What Science is NOT

hi folks... interesting topic... sometimes tho i'm not sure everyone is talking about the same things when the terms go undefined... even the simple ones, such as 'science'... outside of "falsifiable" can we also agree that for a methodology to be considered scientific there needs to be more than that? or are other terms just understood? such as 'observable' and 'repeatable'... and don't forget inductive and deductive reasoning!! lots of folks like to leave those off... how's this?before something (anything) can be accepted as scientifically proven it must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable (in the context of 'testable')... then, given the limitations placed on humans by virtue of our limited lifespans, allow induction to guide you to, first, a theory or hypothesis and then test those theories for experimental results...the present discussion, can the bible be proven to be the word of God, probably can never be proven by this methodology... why? because, as the bible says (paraphrasing here), those who don't want to see (use inductive and/or deductive logic) won't see... they "hide the truth" from themselves... this means that the logic steps might be left out or denied...i noticed someone's signature about occam's razor... it always struck me as kinda funny that a lot of people say they (rightly so) believe in the truth of that, yet when it comes to questions of faith they tend to go the other way... if the simplest explanation which accounts for all the facts is usually the right one, how can anyone deny the existence of a creator? oh well, think i'll read some more

now i think you're on the right track, chara... the first premise, 'the bible is the word of God', seemed too broad at first glance... seems better to me (maybe 'cause i'm a simple guy) to take smaller bites, kinda like you're about to eat an elephant... so when dealing with prophesy, take prophesies about specific things, then see if those fall into the category you're discussing..for example, there are oodles of prophesies (i think about 156 or some number like that) in the old testament about a coming Messiah... you mathmaticians out there can let the rest of us know, but the odds of *all* those prophesies being fulfilled in any one man are immense... so it seems that this could be one premise... "were the prophesies concerning the Messiah the word of God?"... then see if that can be tested scientifically...then take other prophesies, as you did concerning tyre, and ask the same of them... see? eatin' that ole elephant one bite at a time

i think the story of tyre is a good example of bible prophesy, but it's one of those that doubters (john appears to be such) will be able to point to and say, "yeah well maybe it's that way *now* but that doesn't mean it won't be rebuilt and destroyed many more times"... i sure wish zeke had been more specific as to whom would destroy the city, etc... is there another such in the bible that *is* more specific? where a prophet says something like "such and such will do this and that and it'll never be rebuilt/redone/etc?"i seem to recall babylon was another such prophesy, but i don't recall whether or not the destroyer was named... so had zeke said something like 'the crusaders will destroy tyre and it'll never be rebuilt" you still wouldn't win chara ... cause then someone would just do what i wrote above, abandon induction leading to deduction and say "it hasn't been rebuilt *yet*"see, if a person is intent on disbelieving a thing, that thing will be disbelieved... keeping an open mind and allowing our (dare i say God-given?) reasoning ability to function is the key... i think most here aren't so close-minded that they'll deny the place of intuitive and inductive logic

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Mark:
And you guys wouldn't be guilty of the opposite, would you? It hasn't come to pass, *yet*.

​

The prophecy that Tyre would never be rebuilt was wrong.

​

"Over the course of the last two and a half thousand years the coastline has changed slightly, so that the island is now connected to the mainland. As you can see, the (ex)island site and mainland parts are heavily built up.

​

Ezekiel said that Tyre would never be rebuilt and would never be found. Can you find a city in the picture? Did Ezekiel's prophecy come true, even if we grant that he was really talking about Alexander the Great when he mentioned Nebuchadnezzar."

---

i don't understand what you mean... i haven't and probably won't argue about a bible prophecy that hasn't come to pass, so there's no way your accusation could even apply to me... as for tyre, the island city was at least a half mile offshore, is that the "slight" change you were talking about? nebbie destroyed the mainland city, not the island city... the picture you posted, is that supposed to be the island city?

quote:

---

Originally posted by graedek:
The fishing town Sur currently sits upon part of the island and the causeway, but the mainland city site remains abandoned

---

and, i take it, undiscovered?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
Obviously, Ezekiel's prophecy would have been laughed at. If he had been trying to "make up" a prophecy, he probably would not have chosen Tyre (speculation tho' logical).

---

quote:

---

Sorry but no. Tyre had already been seiged taken lost regained for centuries. You are not paying attention.

---

i'm sure this isn't one of those condescending attitude remarks you hate so much...

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
that's only one part of the prophesy Mark . down to detail i think is what chara was getting at. the fact that it was scraped off the earth into the sea is pretty impressive.

---

​

Funkie darling,

​

This is pretty common practise for the time. Captured cities could very well end up destroyed. And dumping the debris into the sea adds a bit of flair but that's about it. You can't make a very convincing case for prophecy with prophecies that predict stuff that stands a good chance of occurring. Tyre was constantly at war, and was eventually going to lose and lose badly.

​

But remember, Tyre wasn't ever supposed to come back. And it did-- repeatedly.

---

now john sweetie,ok, someone here (maybe me) seems confused... the island city of tyre is at issue here, not the mainland city... someone said the coastline had changed and present day tyre sits atop the old island city (which was half a mile offshore and only accessed by alex via a causeway he built from the remains of the mainland city)so the question is, what sits where the island city of tyre used to sit? is it, as chara and funkie and graedek have said, a bare rock where boats anchor? or is there a city there now?the biblical prophecy, if i understand it (and it's more than possible that i don't) spoke of nebbie destroying the mainland city and the island city being attacked, rebuilt, attacked, etc until it was finally destroyed, never to be rebuilt... i think *that's* what's at question here... has that prophecy come to pass?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Forgiven,

​

The current city of Tyre sits atop phoenician remains, so it is hardly "undiscovered".

​

The Encyclopedia Britannica says 'Excavations have uncovered remains of the Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab, and Byzantine civilizations, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period lie beneath the present town", hence Tyre has been rebuilt. It matters not a jot if the entire city was rebuilt, if there was a town built that overlaps the ancient site, then it was reasonably "rebuilt". Regardless, the mainland side of the site is built upon (as can be seen in the photo), & has phoenician artifacts beneath it, ergo, the mainland city has been built upon.

​

Was the city built on the same site as the old city?

​

Yes, it was.

​

Have the Phoenician remains been discovered?

​

Yes, the new town sits on top of it.

​

The prophecy is wrong on these two points.

​

Mark

---

hi mark... i posted to this earlier... what you wrote above, does that concern the mainland city or the island city? let's get out of the way exactly what we're talking about before we continue...