₦airaland Forum

dorox:
The big bang is an explosion of energy which I think came from God. Now energy and matter are related by the Einstein equation E=mc^2. Where E is the energy equivalent of matter and is equal to the mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light.
What this means is that matter is the condensation of energy just like how steam on cooling gives water.

Noted. More contributions please!

johnydon22:
I am not a Big Bang theorist but i will answer you and advice you join the science section more often.

Big Bang theory proposes an energy singularity, matter (mass) and energy are relative..

E=Mc²

So Big bang doesn't propose nothing (Only quantum fluctuation asserts this) it proposes rapid inflation of the energy singularity which eventually cooled to form sub atomic and atomic particles (matter) that are producers of stars etc through gravitational effect.

If you want to learn about the Big bang go online, there are numerous PDF books of it..

Thanks for the attempt. the reference is noted. Actually, since it's the norm to discuss in a forum, I look forward to further clarification since the general belief is that the Universe and the Billions of galaxies etc all started with a Bang (not distribution of extant particles).

It seems Big bang theory is to inanimate, abiotic elements what evolution is to the living things: The former commences with a bang whence came all the Stars and Planets from hitherto non-existent elements, while the latter commences with an almost nothing - a microscopic protoplasm.

But in all, it appears to me that the Origin of the force of Gravity is yet to be ascertained since its existence is not a function of the Bang and without it (gravity) the Bang will make no meaning!

Will I be right to say there are two kinds of people in the world:

1. Those who believe God made the World and Universe out of nothing (and realise that they owe Him reverence etc)
2. Those who believe that energy processes made the World and Universe out of nothing (no responsibility to no body here).

Interesting that both groups have a point of intersection - It all started from NOTHING

dorox:
Stars are bright due to nuclear fusion of light element to heavier elements. Planets are not luminous. Any apparent luminousity of a planet is the reflection of light from the star it is orbiting.

Alright thanks

Let's get back to the start, can anybody in the house who is a real cognoscenti on the Big bang theory answer this:

Think of it this way. The big bang gave birth to the substance that planets are made of, while gravity is a force that acted on these substance to form big round planets.\

Does this mean the Big Bang brought something out of nothing some of which formed the Stars and other the Planets?

plaetton:
Luminosity, the fact that some stars give light and others do not , is simply a matter of chemistry.

Stars give out energy,the latent energy that they have, by simple atomic fission of hydrogen atoms.

Some stars have the ingredients and catalysts for these fission chain reactions, while others, not yet mature, or ones who have exhausted their fissionable materials.

Thanks for your time.

johnydon22:


Alright then...


Let me put this in very basic terms.

We are earth based life forms, so everything we will judge other planets with will be based on our experience of how earth is.. That is why man came up with the EARTH SIMILARITY INDEX. (based on similarity to earth) if we lived on Mars we would be judging other planets by their similarity with our planet Mars.. (Understand?)

So thousands of planets have been VERIFIED AND OBSERVED to be similar to earth according to our similarity scale..

the nearest of this similarity being Kepler 438b which i mentioned.. The universe is filled with countless star systems and countless planets in these systems..


Luminosity is based on the activities of such celestial body..

Stars are luminous because they are extremely hot enough to trigger the process of nuclear fusion in their cores.

Hydrogen + Hydrogen ------> Helium... this is the nuclear chain reaction that goes on in a star core that is why a star is luminous. . in fact every other thing in this universe are luminated by stars practically.

Our earth is brighter than the moon itself and Jupiter is 16times brighter..this is the amount of light they reflect, these bodies don't produce light


If i tell you this question makes any sense to me i would be lying..

Please i mentioned that the universe is expanding.. (more-like space/time itself is expanding) and the single point where these rapid inflation and expansion began is what is known as big bang..

Nobody knows the center of the universe neither can anybody claim to be, our solar system has 8main planets and 5 miniplanets for now .. and NO it is a young system not more than 5billion years..

the universe is ~14 billion years old..



To be honest we shouldn't let beliefs stop us from learning what we should, nobody needs believe anything in order to learn them..




Ok first stars were formed like 200millions of years after the big bang, some of the galaxies and stars with estimated age as close to that of the big bang has been observed by space telescopes.

But all stars and planets didn't form at the same time.. Millions still form up till now and millions die..

Like our own star which you may know as the sun is 4.6billion years old

I suggest you pay more visits to the science section ...

I.E: My answers are based on scientific postulations and not my own assertions.

Alright, thanks a lot.

plaetton:
My dear friend,
Thank you for asking, in humility, about things that you obviously do not understand.

It is greatly encouraged that everyone seek answers to vexing questions.

Thanks for the complement. We learn everyday.

From your questions, I can see that you are misinformed about issues of celestial mechanics.
Again, I do not blame nor will I mock you for that.

Let me do my best to answer and correct some of your erroneous assumptions.

1. There are estimated to be around 100 billion Galaxies in the universe.

Our star is in the Milky Way Galaxy system. The Milky Way Galaxy system has about 100 billion stars.


Our star( solar system) is just one of the 100 billion stars in our Milky Way Galaxy system.

We have 9 planets in our solar system. Now assuming this number as a standard, then,

9 planets x 100 billion stars x 100 billion galaxies = the estimated number of planets in the universe.

Wow! (But I noticed that was an assumption as it seems many of these claims are). But do they all have their own Sun?

Now, pls tell me, how did you arrive at your statement that there is only one planet with life ?

Oh well, no one has brought concrete , verifiable proof to the contrary!

3. We cannot know unless we scientifically examine them one after the other.

Alright.

4. Lol.
The Big Bang led to the formation of the universe, as energy dispersed rapidly throughout space , cooled, condensed and formed the particles of matter.

Since this process birthed the Solar system and planets all from one source, why has some cooled while others have not and may never cool?

5. Lol
Our solar system didn't exist before the Big Bang.
The Big Bang was the beginning , or the inflection point for all processes in the universe.

Alright.

6. If you understand that solar system was the beginning of the processes, then the fact that stars are still hot and in motion simply means that processes set in motion by the Big Bang continue unabated.

Since they all have a common source, how do we explain the varied cooling rates? Could it be that the expanse in which the bang took place had unequal temperature distributions? If so what was responsible for that?

7. Lol.
If you have understood all 6 answers so far, then the no. 7 is unnecessary.

8. Again, In light of information provided thus far, no 8 is unnecessary.

Alright

dorox:
I am not an expert in astronomy but here is my layman take on your questions.

Thanks for your time.

1. One just "happen" to form at a distance from the sun that is conducive to life. This habitable zone that is neither too hot nor too cold for life to exist is commonly refered to as the Goldilocks zone.


A little experiment for you. Hold let say five small stones of various weight in your hand, and throw them as far as possible.
Now check if they all land on one spot. If they don't, can you postulate a hypothesis that explains the other in which they land from you?
2. The process of planetary formation started at the same time and ended when there was too few left over material in the gravitational field of each planet.
3. The process of planetary formation is not a sequential process that must wait for one to finish before the next one can start.
4. The big bang gave birth to all of the matter and energy in the universe, so it is obvious that it came before stars and planets formation.

Okay.

5. The solar system did not exist before the big bang. Same goes for all other stellar system in the universe.
6. The big bang created matter and energy, and this matter and energy keeps rearranging itself to form new stars and planetary system from the death of old ones.

Alright, how do they differentiate is there a magnetic attraction of like particles?

7. It produced everthing in the universe.
8. Think of it this way. The big bang gave birth to the substance that planets are made of, while gravity is a force that acted on these substance to form big round planets.

In essence are you saying that all planets were formed from the same substance? How about the luminous ones?

johnydon22:
[b]

Even though i was almost blown off my seat by the stack naivete your questions betrayed i won't mind answering them because i believe no question is dumb, can be bluntly naive but not dumb.

Sure, no man is a repository of all knowledge! Thanks for your time but more naive clarifications may be sought.

This is the first naive question.. There are thousands of planets out there orbitting the habitable zone of their host stars just like the earth.

according to our own Earth Similarity index there are thousands of them that are like earth out there the closest we know for now being kepler 438b..

88% earth's similarity according to earth's scale and with time the certainty of finding even more planets more conducive for life is undeniable..

so please earth is not the only planet that can support life or is even likely to be the only, there are countless numbers of planets in the observable universe.. the only problem is that man lacks the technology it takes to travel such distances.

Can we say the highlighted means these claims are un-verified? If no, on what basis do we accept them for what they have been called?

Big Bang according to scientific postulations brought about subatomic and atomic particles which are fundamentals of matter.

so yes our solar system is a young system compared to the age of the universe and i thought it should be an elementary knowledge that Solar systems, galaxies, planets, nebulas, blackholes... are all products of matter ..[/b]

Now we dont all have same academic privileges, how did they all differentiate and some are luminous while others are not?

so yes scientifically Big bang brought out the solar system not the other way round

Alright. Considering the distance where some of these planets are, would you say they were thrust there by the Bang or they travelled there over time? And did the Big Bang occur at that part where you have the Conventional 9 planets today or in a place Light years away?

hahahahaha am sorry for laughing at this bro but i cant help it.. anyway am sure i have answered you above..

i suggest you pick up basic science materials, you can start from the science section.... Cus this?... Don't really know what to say..

No problem. At least I am not pretending to be an expert.

I think you think Big bang means the formation of a solar system.. (this is why i am insisting you start picking up simple science text books)

[b]According to the scientific postulations Big Bang brought about expansion of space/time and ultimately atomic and subatomic particles.


Space/time ..Matter (this includes Galaxies, stars, nebula, planets, asteroids ...etc)

[/b]

Kindly expatiate on the colored regarding were they formed immediately after the Bang or over a long period?

To be honest bro these questions i expect only from primary school students not adults..

one do not really need to believe scientific postulations in order to study, it is understandable that you place your beliefs first but i think you should have studied these things at least for knowing sake because i am awed at these questions.

but like i said, no question is dumb only naive or misplaced..

Indeed, thanks for your time.

plaetton:
Here are some excerpts from the article:


Scientists have witnessed an unprecedented space miracle: They saw a new planet being born right before their eyes. The phenomenon, which even scientists had never seen before, has been recorded and shared online.
A juvenile planet formed around a young star named LkCa 15 in the neighborhood of Taurus, some 450 light years from Earth.

“This is the first time that we’ve imaged a planet that we can say is still forming,” said Stephanie Sallum, a University of Arizona graduate student who worked on the research.

Scientists, who were actually working separately at first, suspected that this particular galaxy might have an embryonic planet while doing previous research. Both Sallum and her colleague, Kate Follette, focused on LkCa15. However, the sensation here is not so much the new planet itself, but the process of its formation.

Nice discovery!
However, it raises questions which I hope the experts in these very technical areas will be able to shed light on.
1. Since all other planets were formed by the same action of gravity on star debris, how come only one perfectly supports life?
2. As a result of (1), were all the 9 planets formed simultaneously or one after the other?
3. If consecutively, which came first and which was last?
4. For those who are knowledgeable in Big Bang, did that process bring about the solar system too or was it extant at the time when Big Bang occured?
5. If the Solar system existed before Big Bang, then how correct will it be to say planets are formed from star debris?
6. If the Solar system was a creation of the Big Bang then what informs the formation of more stars sans another Big bang?
7. Did the Big Bang produce only Earth or the other Planets too?
8. What births a Planet, Big Bangs or Gravity's activity on star debris?

Looking forward to answers.

P.S. As much as possible, use layman's terms.

johnydon22:
Planetary formation was a huge leap in space observation because it confirmed our thesis on that subject..
Just like stars are results of the action of Gravity on matter (nebula), Planets are the same action of Gravity on star debris.. remnants or shed offs of a star during formation comes under the action of gravity and comes together to form a spinning ball of hot matter.
The complexity, orbital tendencies, formation of new stars, galaxies, planets are all possible due to gravity..

DoubleDeeX:
Nice one!

Israel will accept Christ as their messiah when the anti Christ takes over (at the hr of trial and tribulations) and they would all be saved. Romans 11:26.

It's a pity they will not witness the marriage feast of the Lamb as they wouldn't be going in the rapture!

That's true. Zechariah's prophecies confirms this.

OLAADEGBU:
"And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labour and in pain to give birth" (Revelation 12:1-2).

Are these verses talking about Mary as the Queen of Heaven?

Roman Catholics and other traditional religionists, what do you say?

No, that's not Mary. It's a picture of Israel through whom the Seed of the woman that would bruise the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15) would come. The same woman fled to the wilderness for 3.5 years being the time Israel would be accommodated in the wilderness during the last 3.5 years of the Great tribulation.

But the woman was supplied with the two wings of a giant eagle, so that she might fly from the presence of the serpent into the desert (wilderness), to the retreat where she is to be kept safe and fed for a time, and times, and half a time (three and one-half years, or 1,260 days).
Revelations 12:14

Because God has already promised that Israel would be saved during the great tribulation
Jeremiah 30:7
Alas! for that day will be great, so that none will be like it; it will be the time of Jacob’s [unequaled] trouble, but he will be saved out of it.

italo:
keep fooling yourself

..., Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mark7:9

italo:
Even when it's explicitly written in John20:23, you choose to stay blind and live in denial.

It was Jesus that gave men power to forgive sins. Ask him for examples.

Jesus:
Luke 24:46,47
46 and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem

The above explains John 20:23. (You wonder why all the other Gospels do not hint at John 20:23 and that John 20:23 is silent about all disciples and apostles going into all the world to preach like you find in all the Gospels). When we preach the Gospel, we as Christ's ambassadors make it possible that HE reconciles men to God through our witnessing

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2 Corinth 5:20

NOW APOSTLES, WHO FORGIVES SINS AND GRANTS LIFE? HEAR THEM ANSWER (AND WHY WOULD THEY CONTRADICT THEIR LORD IF INDEED YOUR CLAIMS ARE CORRECT?)

Peter:
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Acts 8:20-22

Paul:
testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 20:21


John:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1:9

For the records:

Someone may say to you, "Let's ask the mediums and those who consult the spirits of the dead. With their whisperings and mutterings, they will tell us what to do." But shouldn't people ask God for guidance? Should the living seek guidance from the dead?
Isaiah 8:19

italo:
Are you mad?

I showed you where Jesus gave them power to forgive sins and you're still asking me for examples of them forgiving sins.

Was Jesus blabbing?

No need to take it personal.

Afterall Jesus gave them power to raise the dead Acts 9:36-40 shows Peter raising the dead, Acts 19 shows Paul doing same. He gave them power to be witnesses and we see that being exercised all through out the Acts. They were given power to cast out devils and we see that in the Gospels and Acts!

Is it too much to ask that you show us where this power was exercised?

All through the Acts, I find them emphasizing repentance toward God and faith in Christ Jesus whence the use of their 'eternal-life giving power'?

italo:
What year did NT come out and what year was Catholicism invented?

Please provide evidence.


Humans can forgive sins and thereby give eternal life through the power of God in them.

Read John20:23.

Wow that's new! Please give ONE example where the Apostles did this in either Acts or the Epistles. I mean where , instead of pointing the people to the God through the Gospel, they forgave sins and , being God's proxies, dispensed eternal life.

yazach:
Still waiting for the bible quote that discourage the act dude

Still waiting for you to buttress your claims on the 'teaching of religion' promoting indecency in dressing,found in the Bible.

yazach:
Since you are a christian, you will have to provide a verse that discourage the act

Are you saying that you made claims and even named your thread without checking?

You spoke about the 'Teachings of religion' hence give us the one that you had in mind that teaches that illustrated in the picture.

yazach:
I am talking about the [size=13pt]teaching of the religion[/size]

while Islam promote decent dressing, since when have you hear churches preaching against it?

Please show ONE Bible verse that encourages the picture you placed up there for Christians.

keenn:
Nigga, it seems you Christian guys hurry to forget that some, if not most atheist and agnostic alike were once religionist/Christians. You argue this out as if this (giving testimonies with reference to the unlucky) is a less occurrence in christaindom and is practiced by fanatics, geesss!

I am yet to see a church that encourages sharing of testimonies and the above claim is not practiced, am yet. I stand to be corrected.

The topic does not major on religionist been non-compationate (some religionist are best of people) but rather questions why praise should be giving to a god with reference to the ill or those with challenges.

As regards ur questions on the biblical account, well I can only assume that "the biblical god just proofed he can choose to save whom he chooses to save"

He is a loving god.

your opinion is noted.

Every system of belief (+Christianity) has its own set of fanatics. It will be wrong to assess any religion based on the actions of a relative few. (It is common knowledge that many come to church these days not because they want to serve God but because they want protection/prosperity and this is one of the major contributions to the state of things today.)

If , for example, 1 out of 12 are as covetous as Judas Iscariot, then it will be wrong to judge a group of 12000 as being covetous simply because we met about 1000 who were covetous! Besides, this write-up, either deliberately or inadvertently, overlooks the compassionate deeds of people who practise religion today and rather focuses the omission of others!

First we should ask, " what teachings/doctrines do they believe?" and we dont hang on one or two but we look at the whole picture. Secondly, we should ask, "who is/was the key person and how did such live?" and finally, " does this system of believe have /or has ever had genuine followers and were they like the ones we are condemning?"

P.S. As regards God not doing anything for Paris, let's also ask:
1. Why did God not do anything when Nebuchadnezzar overran Israel destroying the Temple of God too and killing ruthlessly?
2. Why did God not do anything when the Philistines destroyed Israel and captured the Ark?
3. Why did God not do anything when Jesus was arrested, scourged, and crucified?
4. Why did God not do anything when Stephen was stoned to death and other disciples were martyred?
5. Why did God not do anything when General Titus in Ad70 destroyed Jerusalem?
(bear in mind that the victims in no 1-2 where descendants of God's friend, Abraham)

Once you answer these sans prejudice (and there are answers too), you would have the answer to the Paris and indeed the world question. Until then, that question on Paris is similar to the Pharisees telling Jesus: "He saved others Himself HE cannot save"


Your concept of God (Ironically for an atheist) paints a picture of a lawless, indulgent grand father whose job is to leave us to make our choices but show up to deny us of their consequences if -ve! And when he fails to do this he does not exist!!!

italo:
Adeboye has done what Catholics do in Canonization...which pentecostals condemn...declaring that a person lived right, died in grace and is now in heaven.

First, you condemn, then you copy.

In a bid to justify that practise you assume that the statement, 'rest in the bosom of the Lord' or 'transition to glory' is the same as the canonization process of the RCC!!!

Suddenly, they're bringing out verses to support Canonization..now that their 'pastor' has copied it.

Suddenly you twist a post to say something different! I gave those passages to show that it was no new thing to speak of what will be one's destiny in eternity based on the faith and life lived. Catholic canonization comes years after person's death. Jesus, Paul etc spoke when still alive hence those passages where NOT given to encourage/defend your practise. Afterall was Paul 'canonising' the corinthians or ephesians when he called them saints?

There was a process. Adeboye said he spoke to the woman and inferred that she no doubt, is in heaven. That is a process.

Kindly quote where he expressedly said the highlighted and prove that the speaking took place after her death.

Ubenedictus:
my dear i have also heard ur friends give judgement base on hearsay, atleast my generalisation is based on experience. Adding d fact that there are no statistics for d topic in question, personal xperience seems like a good bet.

Alright. Perhaps 'most' could be changed to 'some'. Afterall you are the ones that accuse us of being sola scriptura.

dat is exactly what it means to declear sum1 a saint! It simply mean looking at d persons life and death and sayin he is in heaven. Dat is what adeboye did.

That is in catholicism but right from Scripture, a saint is one who has repented and has surrendered to the Lordship of Christ while living having believed on His vicarious sacrifice.
The thief on the cross became a saint at the time he repented (means changed his mind), stopped railing at Jesus but rather, recognising that He was crucified not for any sin and believing on Him, requested for a place in His kingdom.(that request alone proves the man really believed Jesus was more than another dying fellow man but the Son of God.)

quote d passage, dat was his hope based on faith

The certainty exuded by the verse ranks just the same yet it will be wrong to say he was canonizing himself.
I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

as u quote infer, canonisation was actually a bishops stating clearly dat mr 'a' lived a good xtian life, died in Gods grace and is now in heaven! Sumtin oyedopo just did.

But that quote says Catholicism has a process/some processes to be followed! Why then accuse a man for simply expressing an opinion (sans any process) which is by no means authoritative?

Ubenedictus:
After several such case, i came to d conclusion that most protestants don't care what d truth is, if their pastor or writter is against d catholic d average protestant will do d same and he will maintain d catholic practice is wrong not minding d fact his church has a similar one. It is hypocrisy but d protestant doesnt care, ro far he has sumtin to protest about.

Your sample was a few out of over 700 million and will your conclusion be valid??


While I am not a member of RCCG, I will reconsider the Op's claim when Pastor Adeboye bids his members beseech HID's intercession for them! What he simply did was to express an opinion based on his knowledge of the life she lived and where he believes she will end up. However, that's no proof that he is right! Besides, I dont hear him calling her a saint (in the catholic way)


Jesus assured the thief on the cross of paradise, was that canonization?

Paul stated that he was sure of a crown just before being decapitated, was that self canonization?

Enoch and Elijah were translated sans seeing death and any one in those times would be sure that they were not in hell, what do you say?





If the below defines Catholic canonization correctly, then I would say it has nothing to do with PAstor Adeboye's statement but rather another addition to the Bible by the RCC because saints are made so on earth (The epistles of the apostles were addressed to saints - building block of the Church) while still alive not a recognition (like a title) given after death!

Canonization (in American English and Oxford spelling) or canonisation (in British English) is the act by which the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic, or Anglican Church declares that a person who has died was a saint, upon which declaration the person is included in the canon, or list, of recognized saints. Originally, people were recognized as saints without any formal process. Later, [size=13pt]different processes[/size], such as those used today in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, were developed.
Wikipedia

MrPresident1:
You are breaking Rule Number 2.
Get this very clear, the Israelis are not the Israelites of the Bible, THE ISRAELIS ARE NOT THE ISRAELITES OF THE BIBLE! How many times do you want to be told this? You call yourself scholar and you cannot do your own personal research on the internet to connect all the dots?

Sit there and continue to blow grammar, I am sure one or two persons have started reading, making good progress deciphering the mind of God. Sit there you hear, Mr. Negro scholar.

Start reading!

And what would you say about the places in the Bible that still exist as such today having the very history in agreement to what was chronicled in the Bible? And why do the rabbis of modern day Israel refer to these things? Besides, what does the 'allegory' teach in the long list of genealogies? Google should not replace our ability to think and access situations as intelligent beings!!!

boykas:
What perception can you be talking about?? Well few Muslims knows about this but what we say? Even if we comment, what will it change but insult. All we know is Islam is not a terrorist. Thank you





If

But before the advent of terrorists, why the extreme touchiness in places like Northern Nigeria by the Muslim man on the street?

Were the perpetrators of the sharia riot etc Christians?

Could it be that what motivated the sharia violence etc by Muslims in the North is the same that motivates the terrorists today?

urahara:
From the amazing old Testament check this out.

I could not agree more!!! See my reason below.

Ezekiel 26

26 And in the eleventh year, on the first day of the month [after the carrying away of King Jehoiachin], the word of the Lord came to me, saying,

2 Son of man, because Tyre has said against Jerusalem, Aha! She is broken that has been the gate of the people; she is open to me [Tyre]; I shall become full now that she is desolate and a wasteland,

3 Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you as the sea mounts up by its waves.

4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her and make her bare like the top of a rock.

5 Her island in the midst of the sea shall become a place for the spreading of nets, for I have spoken it, says the Lord God; and she shall become a prey and a spoil to the nations.

6 And Tyre’s daughters [her towns and villages on the mainland] in the level place shall be slain by the sword, and they shall know (understand and realize) that I am the Lord [the Sovereign Ruler, Who calls forth loyalty and obedient service].

7 For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring from the north upon Tyre Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, with horses and chariots and with horsemen and a host of many people.

8 He shall slay with the sword your daughters [the towns and villages] in the level area [on the mainland], and he shall make a fortified wall against you and cast up a siege mound against you and raise up a roof of bucklers and shields as a defense against you.

9 And he shall set his battering engines in shock against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers.

10 Because of the great number of [Nebuchadrezzar’s] horses, their dust will cover you; your walls [O Tyre] will shake at the noise of the horsemen and of the wagon wheels and of the chariots, when he enters into your gates as men enter into the city in whose walls there has been made a breach.

11 With the hoofs of his horses [Nebuchadrezzar] will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword and your strong pillars or obelisks will fall to the ground.

12 And [your adversaries] shall make a spoil of your riches and make booty of your merchandise. And they shall break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and they shall lay the stones and the timber and the very dust from your demolished city out in the midst of the water [between the island and the mainland city site to make a causeway].

13 And I will cause the noise of your songs to cease, and the sound of your lyres shall be no more heard.

14 And I will make you [Tyre] abare rock; you shall be a place upon which to spread nets; you shall never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken it, says the Lord God.

15 Thus says the Lord God to Tyre: Shall not the isles and coastlands shake at the sound of your fall when the wounded groan, when the slaughter is made in the midst of you?

16 Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones and lay aside their robes and strip off their embroidered garments; they shall clothe themselves with tremblings; they shall sit upon the ground and shall tremble every moment and be astonished at youand appalled.

17 They shall take up a lamentation over you and say to you, How you are destroyed and vanished, O renowned city that was won from the seas and inhabited by seafaring men, renowned city that was mighty on the sea, she and her inhabitants who caused their terror to fall upon all who dwell there!

18 Now the isles and coastlands tremble in the day of your fall; yes, the isles that are in the sea are troubled and dismayed at your departure.

19 For thus says the Lord God: When I make you a desolate city like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you and great waters cover you,

20 Then I will thrust you down with those who descend into the pit (the place of the dead) to the people of olden times, and I will make you [Tyre] to dwell in the lower world like the places that were desolate of old, with those who go down to the pit, that you be not inhabited or shed forth your glory and renown in the land of the living.

21 I will make you a terror [bring you to a dreadful end] and you shall be no more. Though you be sought, yet you shall never be found again, says the Lord God.




......tyre is still existing with people living on it and nebucadnezzar is dead.
Nebucadnezzar failed to destroy tyre.

Ezekiel 26:14 According to Herodotus, Tyre’s history began in 2750 b.c. It was a fortified city in Joshua’s time (Josh. 19:29), and later became a great maritime commercial center (Isa. 23:. Yet Jeremiah (27:2-7; 47:4) and Ezekiel (26:3-21; 28:6-10) foretold utter destruction for Tyre, naming not less than twenty-five separate details, each of which in the following centuries came true literally.


Mathematicians have estimated, according to the “Law of Compound Probabilities,” that if a prophecy concerning a person, place, or event has twenty-five details beyond the possibility of human collusion, calculation, coincidence, and comprehension, there is only one chance in more than thirty-three and one-half million of its accidental fulfillment.

Yet Tyre’s history at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and then more than two centuries later at the hands of Alexander the Great, and centuries after that at the hands of the Crusaders, was the striking fulfillment of each detail of the prophets’ forecasts. No other city in the world’s history could have fulfilled them.

(Ezekiel 26:4 To prevent Nebuchadnezzar from getting her valuables, Tyre transported herself to an island a half mile out in the sea. The conqueror destroyed the city on the mainland and left. But more than two centuries later, Alexander the Great took the ruins of the old city, even scraping up the dust, and made a causeway to the island, thus fulfilling the prophecy exactly.)

The authenticity and credibility of God’s Word leaves no chance for sane denial. See footnote on Zeph. 2:7 for information about a similar fulfillment of details of Bible prophecy with regard to Palestine and to the end of Christ’s life.
Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)

14. He concludes in nearly the same words as he began (Eze 26:4, 5).

built no more—fulfilled as to the mainland Tyre, under Nebuchadnezzar. The insular Tyre recovered partly, after seventy years (Isa 23:17, 18), but again suffered under Alexander, then under Antigonus, then under the Saracens at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Now its harbors are choked with sand, precluding all hope of future restoration, "not one entire house is left, and only a few fishermen take shelter in the vaults" [Maundrell]. So accurately has God's word come to pass.
biblehub.com

The fact that the nation Israel exists today makes your exegetical effort based on generalised allegorism void ab-initio.

madjnr:
the fact is you guys may end up in hell for deliberately refusing to follow Jesus

Okay.

madjnr:
lol what a hypocrite... so you're now rejecting a part of your bible cos it doesn't suit you? what matters is those things happened ... killing of unarmed women and kids... and your beloved god gave the go ahead

And tell us ONE terror group whose motivation is demonstrably based on the passages you quoted.

madjnr:
known to christian? Jesus has never even heard of the word Christian throughout his whole life... why don't you tell me where Jesus unequivocally said he's for the world not just the lost sheep

Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name[size=13pt] among all nations[/size], beginning at Jerusalem
Luke 24:45-47






Show us ONE verse where HE sent them to only Israel after His resurrection.