OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Faith Issues => Topic started by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 01:51:00 PM

Title: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 01:51:00 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Ainnir on September 29, 2017, 02:01:56 PM
Is your faith in God only tied to one chapter of the Bible?  The Bible itself?  That is a more serious question than whether it was failed prophecy.  But speaking of "failed" prophecy, consider reading the book of Jonah.  I don't know if it's applicable, as I'd need to go back and read Ezekiel, but sometimes what looks like failure is actually mercy and who are we to question God's mercy?
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 02:08:38 PM
Is your faith in God only tied to one chapter of the Bible?  The Bible itself?  That is a more serious question than whether it was failed prophecy.  But speaking of "failed" prophecy, consider reading the book of Jonah.  I don't know if it's applicable, as I'd need to go back and read Ezekiel, but sometimes what looks like failure is actually mercy and who are we to question God's mercy?

I didn't come here to be chastised about my faith, I assure you I have faith, I just want a reasonable explanation of this chapter in light of it being challenged right now.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Ainnir on September 29, 2017, 02:24:54 PM
Please forgive me, then.  I didn't intend it as chastisement, but concern.  I read the OP as essentially equating being able to explain this chapter to an atheist and your personal faith.  I must have misread.   :-[
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: rakovsky on September 29, 2017, 02:31:00 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.
I think that the literal fulfillment of this passage is an issue that is a very far cry from that of God's existence.

*Maybe the passage was fulfilled in a way that you don't realize, eg. "captivity" can count as agreeing to pay tribute, like under the "Mongol yoke".

*Maybe as Ainnir proposed, the passage might not have been fulfilled, since the Lord had mercy. Remember the time Jonah told Nineveh they would be destroyed, but then Nineveh repented?

*Let's say that no explanations work for you, and you have come to believe that some of the Old Testament accounts and prophecies are not all factually true. It's even debated among Orthodox theologians whether Orthodoxy requires a teaching of Biblical "infallibility". I doubt that to be Orthodox you have to believe that the story of Noah is factually true, or that the ancient people lived hundreds of years before the flood, even if the Bible says that. It's certainly not an issue where you have to believe it or else God doesn't exist and you need to accept Atheism.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 02:32:18 PM
Please forgive me, then.  I didn't intend it as chastisement, but concern.  I read the OP as essentially equating being able to explain this chapter to an atheist and your personal faith.  I must have misread.   :-[

It's quite alright, I might have unintentionally made it come off the wrong way in the first place. I do really need help coming up with an explanation of this verse though.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: William T on September 29, 2017, 02:33:58 PM
Unfortunately I'm on my phone and can't answer in any detail hopefully someone can pick up my slack or i can direct you to profitable thought and research.


Have you ever been taught that arguments that Protestants use when bible verses come into play are different from more traditional churches?  In your case specifically a hard line "sola scriptura" approach is being used with no context or history of interpretation.

Real quick think of this:

That verse has existed for many millennia known to Christian and Jew alike... for whatever reason it hasn't been thought of as much of a problem and has a history of being commented on by Jewish and Christian commentaries without much fuss.  Why is that?  What is the context? What ous the history of interpretation?  Many (though not all) seemingly odd verses and contradictory things in the Bible ,or anything else for that matter, become much more clear when you study the tradition of its use.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Agabus on September 29, 2017, 02:38:28 PM
Not to go too broad, but history isn't over yet. I'm sure you can find a way to finagle a spiritual reading of "Nebuchadnezzar" out of it.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 02:42:45 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.
I think that the literal fulfillment of this passage is an issue that is a very far cry from that of God's existence.

*Maybe the passage was fulfilled in a way that you don't realize, eg. "captivity" can count as agreeing to pay tribute, like under the "Mongol yoke".

*Maybe as Ainnir proposed, the passage might not have been fulfilled, since the Lord had mercy. Remember the time Jonah told Nineveh they would be destroyed, but then Nineveh repented?

Maybe... I have found some good commentaries discussing the remarks about how the land will be "desolate" for "forty years" as hyperbole's, and that seems reasonable enough. However, Ezekiel does continue to speak about the Egyptians being conquered and a deportation of some kind in the following chapters. Jeremiah too speaks of something similar. But, as I have already said, Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt. Persia did, but that was decades later, and the prophets speak of it as being Babylon, not Persia. I can't really find any good explanations for these contents of the prophecy.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: William T on September 29, 2017, 02:45:04 PM
Not to go too broad, but history isn't over yet. I'm sure you can find a way to finagle a spiritual reading of "Nebuchadnezzar" out of it.

If I could find a way to finagle Nebuchadnezzar out of the wine bar across the street I'd be just as satisfied
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 02:45:17 PM
Unfortunately I'm on my phone and can't answer in any detail hopefully someone can pick up my slack or i can direct you to profitable thought and research.


Have you ever been taught that arguments that Protestants use when bible verses come into play are different from more traditional churches?  In your case specifically a hard line "sola scriptura" approach is being used with no context or history of interpretation.

Real quick think of this:

That verse has existed for many millennia known to Christian and Jew alike... for whatever reason it hasn't been thought of as much of a problem and has a history of being commented on by Jewish and Christian commentaries without much fuss.  Why is that?  What is the context? What ous the history of interpretation?  Many (though not all) seemingly odd verses and contradictory things in the Bible ,or anything else for that matter, become much more clear when you study the tradition of its use.

Yes, it is interesting to note that the Jews seemingly never took issues with this, and of course, neither has the Church.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: RaphaCam on September 29, 2017, 03:15:41 PM
Even if we deny the possibility of a reading of Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns against Egypt, Babylon is still archetypical, being used to talk about Rome (in St. Peter I 5:13) and Jerusalem (in Revelation 11:8 ), in such a way that this chapter could refer to any "Babylonian" power ruling over Egypt. There's also the possibility of a prophecy failed by mercy, such as that upon Nineveh; something that will still happen (Iraq x Egypt); or simply something spiritual.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: rakovsky on September 29, 2017, 03:22:38 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.
I think that the literal fulfillment of this passage is an issue that is a very far cry from that of God's existence.

*Maybe the passage was fulfilled in a way that you don't realize, eg. "captivity" can count as agreeing to pay tribute, like under the "Mongol yoke".

*Maybe as Ainnir proposed, the passage might not have been fulfilled, since the Lord had mercy. Remember the time Jonah told Nineveh they would be destroyed, but then Nineveh repented?

Maybe... I have found some good commentaries discussing the remarks about how the land will be "desolate" for "forty years" as hyperbole's, and that seems reasonable enough. However, Ezekiel does continue to speak about the Egyptians being conquered and a deportation of some kind in the following chapters. Jeremiah too speaks of something similar. But, as I have already said, Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt. Persia did, but that was decades later, and the prophets speak of it as being Babylon, not Persia. I can't really find any good explanations for these contents of the prophecy.
Did you see my response # 3:

*Let's say that no explanations work for you, and you have come to believe that some of the Old Testament accounts and prophecies are not all factually true. It's even debated among Orthodox theologians whether Orthodoxy requires a teaching of Biblical "infallibility". I doubt that to be Orthodox you have to believe that the story of Noah is factually true, or that the ancient people lived hundreds of years before the flood, even if the Bible says that. It's certainly not an issue where you have to believe it or else God doesn't exist and you need to accept Atheism.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 03:26:41 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.
I think that the literal fulfillment of this passage is an issue that is a very far cry from that of God's existence.

*Maybe the passage was fulfilled in a way that you don't realize, eg. "captivity" can count as agreeing to pay tribute, like under the "Mongol yoke".

*Maybe as Ainnir proposed, the passage might not have been fulfilled, since the Lord had mercy. Remember the time Jonah told Nineveh they would be destroyed, but then Nineveh repented?

Maybe... I have found some good commentaries discussing the remarks about how the land will be "desolate" for "forty years" as hyperbole's, and that seems reasonable enough. However, Ezekiel does continue to speak about the Egyptians being conquered and a deportation of some kind in the following chapters. Jeremiah too speaks of something similar. But, as I have already said, Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt. Persia did, but that was decades later, and the prophets speak of it as being Babylon, not Persia. I can't really find any good explanations for these contents of the prophecy.
Did you see my response # 3:

*Let's say that no explanations work for you, and you have come to believe that some of the Old Testament accounts and prophecies are not all factually true. It's even debated among Orthodox theologians whether Orthodoxy requires a teaching of Biblical "infallibility". I doubt that to be Orthodox you have to believe that the story of Noah is factually true, or that the ancient people lived hundreds of years before the flood, even if the Bible says that. It's certainly not an issue where you have to believe it or else God doesn't exist and you need to accept Atheism.

Yeah but these were actual prophecies...
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Alpha60 on September 29, 2017, 04:02:28 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.

That's not true though; the Mesopotamians, of which Babylon is representative, did repeatedly conquer Egypt; the construction of temples decicated to Seth was either funded by them in some cases as an interpretation of one of their own gods, or as a means of propitiating Seth to prevent a further invasion "from Syria."  I would attribute incursions from the Assyrians and later the Chaldeans and the periodic invasions and reductions of Egypt to a tributary state as being primarily responsible for the downfall of the New Kingdom as a major political power in the last millenium before Christ.

When Ezekiel prophesized, I believe some of these incursions were imminent.

"taken captives" does not have to be read as every single Egyptian man, woman and child being marched off to Babylon, in the manner of the Judean nobility; rather, the Egyptian armies being defeated, and the Egyptians forced to pay tribute, and the Egyptians losing territory, to Babylon and other Syro-Mesopotamian powers, all of which happened, counts.

I laugh at your Atheist friend's feeble attempt to undermine our faith.  That is their preferred tactic: go after single verses in Scripture, demand an extremely literal interpretation of them, which is contrary to the context of how the ancient world and especially ancient Semitic writers read, wrote, and expressed themselves verbally, and then attempt to falsify that verse, assuming the Orthodox faith is a house of cards that will collapse, and utterly ignoring the spiritual and allegorical interpretation of the verse, chapter and book in question. 

Perhaps this is what was meant when it was written "God will send a strong delusion upon them"

Don't let their delusions affect your faith. 
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Porter ODoran on September 29, 2017, 04:22:08 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.

So you've just decided St. Ezekiel is wrong and this wasn't fulfilled? Or your professor did? Or your girlfriend? I'm confused. And now we're all supposed to willingly follow along? Since as far as I know you're not Brainiac or Big Blue, I'm going to ask you to show your work first.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 05:03:11 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.

So you've just decided St. Ezekiel is wrong and this wasn't fulfilled? Or your professor did? Or your girlfriend? I'm confused. And now we're all supposed to willingly follow along? Since as far as I know you're not Brainiac or Big Blue, I'm going to ask you to show your work first.

What!? No! I never meant to imply that! All I want is help with this passage, in understanding of it and explaining it.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: rakovsky on September 29, 2017, 05:03:24 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.
I think that the literal fulfillment of this passage is an issue that is a very far cry from that of God's existence.

*Maybe the passage was fulfilled in a way that you don't realize, eg. "captivity" can count as agreeing to pay tribute, like under the "Mongol yoke".

*Maybe as Ainnir proposed, the passage might not have been fulfilled, since the Lord had mercy. Remember the time Jonah told Nineveh they would be destroyed, but then Nineveh repented?

Maybe... I have found some good commentaries discussing the remarks about how the land will be "desolate" for "forty years" as hyperbole's, and that seems reasonable enough. However, Ezekiel does continue to speak about the Egyptians being conquered and a deportation of some kind in the following chapters. Jeremiah too speaks of something similar. But, as I have already said, Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt. Persia did, but that was decades later, and the prophets speak of it as being Babylon, not Persia. I can't really find any good explanations for these contents of the prophecy.
Did you see my response # 3:

*Let's say that no explanations work for you, and you have come to believe that some of the Old Testament accounts and prophecies are not all factually true. It's even debated among Orthodox theologians whether Orthodoxy requires a teaching of Biblical "infallibility". I doubt that to be Orthodox you have to believe that the story of Noah is factually true, or that the ancient people lived hundreds of years before the flood, even if the Bible says that. It's certainly not an issue where you have to believe it or else God doesn't exist and you need to accept Atheism.

Yeah but these were actual prophecies...
Is53Messiah,
Did I do a good enough job explaining what my point was there?

When it comes to God's existence, and maybe even whether Orthodoxy is acceptable, it is not crucial whether Ezekiel 29 is an actual prophecy or whether the prophecy failed.

Did I do a good enough job explaining why this is not crucial?

Our theologians have different opinions on whether the Bible is totally "infallible". If it's not infallible, then maybe the truth of some fact given in the Old Testament, like whether Abraham's father Terah lived to be several hundred years old (205 years old), or whether Babylon conquered Egypt, doesn't make Orthodoxy right or wrong. The Bible and some prophecies could be wrong about some facts of past history, but that doesn't make the whole religion false.

The Bible is not a science textbook. It's a book of spirituality and God's relationship with man. And even if all the science textbooks made some mistakes of fact, like how many species of animals live on the planet or whether Pluto is a "planet", it still doesn't make Science false.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Porter ODoran on September 29, 2017, 05:09:27 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.

So you've just decided St. Ezekiel is wrong and this wasn't fulfilled? Or your professor did? Or your girlfriend? I'm confused. And now we're all supposed to willingly follow along? Since as far as I know you're not Brainiac or Big Blue, I'm going to ask you to show your work first.

What!? No! I never meant to imply that! All I want is help with this passage, in understanding of it and explaining it.

You state flatly and authoritatively that the prophecy failed. You'll need to demonstrate some extraordinarily particular knowledge across millennia to start to convince me.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 05:09:48 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.
I think that the literal fulfillment of this passage is an issue that is a very far cry from that of God's existence.

*Maybe the passage was fulfilled in a way that you don't realize, eg. "captivity" can count as agreeing to pay tribute, like under the "Mongol yoke".

*Maybe as Ainnir proposed, the passage might not have been fulfilled, since the Lord had mercy. Remember the time Jonah told Nineveh they would be destroyed, but then Nineveh repented?

Maybe... I have found some good commentaries discussing the remarks about how the land will be "desolate" for "forty years" as hyperbole's, and that seems reasonable enough. However, Ezekiel does continue to speak about the Egyptians being conquered and a deportation of some kind in the following chapters. Jeremiah too speaks of something similar. But, as I have already said, Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt. Persia did, but that was decades later, and the prophets speak of it as being Babylon, not Persia. I can't really find any good explanations for these contents of the prophecy.
Did you see my response # 3:

*Let's say that no explanations work for you, and you have come to believe that some of the Old Testament accounts and prophecies are not all factually true. It's even debated among Orthodox theologians whether Orthodoxy requires a teaching of Biblical "infallibility". I doubt that to be Orthodox you have to believe that the story of Noah is factually true, or that the ancient people lived hundreds of years before the flood, even if the Bible says that. It's certainly not an issue where you have to believe it or else God doesn't exist and you need to accept Atheism.

Yeah but these were actual prophecies...
Is53Messiah,
Did I do a good enough job explaining what my point was there?

When it comes to God's existence, and maybe even whether Orthodoxy is acceptable, it is not crucial whether Ezekiel 29 is an actual prophecy or whether the prophecy failed.

Did I do a good enough job explaining why this is not crucial?

Our theologians have different opinions on whether the Bible is totally "infallible". If it's not infallible, then maybe the truth of some fact given in the Old Testament, like whether Abraham's father Terah lived to be several hundred years old (205 years old), or whether Babylon conquered Egypt, doesn't make Orthodoxy right or wrong. The Bible and some prophecies could be wrong about some facts of past history, but that doesn't make the whole religion false.

The Bible is not a science textbook. It's a book of spirituality and God's relationship with man. And even if all the science textbooks made some mistakes of fact, like how many species of animals live on the planet or whether Pluto is a "planet", it still doesn't make Science false.

Well you see, the way I understand it, the Bible isn't necessarily infallible in the sense that it can't be wrong about history and science and whatnot, however, the Bible is inerrant in the sense that it cannot be in error over theological truths.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 05:13:01 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.

So you've just decided St. Ezekiel is wrong and this wasn't fulfilled? Or your professor did? Or your girlfriend? I'm confused. And now we're all supposed to willingly follow along? Since as far as I know you're not Brainiac or Big Blue, I'm going to ask you to show your work first.

What!? No! I never meant to imply that! All I want is help with this passage, in understanding of it and explaining it.

You state flatly and authoritatively that the prophecy failed. You'll need to demonstrate some extraordinarily particular knowledge across millennia to start to convince me.

I never stated that, the purpose me posting this was because I needed help with how to interpret this passage and perhaps if it has any implications.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Volnutt on September 29, 2017, 05:40:44 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.

That's not true though; the Mesopotamians, of which Babylon is representative, did repeatedly conquer Egypt; the construction of temples decicated to Seth was either funded by them in some cases as an interpretation of one of their own gods, or as a means of propitiating Seth to prevent a further invasion "from Syria."  I would attribute incursions from the Assyrians and later the Chaldeans and the periodic invasions and reductions of Egypt to a tributary state as being primarily responsible for the downfall of the New Kingdom as a major political power in the last millenium before Christ.

When Ezekiel prophesized, I believe some of these incursions were imminent.

"taken captives" does not have to be read as every single Egyptian man, woman and child being marched off to Babylon, in the manner of the Judean nobility; rather, the Egyptian armies being defeated, and the Egyptians forced to pay tribute, and the Egyptians losing territory, to Babylon and other Syro-Mesopotamian powers, all of which happened, counts.

I laugh at your Atheist friend's feeble attempt to undermine our faith.  That is their preferred tactic: go after single verses in Scripture, demand an extremely literal interpretation of them, which is contrary to the context of how the ancient world and especially ancient Semitic writers read, wrote, and expressed themselves verbally, and then attempt to falsify that verse, assuming the Orthodox faith is a house of cards that will collapse, and utterly ignoring the spiritual and allegorical interpretation of the verse, chapter and book in question. 

Perhaps this is what was meant when it was written "God will send a strong delusion upon them"

Don't let their delusions affect your faith.

Interestingly, I've also seen followers of the "Kansas City Prophets" (Larry Randolph, Paul Cain. Mike Bickle, et al) and related movements argue for failed Biblical prophecies, including trying to spin the salvation of Ninevah as a "failure" on Jonah's part to predict the city's destruction, in the hopes that if an OT prophet can be wrong yet still a true prophet (and not stoned to death as per Deuteronomy) then the KCPs are off the hook for all their failed predictions over the years.

On Ezekiel--the timing might be a bit janky, but could the establishment of the Coptic Church be considered as averting this conquest of Egypt? Protestant author JP Holding actually claims exactly this is the fulfillment of Isaiah 19:19:

Quote
In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD near its border.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: rakovsky on September 29, 2017, 05:44:20 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.
I think that the literal fulfillment of this passage is an issue that is a very far cry from that of God's existence.

*Maybe the passage was fulfilled in a way that you don't realize, eg. "captivity" can count as agreeing to pay tribute, like under the "Mongol yoke".

*Maybe as Ainnir proposed, the passage might not have been fulfilled, since the Lord had mercy. Remember the time Jonah told Nineveh they would be destroyed, but then Nineveh repented?

Maybe... I have found some good commentaries discussing the remarks about how the land will be "desolate" for "forty years" as hyperbole's, and that seems reasonable enough. However, Ezekiel does continue to speak about the Egyptians being conquered and a deportation of some kind in the following chapters. Jeremiah too speaks of something similar. But, as I have already said, Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt. Persia did, but that was decades later, and the prophets speak of it as being Babylon, not Persia. I can't really find any good explanations for these contents of the prophecy.
Did you see my response # 3:

*Let's say that no explanations work for you, and you have come to believe that some of the Old Testament accounts and prophecies are not all factually true. It's even debated among Orthodox theologians whether Orthodoxy requires a teaching of Biblical "infallibility". I doubt that to be Orthodox you have to believe that the story of Noah is factually true, or that the ancient people lived hundreds of years before the flood, even if the Bible says that. It's certainly not an issue where you have to believe it or else God doesn't exist and you need to accept Atheism.

Yeah but these were actual prophecies...
Is53Messiah,
Did I do a good enough job explaining what my point was there?

When it comes to God's existence, and maybe even whether Orthodoxy is acceptable, it is not crucial whether Ezekiel 29 is an actual prophecy or whether the prophecy failed.

Did I do a good enough job explaining why this is not crucial?

Our theologians have different opinions on whether the Bible is totally "infallible". If it's not infallible, then maybe the truth of some fact given in the Old Testament, like whether Abraham's father Terah lived to be several hundred years old (205 years old), or whether Babylon conquered Egypt, doesn't make Orthodoxy right or wrong. The Bible and some prophecies could be wrong about some facts of past history, but that doesn't make the whole religion false.

The Bible is not a science textbook. It's a book of spirituality and God's relationship with man. And even if all the science textbooks made some mistakes of fact, like how many species of animals live on the planet or whether Pluto is a "planet", it still doesn't make Science false.

Well you see, the way I understand it, the Bible isn't necessarily infallible in the sense that it can't be wrong about history and science and whatnot, however, the Bible is inerrant in the sense that it cannot be in error over theological truths.
So then Ezekiel 29 is not a problem. If the Bible is not infallible, then it doesn't disprove the Bible if you believe that in "history and science" Babylon did not conquer Egypt.

What would matter is if the main theological truths work, eg.:
Does God exist?
Could God guide events SUCH AS Babylon conquering Egypt in the event that Egypt didn't repent?
Is there a spiritual lesson that is a theological truth when we talk about Babylon conquering Egypt?

etc.

So whether in "history" Babylon conquered Egypt should not be a stumbling block for you if you say that the Bible is not infallible when it comes to its narrations of "history", like the Babylonian conquest's historicity.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: rakovsky on September 29, 2017, 05:48:47 PM
On Ezekiel--the timing might be a bit janky, but could the establishment of the Coptic Church be considered as averting this conquest of Egypt? Protestant author JP Holding actually claims exactly this is the fulfillment of Isaiah 19:19:

Quote
In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD near its border.
I think you would normally try to argue that AT THE TIME of the prophecy, Egyptian people mended their ways and regretted their mistakes and so Babylon didn't conquer them. Or that God changed his mind because he didn't want Babylon to conquer Egypt because he wanted Babylon not to be too strong, since he wanted Persia to conquer Judea.

You would want to argue that some event occurred that changed the premises under which God had originally made a promise to act. That is how things occurred in the prophecy by Jonah.

Promise ----> Changed Condition ------> Disaster averted ----> Prophecy unfulfilled for a good reason

Jeremiah talks about this too and gives it as an explanation for how his own prophecies could fail when he warned Israel of destruction for its sins.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 07:14:55 PM
Is it perhaps possible God decided to "reappoint" the duty from Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus since Persia actually did conquer Egypt in 525 B.C. Perhaps this was done because there were Jews fleeing into Egypt and God decided to act out of mercy?
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: rakovsky on September 29, 2017, 07:40:03 PM
Is it perhaps possible God decided to "reappoint" the duty from Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus since Persia actually did conquer Egypt in 525 B.C. Perhaps this was done because there were Jews fleeing into Egypt and God decided to act out of mercy?
Sure. There are different possible explanations for why God could have changed his mind. If it's certain that there is such a real, divine prophecy and it's certain that the prophecy was unfulfilled, then there are different ways to explain the situation.

We could do more research into Ezek 29, but I think that the truth is that there are other passages that cause the kinds of conundrums you are raising. So there is really a broader kind of issue you are facing. And this is why I want you to remember the three kinds of explanations for these kinds of puzzles that I put in the beginning of this thread. I think that there is no way to disprove God's existence, and certainly Ezek 29 doesn't come close.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: youssef on September 29, 2017, 07:58:23 PM
It will be problematic to say that God has change his mind.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Volnutt on September 29, 2017, 08:36:24 PM
It will be problematic to say that God has change his mind.

Quote from: 1 Samuel 15:10-11, NASB
Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the Lord all night.

See also the end of the chapter and Genesis 6:6

The difficulty is in harmonizing these with divine foreknowledge (or just dumping divine foreknowledge completely like the Open Theists do, though I'd rather avoid that option).
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 09:10:53 PM
Is it perhaps possible God decided to "reappoint" the duty from Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus since Persia actually did conquer Egypt in 525 B.C. Perhaps this was done because there were Jews fleeing into Egypt and God decided to act out of mercy?
Sure. There are different possible explanations for why God could have changed his mind. If it's certain that there is such a real, divine prophecy and it's certain that the prophecy was unfulfilled, then there are different ways to explain the situation.

We could do more research into Ezek 29, but I think that the truth is that there are other passages that cause the kinds of conundrums you are raising. So there is really a broader kind of issue you are facing. And this is why I want you to remember the three kinds of explanations for these kinds of puzzles that I put in the beginning of this thread. I think that there is no way to disprove God's existence, and certainly Ezek 29 doesn't come close.

There are other prophecies that were seemingly fulfilled though, like of course, the destruction of Judah, and the 70 year captivity.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 29, 2017, 09:14:41 PM
It will be problematic to say that God has change his mind.

Quote from: 1 Samuel 15:10-11, NASB
Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the Lord all night.

See also the end of the chapter and Genesis 6:6

The difficulty is in harmonizing these with divine foreknowledge (or just dumping divine foreknowledge completely like the Open Theists do, though I'd rather avoid that option).

Open theism is heretical. I think these passages can be explain in two ways. Some are clearly just anthropomorphism's, that is, giving human characteristic to God in an allegorical sense, others I think can be explained in the sense of just how God decided to reveal himself in that time in history.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Volnutt on September 29, 2017, 09:19:53 PM
It will be problematic to say that God has change his mind.

Quote from: 1 Samuel 15:10-11, NASB
Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the Lord all night.

See also the end of the chapter and Genesis 6:6

The difficulty is in harmonizing these with divine foreknowledge (or just dumping divine foreknowledge completely like the Open Theists do, though I'd rather avoid that option).

Open theism is heretical.
I tend to agree, yeah. It just always sticks in my mind because I was around a lot of OVTs on a different forum. I shouldn't have brought it up, sorry.

I think these passages can be explain in two ways. Some are clearly just anthropomorphism's, that is, giving human characteristic to God in an allegorical sense, others I think can be explained in the sense of just how God decided to reveal himself in that time in history.

I'm not a huge fan of the anthropomorphism explanation because it feels kind of flippant sometimes, but in this case it might be the best option, yeah.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: sestir on September 30, 2017, 02:08:05 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.

In case you can't find a concrete enough Orthodox answer, I'll give my take:

Starting from the observation from E. Tov that "the LXX of Ezekiel is 4–5 percent shorter than MT" and the fact that chapter 29 wasn't preserved in the DSS, if we hold the autographs to be inerrant (most people here apparently don't), we should not at the same time pretend like we have the original text.

In a widespread version of the Old Greek, both verses 3 and 8 contain: ταδε λεγει κυριος: "Ιδου, εγω ... this says Lord: "Hey, I...
Verses 3 and 9 quotes Pharao saying:
εμοι εισιν οι ποταμοι, και εγω εποιησα αυτους   
mine are the rivers, and I have made them   ...and...
οι ποταμοι εμοι εισιν, και εγω εποιησα αυτους
the rivers are mine, and I have made them   ... respectively.

I suggest verses 3-7 and verses 8-16 are two different versions of the same prophecy. For example, if a scribe had two manuscripts that could serve as a vorlage (amer. exemplar), he or she might have preserved both readings in places where the two manuscripts differed.

If we like this idea, we may wish to maintain two perspectives — an ecclesiastic where we accept that our printed editions are sufficiently divine, correct and authoritative, and a scientific perspective where we don't desperately try to explain stuff that might be of very human origin.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Volnutt on September 30, 2017, 02:44:00 PM
You'll need to expand. How specific are the differences (the one you posted is trivial)? Does one version say that Egypt will be captured by Babylon and the other not?
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: sestir on September 30, 2017, 04:25:00 PM
Ezekiel 29:3-16 according to NETS, but with two extra linefeeds between part 1 and part 2 and many other linefeeds removed:

... 3 and say, This is what the Lord says:
Behold, I am
against Pharao, the great dragon who is ensconced in the midst of his streams and the one who says, “The streams are
mine, and I made them.
4 And I will give snares into your jaws and glue the fish of your stream to your fins. And I will bring up you and all the fish of your stream from the midst of your stream.
5 And I will fling you and all the fish of your stream down with 6 speed; upon the surface of the plain you shall fall, and you shall not be gathered and shall not be interred.
I have given you to the animals of the earth and to the birds of the air for food. And all who inhabit Egypt shall know that I am the Lord, because you became a rod of reed for the house of Israel.
7 When they seized you with their hands, you were crushed, and when every hand prevailed over them and when they rested upon you, you were shattered, and you broke every loin of theirs.


8 Therefore, this is what the Lord says: Behold, I am bringing against you a sword, and I will destroy human beings and cattle from you, 9and the land of Egypt shall be destruction and a wilderness, and they shall know that I am the Lord, instead of your saying, “The streams are mine, and I made them.10Therefore, behold, I am against you and against all your streams, and I will give the land of Egypt into a wilderness and a sword and destruction from Magdolos and Syene and as far as the borders of the Ethiopians. 11And no human foot shall pass through it, and no cattle hoof shall pass through it, and it shall not be inhabited for forty years. 12And I will give its land as a destruction in the midst of a desolated land, and its cities shall be in the midst of desolated cities for forty years, and I will scatter Egypt among the nations
and winnow them into the countries.
13 This is what the Lord says: After forty years, I will gather Egyptians from the nations, there where they were scattered, 14and I will turn back the captivity of the Egyptians and settle them in a land of Pathoures in the land, there from where they were taken, and it shall be a lowly principality 15compared to all principalities, and it will never again be exalted over the nations, and I will make them least so that they might not be rather numerous among the nations. 16And the house of Israel shall no longer have them for a hope that recalls lawlessness, when they follow after them, and they shall know that I am the Lord.

Similarities underlined. It seems to me from the above discussion that it's the orange text that comes across as errant but I would rather not elaborate much since I haven't studied neither Ezekiel or Egyptian iron-age history.  :-X
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 30, 2017, 09:36:30 PM
In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel prophecies that the Egyptians will be taken as captives by the Babylonians for 40 years. Yet, such a thing never happened, Babylon never even conquered the Egyptians. Is this a failed prophecy...? I really can't get any good concrete answers anywhere else, so you guys are kind of my last hope in explaining this chapter. My faith is really being tested now by an atheist.

In case you can't find a concrete enough Orthodox answer, I'll give my take:

Starting from the observation from E. Tov that "the LXX of Ezekiel is 4–5 percent shorter than MT" and the fact that chapter 29 wasn't preserved in the DSS, if we hold the autographs to be inerrant (most people here apparently don't), we should not at the same time pretend like we have the original text.

In a widespread version of the Old Greek, both verses 3 and 8 contain: ταδε λεγει κυριος: "Ιδου, εγω ... this says Lord: "Hey, I...
Verses 3 and 9 quotes Pharao saying:
εμοι εισιν οι ποταμοι, και εγω εποιησα αυτους   
mine are the rivers, and I have made them   ...and...
οι ποταμοι εμοι εισιν, και εγω εποιησα αυτους
the rivers are mine, and I have made them   ... respectively.

I suggest verses 3-7 and verses 8-16 are two different versions of the same prophecy. For example, if a scribe had two manuscripts that could serve as a vorlage (amer. exemplar), he or she might have preserved both readings in places where the two manuscripts differed.

If we like this idea, we may wish to maintain two perspectives — an ecclesiastic where we accept that our printed editions are sufficiently divine, correct and authoritative, and a scientific perspective where we don't desperately try to explain stuff that might be of very human origin.

Interestingly enough, there are scholars who do hold that most of this chapter could be of a later date. Just because 'Babylon" and "Nebuchadnezzar" show up in a text doesn't mean contemporary, as these kinds of terms show up all of the time in later Jewish apocalyptic literature, usually as symbols for another entity, look to the Book of Revelation as an example of this. Some scholars even suggest that Ezekiel 26 is actually describing Alexander the Great's siege of Tyre, that it was added in at a later date by a different author, and made to fit into the context of Ezekiel whilst describing another event. Thus, in chapter 26, Babylon could simply mean the Greeks/Macedonians, and Nebuchadnezzar could mean Alexander, as it was authored in a completely different context.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Isaiah53IsMessiah on September 30, 2017, 09:57:38 PM
Old Testament scholar, G.A Cooke, writes, "Chs 29-32. These Prophecies against Egypt are divided into seven sections, all of them dated, except 30:1-19. They belong to the period, Jan 587-Mar 587 B.C., which witnessed the fall of Jerusalem; 29:17-21 stands outside the sequence as it was added later, and bears the date 571 B.C. The general tone is hostile and threatening, due to the part which Egypt had played in Israel's past and recent history; moreover, Hebrew religion detested the gross idolatry of Egypt. It is difficult to assign Ezekiel's share in the composition of these chapters. Holscher allows him five poems, namely 29:3-4, 30:21, 31:3-8, 32:2, 32:18-27, and puts down all the rest in later hands... It is evident that later editors altered and added much."

I think it may be seen that these chapters were heavily edited by later editors and redactors.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Volnutt on September 30, 2017, 10:04:09 PM
Ezekiel 29:3-16 according to NETS, but with two extra linefeeds between part 1 and part 2 and many other linefeeds removed:

... 3 and say, This is what the Lord says:
Behold, I am
against Pharao, the great dragon who is ensconced in the midst of his streams and the one who says, “The streams are
mine, and I made them.
4 And I will give snares into your jaws and glue the fish of your stream to your fins. And I will bring up you and all the fish of your stream from the midst of your stream.
5 And I will fling you and all the fish of your stream down with 6 speed; upon the surface of the plain you shall fall, and you shall not be gathered and shall not be interred.
I have given you to the animals of the earth and to the birds of the air for food. And all who inhabit Egypt shall know that I am the Lord, because you became a rod of reed for the house of Israel.
7 When they seized you with their hands, you were crushed, and when every hand prevailed over them and when they rested upon you, you were shattered, and you broke every loin of theirs.


8 Therefore, this is what the Lord says: Behold, I am bringing against you a sword, and I will destroy human beings and cattle from you, 9and the land of Egypt shall be destruction and a wilderness, and they shall know that I am the Lord, instead of your saying, “The streams are mine, and I made them.10Therefore, behold, I am against you and against all your streams, and I will give the land of Egypt into a wilderness and a sword and destruction from Magdolos and Syene and as far as the borders of the Ethiopians. 11And no human foot shall pass through it, and no cattle hoof shall pass through it, and it shall not be inhabited for forty years. 12And I will give its land as a destruction in the midst of a desolated land, and its cities shall be in the midst of desolated cities for forty years, and I will scatter Egypt among the nations
and winnow them into the countries.
13 This is what the Lord says: After forty years, I will gather Egyptians from the nations, there where they were scattered, 14and I will turn back the captivity of the Egyptians and settle them in a land of Pathoures in the land, there from where they were taken, and it shall be a lowly principality 15compared to all principalities, and it will never again be exalted over the nations, and I will make them least so that they might not be rather numerous among the nations. 16And the house of Israel shall no longer have them for a hope that recalls lawlessness, when they follow after them, and they shall know that I am the Lord.

Similarities underlined. It seems to me from the above discussion that it's the orange text that comes across as errant but I would rather not elaborate much since I haven't studied neither Ezekiel or Egyptian iron-age history.  :-X

Yeah, that one's tricky. It makes it sound like the Egyptians will be scattered and then re-gathered like the Israelites were by the Babylonians and Persians, respectively. I would have to ask someone more knowledgeable on the Egyptian diaspora if that's really ever been true, but it doesn't seem like it to me--maybe under Alexander? I don't know what "the Land of Pathoures" is.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: mcarmichael on October 02, 2017, 04:52:15 PM
You know, they say that the best defense is a strong offense. I'm sure it's not the other way around, too, ie: the best offense is a strong defense.
If you're interested in what might constitute a "strong offense" in this context, I would recommend a Dr. Alva J. McClain's "Daniel's Prophecy of the 70 Weeks", part one. It's a classic.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Porter ODoran on October 03, 2017, 02:25:38 PM
Old Testament scholar, G.A Cooke, writes, "Chs 29-32. These Prophecies against Egypt are divided into seven sections, all of them dated, except 30:1-19. They belong to the period, Jan 587-Mar 587 B.C., which witnessed the fall of Jerusalem; 29:17-21 stands outside the sequence as it was added later, and bears the date 571 B.C. The general tone is hostile and threatening, due to the part which Egypt had played in Israel's past and recent history; moreover, Hebrew religion detested the gross idolatry of Egypt. It is difficult to assign Ezekiel's share in the composition of these chapters. Holscher allows him five poems, namely 29:3-4, 30:21, 31:3-8, 32:2, 32:18-27, and puts down all the rest in later hands... It is evident that later editors altered and added much."

I think it may be seen that these chapters were heavily edited by later editors and redactors.

Believe chaps like Holscher and you'll soon be left with no Scripture at all. Their undertaking is intentionally a destructive one.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Vanhyo on October 04, 2017, 01:40:25 PM
It's even debated among Orthodox theologians whether Orthodoxy requires a teaching of Biblical "infallibility". I doubt that to be Orthodox you have to believe that the story of Noah is factually true, or that the ancient people lived hundreds of years before the flood, even if the Bible says that. It's certainly not an issue where you have to believe it or else God doesn't exist and you need to accept Atheism.
If someone doesn't believe Noah's story to be true then such person is not Orthodox Christian.

Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Volnutt on October 04, 2017, 03:57:38 PM
Old Testament scholar, G.A Cooke, writes, "Chs 29-32. These Prophecies against Egypt are divided into seven sections, all of them dated, except 30:1-19. They belong to the period, Jan 587-Mar 587 B.C., which witnessed the fall of Jerusalem; 29:17-21 stands outside the sequence as it was added later, and bears the date 571 B.C. The general tone is hostile and threatening, due to the part which Egypt had played in Israel's past and recent history; moreover, Hebrew religion detested the gross idolatry of Egypt. It is difficult to assign Ezekiel's share in the composition of these chapters. Holscher allows him five poems, namely 29:3-4, 30:21, 31:3-8, 32:2, 32:18-27, and puts down all the rest in later hands... It is evident that later editors altered and added much."

I think it may be seen that these chapters were heavily edited by later editors and redactors.

Believe chaps like Holscher and you'll soon be left with no Scripture at all. Their undertaking is intentionally a destructive one.

Where in that quote do you see the words, "This was not written by Ezekiel in 587 or 571 and is therefore not Scripture?" You're making a leap that we have no reason to think Holscher does, "chap."
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: rakovsky on October 04, 2017, 05:33:12 PM
It's even debated among Orthodox theologians whether Orthodoxy requires a teaching of Biblical "infallibility". I doubt that to be Orthodox you have to believe that the story of Noah is factually true, or that the ancient people lived hundreds of years before the flood, even if the Bible says that. It's certainly not an issue where you have to believe it or else God doesn't exist and you need to accept Atheism.
If someone doesn't believe Noah's story to be true then such person is not Orthodox Christian.
I don't think that is the case, since Fr. Hopko and others said that we don't have to treat the Bible as infallible. He gave different examples of Old Testament stories.

A example of a discussion on literalism is the Ancient Faith Radio article "Understanding Violence in the Old Testament: Critical and Patristic Perspectives"
Quote
[As to the Book of Joshua]
we are able to move away from an overly literal, historical-factual reading of the book. If indeed the book was composed in order to express certain ideological and theological ideas, then such a historical-factual reading would in that case not even be “literal.”
...
When we read and are repulsed by the slaughter and carnage in the Bible, we may take some solace in the very real possibility that these texts do not record history exactly as it happened, but rather they represent the ideology and theology of the Israelites and Jews as they struggled to take possession of the Land of Israel. Seeing it this way brings us closer to the manner in which the Fathers interpreted these things, in a spiritual fashion, not literalistic.
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/understanding-violence-old-testament-critical-patristic-perspectives/

Dcn. Kuraev writes about the process of Creation and Evolution:
Quote
   First of all, according to the views of the theologians of the very traditionalist Russian Church Abroad, "the Days of creation should be understood not literally ("For a thousand years in Thine eyes, O Lord, are but as yesterday that is past, and as a watch in the night.") but as periods!"

Secondly, the idea of evolution, given its separation from its atheist interpretation, is discussed quite positively in works by Orthodox authors. Prof. Ivan M. Andreev, having rejected the idea that man evolved from monkey, says: "In everything else, Darwinism does not contradict the biblical teaching on the creation of living things because evolution does not address the question of who created the first animals."
...

Professor of St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary in New York, Fr. Vasili Zenkovsky also emphasized the biblical "creative potential" of the earth: "It is clearly stated in the text of the Bible that the Lord gives an order to the earth to act with its own strength . . . This inherent creative activity of nature, "elan vital" (in the expression of Bergson) — the aspiration to life, helps to understand an indisputable fact of evolution of life on earth."

Herman made a good point over on the Monachos forum:
Quote
There is nothing in the Creed that demands a literalist belief in Genesis. The hymnody seems to stress the MEANING of Scripture which I can benefit from regardless of if it is literal or not.

Do you believe that all things are made up of combinations of fire, earth, water and air? Do you believe that the Sun and Moon revolve around the Earth and a heliotropic universe? There are many Fathers of the Church who did. Am I not allowed to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that Ptolemy was wrong? Do you believe that the Fathers of the Church represent the end-all and be-all of mathematics, biology, geology, medicine, metallurgy, or quantum physics?
http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/6634-why-an-orthodox-christian-cannot-be-an-evolutionist-essay-by-sv-bufeev/page-4

Maybe you do not agree with these writers, but I do think someone who doesn't believe Noah's story to be literally factual can still be Orthodox.

If you want to discuss Noah's Ark some more, here is a thread for that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,66998.msg1354608.html#msg1354608
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Vanhyo on October 06, 2017, 04:05:08 AM
You can say that prophetic passages or Psalms for example are not literal,  but historic events told in the Bible are true literal events, Christ for example qoutes the days of Noah, describing real people and events, and if these are not real events then you are wasting your time with christianity, and we as christians are to be pitied.

I think evolutionists "orthodox" who are opposed to the literal understanding of the historic events in the bible are not christians, infact often they are the same deluded individuals who are involved in ecumenistic syncretist theism.

If someone doesnt understand why the god of theistic evolution is not the God of orthodox christianity, then this person really have no business calling himself a christian.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Volnutt on October 06, 2017, 04:20:38 AM
You can say that prophetic passages or Psalms for example are not literal,  but historic events told in the Bible are true literal events, Christ for example qoutes the days of Noah, describing real people and events, and if these are not real events then you are wasting your time with christianity, and we as christians are to be pitied.

Christians are to be pitied if Christ did not rise from the dead. You can argue that those who believe in a literal Resurrection without a literal flood are being logically inconsistent, but putting a literal flood on the same level as the literal Resurrection (ie. front and center in the Christian faith) such that one is not a Christian without it, strikes me as frankly blasphemous.

I think evolutionists "orthodox" who are opposed to the literal understanding of the historic events in the bible are not christians, infact often they are the same deluded individuals who are involved in ecumenistic syncretist theism.

I appreciate your restraint in not bringing up the Jews, the Masons, and Alex Jones.

If someone doesnt understand why the god of theistic evolution is not the God of orthodox christianity, then this person really have no business calling himself a christian.

Oh, this oughta be good.

Enlighten me please, the poor benighted Christian evolutionist, about why I don't have the right God....
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Indocern on October 06, 2017, 04:23:33 AM
There is no real propheties in the Bible, it is all something like "only interpretation". I also don't believe there was Adam and Eve.
Same for there is satan (again fake)... Apocalypse... No way.. Anti-Christ, really? Demons, evil spirits? No. God do all things.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Arachne on October 06, 2017, 04:45:11 AM
God do all things.

Uh-huh.

(https://www.cheatsheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/alec-guinness-montage-kind-hearts-and-coronets.jpg)
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: Porter ODoran on October 06, 2017, 07:43:38 PM
I think evolutionists "orthodox" who are opposed to the literal understanding of the historic events in the bible are not christians ...

They were baptized; they are Christians. Their beliefs may not be orthodox, but the Church has yet to make that clear. Let's not bite and devour each other like the Protestants with cries of, He is not a real Christian.
Title: Re: Ezekiel 29, failed Biblical prophecy?
Post by: mcarmichael on October 06, 2017, 11:37:38 PM
I think evolutionists "orthodox" who are opposed to the literal understanding of the historic events in the bible are not christians ...

They were baptized; they are Christians. Their beliefs may not be orthodox, but the Church has yet to make that clear. Let's not bite and devour each other like the Protestants with cries of, He is not a real Christian.

I fear that you're projecting. Protestants are always "I want the new Nike's."