in. Ironically, you have put it back! Why re-include controversial material just so that you can complain about it?
And stop deleting historical information about Cyprus! The reader is entitled to know that 545 BC is long after Ezekiel's time (and also entitled to know which nation Egypt ruled over). Sure, let's put a fuller quote in, but we probably should also explain where in the book this prophecy is made: and, in the current version of the book, it plainly belongs with the rest of the failed prophecy regarding Nebby's conquest and depopulation. And why delete the fact that the authorship is in doubt? This is part of a key argument by those apologists who wish to divorce this part of the prophecy from the rest of it! --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:07, 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)

Herodotus is known to be accurate on this occasion (certainly with regard to the continued existence of Egypt under Amasis) and has a good reputation for accuracy overall. If you insist, I will quote your own source in support of that (though a digression into the accuracy of Herodotus is off-topic for this article, your intransigence leaves me no choice). And what's this garbage about my language being "not objective", based on something I never said in the article itself?
Meanwhile you are continuing to delete relevant historical facts (I note that Cyprus has been erased again), and the notable, relevant and sourced explanation for the inclusion of Alexander, so I really have no choice but to revert that again. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:50, 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)

No, you are mistaken. From WP:NPOV: "Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."
Also read "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."
And more: "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV"."
We are required to present the skeptical view (alongside the other views, of course). Failure to do so is a blatant violation of NPOV. Furthermore, the rest of the article does express alternative views: so this part should not be exempt. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:12, 7 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)

Wikipedia policy specificaly says they MUST be included. Hence, I must revert (and report you if you continue, for repeated violation of policy). And the Ptolemies became Egyptian: pharaohs of a fully idependent Egypt. Cleopatra, for instance, was "Egyptian"... not "Macedonian"! Reverting. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:00, 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)

Exactly the same thing happened in England after William the Conqueror: England became governed by a French-speaking elite, and French remained the language of the aristocracy for centuries afterward. But the nation was still England, not France (indeed, it actually fought wars against France). If that region wasn't ruled by Egypt, then what nation DID rule it? Certainly not Greece!
As for the rest: as I pointed out before, Wikipedia's NPOV policy is non-negotiable (WP:NPOV says it's non-negotiable) and cannot be used to justify the deletion of rival notable opinions (WP:NPOV says it can't). Pretty much the only possible justification for removal of all mention of any given view is WP:UNDUE, if the view is an extreme minority/fringe one with no significant support.
Meanwhile I note that in your "objective" approach, even though you have finally started to mention Cyprus, you have deleted the fact that Amasis II (the same Pharaoh who drove off Nebuchadrezzar) conquered Cyprus, leaving the misleading impression that Egypt already controlled Cyprus in Ezekiel's time. And you are still stating your opinion that Egypt never again ruled over other nations, based on your opinion that Ptolemaic Egypt doesn't count (despite it being a fully independent nation at this time, not a vassal of anyone else). You are continuing to delete the actual quoted section of the Book of Ezekiel itself. You have also re-introduced the Philip Myers quote (in the form of a declaration of fact referring to the present, a blatant piece of POV-pushing) while concealing the fact that it was written over a century ago and cannot be applied to the sprawling city that is modern Tyre.
I think the only possible way forward here is a "let's lay everything on the table" one. Every notable view is described, and every relevant historical fact (relevant to ANY view, not just one) is provided.
With regard to Tyre, here are the views that we must include (I've encountered all of these in discussions on this topic):
1. Nebuchadrezzar fulfilled the prophecy, in a "metaphorical sense", when Tyre's royal family went into exile.
2. Nebuchadrezzar fulfilled the prophecy "on the mainland", either by the destruction of the mainland settlements, or via the (historically false) belief that the city Nebuchadrezzar beseiged for 13 years was ON the mainland.
3. Alexander fulfilled the prophecy (somehow: the rebuilding and ongoing survival of Tyre is a problem for this view, but we should nevertheless present it).
4. The prophecy was never fulfilled: either because it failed outright, or because it was "conditional", or because Ezekiel got carried away and exaggerated the destruction destined for Tyre.
5. The prophecy hasn't yet been fulfilled.
With regard to the Egypt prophecies, we quote Ezekiel and provide ALL relevant historical facts. We mention any ambiguities and differences in interpretation by those with various opinions, if this is relevant to the prophecies. Nebby's actual failure to conquer Egypt as described is a problem for some views, but... so what? Not our problem (though, if some apologists try to rewrite history to get around this, WP:FRINGE applies).
Sourcing will be an issue, as many available sources will not meet WP:RS: however, somewhat dubious sources can still be used for citing the existence of their own opinions (as per WP:Questionable sources), but not for supporting declarations of fact.
As far as I can see, I have now incorporated ALL of your material in this edit ([13]): plus my own, of course. I suggest you discuss any major changes here, without another blanket revert of everything I've added! --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:48, 8 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)

So we minimize edit warring I have copied the Ezekiel section to this sandbox User:Jorfer/Sandbox so you can comment and edit on that page freely and discuss it without interrupting Wikipedia. It should make it easier than trying to come to a consensus on the main page.--Jorfer (talk) 00:17, 9 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)

Yes, that's what happened to the Native Americans, and to the Egyptians: in that sense they WERE under "foreign control", that is correct. Byt they were not under the control of a foreign NATION. After independence, America became "America", not "part of Britain": therefore, when America came to rule over other lands after independence (California, Texas, Alaska, whatever) those lands were "American", not "British". Similarly, after winning their war of independence, Ptolemaic Egypt ruled other lands as "Egypt", not "Greece". --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:01, 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)

Egypt was part of an autonomous kingdom after Alexander. It was controlled by Greeks, but it was autonomous from Greece. Now we are arguing about whether this autonomous state could be considered Egypt. We could try doing it by nation of birth, but than California is ruled by Austria, and Kosovo is ruled by Serbians. You might say the government that the people support but than Myanmar is ruled by another country. If we do this by location than Peru is still ruled by the Incan empire. If we do this by culture as Back2back suggests than Egypt doesn't exist anymore and countries which adopt other countries practices can be called that country. The best way to define what constitutes Egypt is to tie location and culture together into influence. How much influence did the Nile River valley culture at the time have over the other "nations" of the autonomous region versus the "Greek" culture. I think this leans in favor of it being a separate Greek state as opposed to Egyptian state.
There is no problem with this discussion being here. The problem is continuous back and forth edit warring on the main page.--Jorfer (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
...Uh, Back2back2back, you appear to be contradicting yourself. You said "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". But later you said "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."
In both America and Egypt, the "foreigners" did indeed rule over the native population, both before and after independence (Ptolemaic Egypt's war of independence was fought and won in 321 BC).
Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, because the Native Americans didn't have a single united nation before the Europeans took over. For the analogy to work, we'd have to imagine a Native American nation subjected to British rule, and we'd also have to imagine that after independence George Washington and his successors called themselves "Great Chief" rather than "President", and promoted and participated in Native American shamanism as the national religion (this is equivalent to what the Ptolemies did). Of course it wouldn't really be the same "America" as it had been under the "Great Chiefs" who ruled before the British arrived: but it wouldn't be "British" either. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:43, 22 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)

Egypt won its war of independence against the empire established by Alexander the Great. Alexander's successor was Perdiccas, ruling as regent in the name of Alexander's half-brother and unborn child (Alexander's wife was pregnant when Alexander died). When Ptolemy rebelled and declared independence, Perdiccas marched an army to Egypt but failed to take it. Ptolemy became Pharaoh Ptolemy I, sole and undisputed ruler of an independent Egypt, founder of a dynasty that ruled Egypt for 3 centuries (and conquered various other lands during that time: lands that Egypt had not inherited from Alexander's empire). --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:08, 23 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)

You seem to be quoting from the introduction to the Ptolemaic Kingdom article. Try reading the whole of that article.
"Ptolemy ruled Egypt from 323 BC, nominally in the name of the joint kings Philip III and Alexander IV. However, as Alexander the Great's empire disintegrated, Ptolemy soon established himself as ruler in his own right. Ptolemy successfully defended Egypt against an invasion by Perdiccas in 321 BCE, and consolidated his position in Egypt and the surrounding areas during the Wars of the Diadochi (322 BC-301 BC). In 305 BC, Ptolemy took the title of King. As Ptolemy I Soter ("Saviour"), he founded the Ptolemaic dynasty that was to rule Egypt for nearly 300 years."
Later, the "Ptolemy I" section describes his conquest of various other lands, to "increase his domain" after he had secured Egypt itself. Various later Ptolemies also conquered other lands. --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:40, 24 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)

Ptolemaic Kingdom = Egypt + conquered lands. After independence, the Ptolemies had Egypt, and conquered the rest. Note that the nation is constantly referred to as "Egypt":
"Perdiccas appointed Ptolemy, one of Alexander's closest companions, to be satrap of Egypt. Ptolemy ruled Egypt from 323 BC, nominally in the name of the joint kings Philip III and Alexander IV. However, as Alexander the Great's empire disintegrated, Ptolemy soon established himself as ruler in his own right. Ptolemy successfully defended Egypt against an invasion by Perdiccas in 321 BCE, and consolidated his position in Egypt and the surrounding areas during the Wars of the Diadochi (322 BC-301 BC). In 305 BC, Ptolemy took the title of King. As Ptolemy I Soter ("Saviour"), he founded the Ptolemaic dynasty that was to rule Egypt for nearly 300 years."
"Because the Ptolemaic kings adopted the Egyptian custom of marrying their sisters... ...Cleopatra VII officially co-ruled with Ptolemy XIII Theos Philopator, Ptolemy XIV, and Ptolemy XV, but effectively, she ruled Egypt alone.
"The first part of Ptolemy I's reign was dominated by the Wars of the Diadochi between the various successor states to the empire of Alexander. His first object was to hold his position in Egypt securely, and secondly to increase his domain."
"Antigonus then tried to invade Egypt but Ptolemy held the frontier against him."
"Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who succeeded his father as King of Egypt in 283 BC, was a peaceable and cultured king, and no great warrior. He did not need to be, because his father had left Egypt strong and prosperous."
"After this defeat Egypt formed an alliance with the rising power in the Mediterranean, Rome."
"In 170 BC, Antiochus IV Epiphanes invaded Egypt and deposed Philometor, and his younger brother (later Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II) was installed as a puppet king. When Antiochus withdrew, the brothers agreed to reign jointly with their sister Cleopatra II. They soon fell out, however, and quarrels between the two brothers allowed Rome to interfere and to steadily increase its influence in Egypt."
"These sordid dynastic quarrels left Egypt so weakened that the country became a de facto protectorate of Rome, which had by now absorbed most of the Greek world."
"By now Rome was the arbiter of Egyptian affairs, and annexed both Libya and Cyprus."
"When Cleopatra VII ascended the Egyptian throne, she was only seventeen."
"During the rule of the later Ptolemies, Rome gained more and more power over Egypt, and was even declared guardian of the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Cleopatra's father, Ptolemy XII had to pay tribute to the Romans to keep them away from his Kingdom."
...And so on (and the same is true in every other article I've seen on this topic). The Ptolemies were the Kings (and Queens) of Egypt, and were universally known as such. Anything else they ruled (other than via conquests, launched from Egypt) was inconsequential. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:21, 27 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)

So you would argue that America = Britain? Furthermore, you would deny that America conquered other lands (e.g. Japan in 1945, Iraq in 2003 etc) because it was under British rule at the time? I don't think many people would agree with you!
This is nonsense. Ptolemaic Egypt wasn't "Greece", it wasn't under the control of Greece, it had fought and won a war of independence from Greece, and in fact it remained an independent nation for a century longer than modern America has (thus far) been independent from Britain (so, are modern Americans "British"?). It also conquered other nations while being entirely independent of Greece (in addition to fighting additional wars against Greece itself).
Ptolemaic Egypt was Egypt (plus the additional lands that this Egypt-based empire conquered). Of course, a prophecy-advocate would argue that it wasn't the same Egypt that Ezekiel was writing about: but I included that argument in the text that you deleted! Here it is again:
"Classical Egypt was eventually conquered by the Persian empire, and did not rule over other nations for a while. However, in the later Ptolemaic period, Egyptian rule 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)."
Now, this version is 100% accurate: so why delete it?
Whereas here is your version:
"Classical Egypt was eventually conquered by the Persian empire and has not ruled over other nations since."
Now, this would only be accurate if the phrase "Classical Egypt" specifically excluded the Ptolemaic period: but in fact it does not (see Classical: indeed, the phrase is more commpnly used to refer specifically to the Greco-Roman period). "Pharaonic" won't do either, because the Ptolemies were Pharaohs.
I will restore my version. If you don't like the tone of it, then let's work on that: alternatively, the article could simply omit all the wrangling about the meaning of "Egypt" altogether by dropping that section. But we can't simply state that Egypt has not ruled over other nations at a time when Egypt plainly DID rule over other nations: that would be inaccurate. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would I argue that America = Britain? Furthermore, why would I deny that America conquered lands? Your inference makes no sense.

"Classical Egypt was eventually conquered by the Persian empire, and did not rule over other nations for a while. However, in the later Ptolemaic period, Egyptian rule 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)."

"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)

Back2back2back: why are you still claiming that I have "never addressed" issues that I have addressed repeatedly, and why are YOU still failing to address MY points?
The Ptolemaic kingdom was no more "Greek" than modern America is "British". Why are you still ignoring the fact that the Ptolemaic kingdom was INDEPENDENT of Greece?
Yes, Egypt had a "Greek" ruling elite. Why are you still repeating this as if it was something I don't accept? Likewise, America has a "British" ruling elite: do you accept this? Egypt had a capital built by the "foreigners", but so does America (Washington DC wasn't built by Native Americans). Sure, the Americans founded Washington DC after independence, but that's a minor detail: Egypt gained its independence shortly after the foundation of Alexandria.
As for Egypt being "conquered by Alexander the Great": you still seem to have a blind spot regarding the Persian Empire. Egypt wasn't an independent country before Alexander: it was a province of the Persian Empire. The Egyptians welcomed Alexander in, without a fight: the remnant of the occupying Persians put up only a token resistance (they were the ones Alexander "conquered", not the Egyptians, but it was a pushover). Egypt became an independent, self-governing nation again as a result of the Greek invasion and the subsequent rebellion of Ptolemy.
Also, Ptolemaic Egypt wasn't "split from" Alexander's empire in the manner you are suggesting. Alexander's generals were given chunks of the former Persian Empire to rule, but only as regional governors WITHIN Alexander's empire, not "split off" from it. The "splitting" happened after Alexander's death, when Ptolemy (and others) rebelled. And Ptolemy started with just Egypt and expanded from there.
"No source describes the Ptolemaic Kingdom as something other than a Greek Kingdom": uh, that's incorrect. It's described as a "Hellenistic" kingdom (Greek-influenced), but no source describes it as ruled by Greece or "part of Greece" after it gained its independence. Furthermore (and more importantly), multiple sources name it as EGYPT, and the Ptolemaic Dynasty ruled as PHARAOHS of EGYPT. You have utterly failed to mention this as a relevant fact. You have also utterly failed to mention that other lands were conquered FROM Egypt, and ruled FROM Egypt (and not from anywhere else: Egypt was not a vassal state).
And why have you accused me of "not mentioning" the Hellenistic nature of Ptolemaic Egypt in my edit, when I have very clearly done so?
As for using the sandbox: that's for major edits, this dispute is about three sentences (though your latest revert also knocked out a couple of quite unrelated edits of mine). Probably the best procedure here is to simply remove both disputed versions until this issue can be settled on the talkpage: I will try that. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:49, 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)

Back2back2back: Yes, Egypt DID become independent after Alexander the Great conquered it (just as America became independent after the British took control of it). Egypt became independent after Ptolemy won a WAR OF INDEPENDENCE against the Greek Empire, just as America became independent after Washington won a WAR OF INDEPENDENCE against the British Empire.
Why are you still trying to pretend that Egypt's independence never happened?
Also, "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"... and yet it is a historical fact that Egypt DID subsequently conquer and rule over other nations during the Ptolemaic period. You have been directed to an article which describes those conquests. So, why are you asking how it could have happened, when it plainly DID happen?
And your summary of the "splitting" of Alexander's empire completely fails to mention that the splitting was the result of bloody revolution and war (against Alexander's heir, Perdiccas). Your own source mentions this briefly, as "...after quite some conflict". Furthermore, your source uses the phrase "Ptolemaic Egypt" and expains how "Greece proper" lost out to this new power:
"During the Hellenistic period, the importance of "Greece proper" (that is, the territory of modern Greece) within the Greek-speaking world declined sharply. The great centers of Hellenistic culture were Alexandria and Antioch, capitals of Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria respectively."
...So, Ptolemaic Egypt wasn't "Greece", and was in fact a rival of Greece (it even subsequently fought other WARS against Greece).
Meanwhile, as this dispute has plainly NOT been resolved, I will move your latest version here (and if you really want to move it on to a sandbox, then go ahead):
"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."
This version fails to mention Egypt's status as an independent nation during the Ptolemaic period (not being ruled over by any of the other nations you have listed), and during the modern era. It also fails to mention Egypt's conquest of other nations (though at least it no longer repeats the falsehood that Egypt did NOT rule over other nations, so I guess some progress is being made).
I propose the following:
"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".
Incidentally, I will also revert your latest error, the claim that Ezekiel never mentions Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon as the conqueror and depopulator of Egypt. He does so repeatedly. After extensively describing the sacking and depopulation of Egypt (which will be uninhabited for 40 years), Ezekiel 29:19 says "I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off her multitude". He then returns to the description of the destruction and depopulation before again naming Nebuchadnezzar as the destroyer: Ezekiel 30:10, " I will also make the multitude of Egypt to cease, by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon." He again specifies the King of Babylon as the conqueror and scatterer of the Egyptians in 30:24-26. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:09, 29 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)

Ptolemaic Egypt was an independent nation, not governed by any other nation. Arguments about whether the Egyptians were "free" within that nation are irrelevant, as we're not talking about liberal democracies here: the Egyptians weren't "free" under the absolute rule of the ancient Pharaohs either. And Egypt was ruled by dynasties of foreign origin in the past (e.g. Kushites), but was still "Egypt": the Egyptians were used to that (China is similar in that regard).
Egypt didn't fall under Roman domination until much later (the end of the Ptolemaic period), so that is irrelevant. We're talking about a period when NO other nation ruled over Egypt (whereas Egypt DID rule over other nations: you're still forgetting that Egypt CONQUERED other nations during this period, they weren't just handed over by Alexander!)
Egypt was not "part" of anything, except what THEY conquered. By your argument, the British lost their "independence" when they gained an empire... which is nuts. No non-Egyptian part of the Ptolemaic Empire ruled OVER Egypt.
BTW, moving a disputed section to the talkpage is a common procedure, designed to prevent edit-warring in the main article: as you aren't co-operating in this, I will revert you.
And you are still wrong about what Ezekiel says regarding Nebuchadnezzar. The "multitude" is the population (the spoils are mentioned separately). "I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off her population"... "I will also make the population of Egypt to cease, by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon". The end of chapter 30 describes how God will use the king of Babylon to scatter the EGYPTIANS among the nations, and disperse them through the countries. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
...Oops, missed something. "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." Why are you still insisting that Egypt was "part of a Greek kingdom" after independence? Egypt wasn't initially "part of" anything else: Ptolemy began with just Egypt alone. The rest, of course, also applies to independent America: with the (former) British dominating the English-speaking upper class, the capital city being built by these people, and so forth. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:42, 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)

Let me point out Robert that America was a new country, so by the same standard we would have to describe the Ptolemaic Kingdom as a new country as well. If we equivocated Egypt and the Ptolemaic Kingdom, we would have to by analogy equivocate America with the Iroquois.--Jorfer (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Jorfer: Yes, I've already admitted the flaw in the analogy (in my 22nd April post), in that there was no pre-existing unified nation of "America" that the British took over. Hence the need to imagine that there was a pre-existing office of "Great Chief of the American Tribes" (or whatever) that George Washington assumed, rather than becoming "President" (the equivalent of the Ptolemies becoming Pharaohs of Egypt). Earlier (April 8th) I had proposed medieval England as an analogy, where William the Conqueror established a French-speaking aristocracy and French remained the language of the aristocracy for centuries afterwards, but the nation was still "England": but Back2back2back didn't seem to be familiar with this period. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
...Meanwhile: OK, it's now moved to a sandbox (a rather larger chunk than I was expecting, but nevermind). Now I'm not sure whether the best place for comments is here, or in the sandbox, or on the (not yet existing) sandbox talkpage...
There is no dispute that Egypt was ruled by many foreign powers, and that's fine. However, if we fail to also mention Egypt's periods of freedom from external rule, and the various nations that Egypt itself ruled over, then we create an NPOV issue. We should mention both lists, or neither.
Also, I think you still haven't grasped the fact that Ptolemaic Egypt wasn't "part of" anything else at all, initially. The Ptolemaic Kingdom was just Egypt, and nothing else. Ptolemaic Egypt had been part of a larger empire, but that was during Alexander's time: it later became part of a larger empire, but that was because it conquered other lands. A nation doesn't lose its independence, or its identity as a nation, in this fashion: this would lead to the absurd scenario that America lost its independence and was taken over by the "Trumanic Empire" when it occupied Japan after WW2. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The French analogy is far better. I agree that both sides should be put down to maintain NPOV.--Jorfer (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it'll be better to start discussion on the sandbox talkpage. Back2back2back (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispensationalism[edit]

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:

  • The revival of Israel as a nation, (last generation before Christ): Parable of the fig tree, Matt.24:32, Mark 13:28, Luke 21:29
  • Various tribulation events, (signs of the end-times): Matt.24:4, Mark 13:5, Luke 21:5

Additionally, some popular conjectures on the progression of currently existing situations into prophecy fulfilment include:

  • War in Iraq : Jeremiah 50:1-3 - Concerning Babylon: A nation from the north will capture "her" (It is important to note that Iraq has been conquered several times by Ottoman Turks, Persians, Greeks, Arabs, and the British.)

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)

Note to editors[edit]

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)

Split[edit]

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)

Sourcing[edit]

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)

  • The first one - Christian
  • The second one - Critic
  • The third one - Critic
  • The fourth one - Christian
  • The fifth one - Christian

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)

Muhammad is the prophet of Islam has mentioned by name in the holy Bible in Hebrew[edit]

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)

Source needed[edit]

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)

Tyre[edit]

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?

Neutrality[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

All this leading me to the belief that Wikipedia is not actually neutral. They tend toward evolution and atheism, after all. Still looking for a Christian all-encompassing wiki... 172.77.246.12 (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia does treat evolution as a fact. For the full Wikipedia policy that describes what Wikipedia means by neutral, see WP:NEUTRAL. In general, just to simplify things a little, Wikipedia's point of view is similar to the point of view found at Ivy League and public colleges in the US. Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality" leans heavily in the direction of what is found in what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources" WP:RS and does not always match what some people would think of as neutrality or reliability. Alephb (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I would again say that treating it as a fact is not neutral, even though reliable sources and the Ivy League say it is a fact, as it is a blatant disregard of the scientific method. There have never been any observances of an organism gaining genes, as evolution requires. Also, similar bone structures among organisms are not controlled by the same genes. And, Richard Dawkins himself said he's forced to be biased because he won't accept Creationism. Do you think that sounds neutral? (Please be kind in your response.) 172.77.246.12 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, you don't treat the Bible as a reliable source? Even though its historical text has never been proven wrong? Ever? Even though it's a religious text, it still has tremendous credibility. Try me. And if Wikipedia can't accept that, I'd have to say, for all intents and purposes, they're atheistic. 172.77.246.12 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure that arguing back and forth about the truth of the Bible, or about the truth of evolution, would be an interesting exercise. However, that's not really what Wikipedia talk pages are for. In this case, the page is about discussing ways to improve the article "Bible prophecy." And Wikipedia's goal isn't to find what's true and then put that in the article, as strange as that may sound. They even have a policy about this, called "Verifiability, not truth" (WP:NOTTRUTH). Basically, the policy is that Wikipedia editors do not (on controversial issues) try to discover what's true; they just relay the opinion of mainstream university/published/peer-reviewed/etc. sorts of materials (WP:SOURCE).
So my advice is this. Don't come to Wikipedia expect it to reflect the results of editorial discussions that are seeking to find the truth. That's not what Wikipedia does. Wikipedia just relays what the educational/academic establishment believes. If you want to change that, as far as I know you've got three options. (1) You can go into academia and try to change it from within, and eventually that will change Wikipedia indirectly. (2) You can try to convince the controlling organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, to change its policies about what it considers "reliable." Or (3) You can work on trying to help some alternative project, like Conservapedia. But if you're here to try to get Wikipedia adopt views that are rejected by mainstream secular college academics, you're just going to wind up frustrated. Wikipedia calls that kind of activity "POV-pushing" (WP:POV), and it gets reverted and eventually winds up getting people who do it too much blocked from editing. Alephb (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Very enlightening! Thank you for sharing this; I wish everyone knew this about Wikipedia. Although coming out of all this, I would have to again say that even though it's the secular view, it's still not neutral as it disregards Christian views. I get why. 172.77.246.12 (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The quality of religious coverage varies from article to article. Some do a better job than others. But it would be good if more people understood what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. It would also make things run a lot smoother here. And it would allow the public to understand that, when they read a Wikipedia article (if that Wikipedia article is up to standards) they are basically learning the standard academic view on the subject as its taught in secular universities. Whenever the academic establishment is right, Wikipedia is usually right with them. When it's wrong, Wikipedia is wrong with them. Here's a bit from an essay where Wikipedia lays some of that out (this essay is not official policy, but the basic view it provides is basically in line with Wikipedia policy and how things work here. You can find the essay at WP:FLAT.
"If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as 'originale investigationis'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing."
So I think Wikipedia provides a valuable service. It tells us what the universities and peer-reviewed sources are mostly teaching. But we always have to ask ourselves whether we personally agree with the universities. Alephb (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
All this is interesting and all, but this argument necessitates that Wikipedia will never, ever accept the Truth. Why? Because it's based on secular authorities. Those authorities will cease to be secular if they approve the Bible, and thus Wikipedia will consider them to be unreliable. Wikipedia will also never consider sources like Answers in Genesis because they speak the Bible, thus making them cease to be independent (like the Flat Earth Society). Thus Wikipedia is secular. That I have stated, and that no one can deny.
Also, the example of the earth being flat is void. The only way it would work is if there was a viable argument for the earth being flat. There isn't. There are valid arguments for the Bible being true (as seen in this article!) and for evolution being false[14]. You can't apply WP:FLAT. And even though Wikipedia's policy is to follow the Ivy League, I believe they should speak the truth, not a widely accepted (likely false) theory. But like I said, that will never happen, and I wish that everyone who visited this website would understand that.
I know this thread has gotten a bit off-topic, but I think it's important. 172.77.246.12 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose we have gotten a little off-topic, maybe, but it's always good to educate people on what Wikipedia is and isn't. Of course, Christians are always welcome to set up their own alternative to Wikipedia. They could even copy Wikipedia articles into their own site and remove whatever spin they don't like. That's the beauty of Wikipedia's liberal copyright policy. So far the closest anyone has come is Conservapedia, which so far has not got the level of religious covered that Wikipedia has. Compare Wikipedia's Nehemiah article (which acknowledges the likely historical reality of Nehemiah and goes into great depth) with the Conservapedia Nehemiah article, which is barely a tiny stub. Until people with alternative views build a good alternative Wiki, Wikipedia is going to be what people go to for information. So far, the only people who have bothered to put together a large general-purpose project like Wikipedia have been the pro-university types. All right. I think I'll stop now so that we don't distract too much from the point of this article. Alephb (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)