There’s more than that -
Theres a book -
THere are farms in Kansas-
There are scarecrows-
There are lions (usually not cowardly, but…)
There are Girls named ‘Dorothy’
We actually have several lines of ‘evidence’ for the existance of Oz and the Wizard.
Now you are being silly.
Egypt was the seat of the Fatimid Caliphate that rules over all of coastal North Africa for centuries beginning in 969. (The Fatimids arose among the Berbers and had to capture Egypt, but once they had captured it, they built the city of Cairo and made it the seat of government.) The Fatimid Caliphate, governing from Egypt, ruled the Mediterranean coast from Libya all the way to the Atlantic Ocean, including what is now Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. They also captured Sicily for a while.
The Caliphate eventually declined and was, in turn conquered, but in the nineteenth century, Kavalali Mehmed Ali Pasha rebuilt the strength of the country and conquered Sudan and Syria along with portions of Anatolia and Arabia. Thus a prophecy that Egypt would never again rule over other nations is clearly false–it failed.
ETA: If this is the sort of thing you accept from the people at www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/, who are clearly either incredibly ignorant or deliberately deceptive, it is no wonder that your views are so odd and in conflict with facts.
Unreal?
Certainly.
I do not wish that Israel be overthrown, but in the course of human history, a country that has survived for a mere 65 years does not merit the accolade “never uprooted again.”
Where is your logic?
The logic is incorrect. A mere 60 years indeed does not qualify as never being uprooted. Daniel 2:44 says all human or earthly governments will be destroyed in the end and so does Revelation. So it can’t exclude the state of Israel.
Other verses in the NT* show that this new *Israel *is not a state but the symbolic or heavenly Israel. (with Christ as heavenly King) That fits as something that will never be overthrowed.
The earthly state of Israel we know does not fit any of the requirements since the Temple was destroyed by the Romans and not 1 Jew would even dare to try rebuild it today. His own people would kill him for even laying a first brick. (Ask a rabbi)
Further more all family registers were burned when Jerusalem was sacked, do you know what that means? There are no Levites. There are no priests, cause no Jew on earth can prove his tribal or patrial lineage. (so if anyone wants to claim he is the Messiah today he can’t prove his lineage)
That’s why the Jews today can’t even properly hold the Mosaic Law, because only the Levite priests were allowed to perform the sacrifices in the Temple. It’s all gone.
Jerusalem and the 2-tribe Kingdom were more than a location, land and some bricks that could simply be retaken and rebuilt. When it was destroyed by the Romans a book was closed utterly. (final rejection by God)
To make things worse everybody knows Israel stands by the grace of the USA and NATO. It’s the gojim- or gentile nations that are guaranteeing the existence of Israel and not God’s hand.
It’s all man made and many religious Jews living outside of Israel detest the state of Israel and more so the “Christian” fans of this Disneyland-holy land.
If you want real verifiable prophecy take Babylon, Nineveh and Tyre.(old Tyre) Anyone wishing to prove the Bible is a fable could have rebuilt and repopulated just one of these cities to former glory and the Bible would have been dead. The last one trying to restore Babylon was Saddam Hussein.
Who’s next?
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99;
There is really no excuse for not knowing that “Christian Bible” is a perfectly valid term for describing the set of scriptures that you have been discussing in this thread. So, I’ll come out and say it" “The Christian Bible” is a perfectly valid term for describing the set of scriptures you have been discussing in this thread, and you know it.
I DO hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me for telling you what it is that you know.[/QUOTE]
Well I disagree, the proper phrase should read, " The bible that Christians use", not " The Christian bible’- that phrase gives ownership of the bible to the Christians, which is absurd, they do not personally own the bible as a religion. If I said, " The Atheist dictionary", then that denotes that the Atheist " Own the dictionary"; That is simply what that implies. Now the correct phrase is to say, " The dictionary that Atheist use", which does not imply ownership. This is not rocket science, its simple vernacular. I fail to see why some here are having a hard time understanding this. Christians do not own the bible, IF you think they do, then prove it! Prove to me its " A Christian bible", as opposed to " A bible that Christians use." This is VERY important, its not a simple technicality.
And this same horrible error in grammar is being duplicated when people say the same thing about God, they incorrectly rant, " The Christian God", there is no such thing as the Christian God, God is NOT a Christian, the correct phrase should render , " The God that Christians believe in." Now if one of you can be so picky as to question me as to why I did not capitalize the name Satan, why can’t you be picky enough to understand this error you are making?
It is NOT the Christian bible, or the Christians God, the bible is for ALL of humanity, as is God!
Or you could just call it “Jehovallah” and there would be no doubt about which version of the deity you were referring to. The “christian god” is simply shorthand for more elaborate and cumbersome phrases, it that a different god than the one you believe in?
This is an example of shifting the goalposts so far as to be outside the paying field.
Mickiel pointed to the current state of Israel as “proving” a prophecy. If that is wrong, then your argument is with Mickiel, not with me.
If you are going to resort to this nonsense, you are going to lose what little respect you may have on this forum. You are using the same argument that fourth graders use to claim that it is wrong to say “my country” since “I” do not own it.
Stick to trying to make a serious point and leave the silly (and erroneous) grammar lessons out of the discussion.
Excuse me, YOU think its nonsense, it makes perfect sense to me. There is no such thing as " The Christian bible", there is no such thing as " The Christian God", and I could care less what respect I have on ANY forum, muchless this one. I am not looking for respect, I only look to give respect. In my view it is silly and erroneous to say those things, and bothersome to those of us who believe in God and are not Christian.
A college mate of mine (many years ago) was much taken with the prophecy that the city of Tyre would be destroyed, and would become no more than a place where fishermen cast their nets. Ezekiel 26:1-6.
I showed him some photographs of modern Tyre: skyscrapers, busy streets, etc. He refused to accept it. He insisted that it wasn’t Tyre, but photos of some other city. He preferred the overly-literal language of an ancient prophecy – which (in a way) did come true – over the evidence of modern fact.
There is something wrong with this kind of reasoning…
Well, there actually is a (somewhat trivial) Temple movement today. They’re doing symbolic things like weaving altar cloths, collecting sacrificial implements, etc.
They’re a goofy fringe group, without any real power, but, well, you said “not 1” and I have to say that isn’t quite true.
(SDMB participants tend to learn, early on, not to use universal qualifiers in statements in debate, because it always gets refuted! 
)
There are dozens of them, in fact.
I have no interest in whether it makes sense to you. You have identified yourself as a solipsist which is fine, but you don’t get to define grammar for the rest of the world. “The Christian Bible” distinguishes one set of books from “the Hebrew Bible” that includes a fewer number of books. Interrupting a thread to make some sort of odd claim of grammar does nothing to promote your viewpoint.
Now, I have no problem with you declaring that you do not see God in the same way that others do. However, you have pretty much declared that God is a particular way that only conforms to descriptions found in a single set of writings, (since you deliberately ignore descriptions of God from the Qur’an, the Vedas, the Upanishads, etc., and insist on including in your sources the Christian-defined New Testament rather than relying on the (Hebrew) bible that does not include it). You are, in fact, relying on a bible that was assembled by Christians and getting snotty that it is not a “Christian” bible is rather rude of you, as well as being a bit disingenuous. There are numerous books in the world that attempt to portray what one group or another believes to be the attributes of God. The attributes that you associate with God are found only in the bible assembled by Christians and denying them an “ownership” of the book that they put together seems a bit odd, at best.
You got your nerve, you don’t know what your talking about, the Old testament is far more than half of the bible, and Christianity did not exist when it was written. I don’t care who assembled it, it was not written by Christians, and your attempt to give them ownership is rude in my view. Christians may have influenced and convinced your mind to lift up their lie, but I am not going for it, no matter how much you or others fall for it.
Christians affirmed it as part of the faith. They have had a chance (multiple, actually) to divorce it’s teachings. They are the ones that decided to keep it. If you reject it, that’s up to you…but you shouldn’t go around pointing fingers at people who consider the book, that the authorities of the various Christian denominations say is their holy book, as part of the Christian faith.
according to your earlier post - eyewitnesses/apostles/disciples (the 12) of Jesus (you know, the ‘Christ’) wrote the first 4 books of the NT and Paul (converted by Jesus (you know, the ‘Christ’) wrote much of the rest along with his good buddy Luke.
How was it not written by ‘Christians’ ? SImply because the term ‘Christian’ is a later development?
You talk about nerve… you’re not only trying to ignore simple history - you’re trying to re-write it.
I realize that it is terribly “nervy” to simply refer to historical facts. Tough.
I never claimed that Christians wrote the bible. I pointed out, accurately, that what you call the bible was assembled or collected by Christians. It includes both the Hebrew bible as well as additional writings from Christians. Christians then decided which books would be accepted into the canon of the complete work.
Do you deny this?
I have already pointed out that you are not using the Hebrew bible, (Tanakh), since you include texts that originated among Christians that Jews do not recognize as scripture when you provide citations for your beliefs. Are you laboring under the misapprehension that those texts simply appeared in book form, (with a dedication to King James VI/I, perhaps)? Different humans wrote the various texts and later humans assembled them into a specific book. Even accepting the idea that they were inspired by God, (and I do), human agents were required to collect the various works and those agents were Christian.
Yes I deny it, seriously deny it; you don’t know what your talking about. It was God and Jewish Rabbis who put the bible together. They assembled it, Christians just later got involved and took the credit.
Why do you mention the Red Sea scrolls? I have read the English translation many times, and they were written years ago by humans, The archeologists seem to believe they came from a Jewish sect. Nor does it make sense to me that you would use the Dead Sea scrolls to prove anything! There is the possibility that there are still some scrolls still hidden.