Cold Steel,
Hope you can read this as I have been having difficulties posting - the damn holy spirit is messing up my posts!
For a Bible prophecy to be valid, the prophecy must be clear and unambiguous. It must not allow for a multitude of possible events. For example, Ezekiel 39 fails this test. It makes a prediction involving two military powers: Gog and Magog. "Gog has been interpreted as Gyges, king of Lydia, the Goths, and even a modern or future leader of Russia. Magaog has been interpreted as the Scythains, the Chaldeans, the Huns and modern-day Russia among others." Almost any military conflict in history could be cited as a fulfillment of this prophecy.
ALSO, ALL OF EZEKIEL'S PROPHECIES HAVE FAILED:
[[[1.]]] According to Ezekiel chapter 4, Ezekiel engages in various dramatic signs — prophetic signs or actions — to convey his message. He binds himself in ropes; he lies on his left side 390 days to symbolize the 390 years of exile of Israel, and then he lies on his right side for 40 days to symbolize the length of Judah's captivity, which he says will be 40 years.
NEITHER OF THESE TERMS OF CAPTIVITY TURNED OUT TO BE CORRECT.
The northern kingdom of Israel was NEVER restored 390 years after it fell to the Assyrians in 722BCE - 390 years hence would be 332BCE.
40 years from 586/587BCE when the temple in Jerusalem fell and a second deportation of Jewish exiles occurred would be 546/547BCE. The Southern kingdom of Judah was NOT restored in 546/547BCE.
Or if the first deportation of exiles in 597BCE is used instead, 40 years hence would be 557 BCE. The Southern kingdom of Judah was NOT restored in 557 BCE.
Ezekiel's restoration prophecy is a FAILED prophecy.
[[[2.]]] Ezekiel’s prediction made sometime between 592-570 BCE that the ancient Phoenician city of Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never be rebuilt, however, Tyre was not permanently destroyed:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061208000716/http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/unique.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/symes05.htm
http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
[[[3.]]] Ezekiel was also wrong about Egypt. In 568 B.C.E. Nebuchadrezzar attacked Egypt but was repulsed by Pharaoh Amasis II under whose rule Egypt continued to prosper. History has no record of there being no "government or system" in Egypt at that time. History has no record of Egypt ever suffering as Ezekiel prophesized.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/symes05.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20061208000716/http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/unique.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20061112074806/http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JFTBobbyPreterism6.html
http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
[[[4.]]] "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." (Ezek. 4:12)
According to “the LORD”, the whole point of this filthy exercise was to demonstrate how the Israelites would eat “defiled bread amongst the Gentiles, wither I will drive them.” But Ezekiel was already amongst the captive Israelites in Gentile land (Ezek. 1:1). So, was Ezekiel just demonstrating what was already happening? If so, how was this a “prophecy”?
_ _ _ _
ALSO, any present day inerrantist would affirm with his dying breath that the book of Ezekiel was unquestionably inspired of God, yet the rabbis who made the canonical selection were of a different mind. A bitter controversy surrounded this book before it was finally selected for inclusion in the Hebrew canon.
The rabbis were bothered by chapters 40-48, which contained information that was difficult to reconcile with the Torah. Ezekiel 46:6 is just one example of the problems the rabbis had to deal with in these chapters. Here Ezekiel said that the sacrifice for the new moon should consist of "a [one] young bullock without blemish, six lambs, and a ram," but the instructions for this same sacrificial ceremony in Numbers 28:11 stipulated two young bullocks, seven lambs, and a ram."
The discrepancy or, if you please, lack of "internal harmony" is readily apparent to anyone who wants to see it.
At least it was apparent to the rabbis who had to decide whether the book should be considered canonical. According to Hebrew tradition, Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah retired to a room with 300 "measures of oil" and worked day and night until he arrived at explanations that would "dispose of the discrepancies" (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge University press, 1970, p. 134). One wonders why such an undertaking as this was necessary to decide the canonicity of a book that exhibits "unequaled internal harmony."
Could it be that Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah was merely the Bible inerrantist of his day, who rather than accepting the face value of what was written spent several days searching for innovative interpretations that would make doctrinally embarrassing passages not mean what they obviously were intended to mean?
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4evide92.html