Why would they leave you ask? Geez. I explained that in the previous post. There was a war coming. Many people left. Jews and Christians. Why is that hard for you to understand? People leave when they know a war is coming. Even King Agrippa left.
Wikipedia and this website were my sources:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Are you allowed to read the true history? Since you mentioned in the next post that you must stay away from secular education.
So yes, at this point it looks as if that quote was made up. Religious websites are well known for manilpualting, misquoting and sometimes just flat out lying. It was not written by Josephus. Maybe some religious author read Josephus' work and summarized what he thought, but I can't find it. Maybe it's in a different book. If you could please cite it and provide the link, I would appreciate it, for I would like to read this for myself.
Plus, in wikipedia and in the other link I provided you, it explains what happened in 66. There is no mention in any history reference that I can find that suggests the Romans just left for no reason.
Which leads me to ask the question again. Are you allowed to read real history books or are they forbidden? Because you seem to be only using creationist websites and making up your own history to match prophecies.
They feared for their lives because everybody knew the Romans were returning. In response to the humiliating defeat in Jerusalem in 66, the Romans started destroying and conquering every city on there way to Jerusalem and crushing the Jewish resistance north of Jerusalem and working their way southward, crucifying 500 people a day...and the Christians weren't supposed to fear for their lives?
So if the Christians fled because of Jesus' prophecy, how come many non-christians fled as well? There were many jews that fled. King Agrippa fled as well. Jews were jailed, beaten and crucified as well.
Fact is, you have no proof at all. None. You can't just say they fled because of a prophecy written after the event actually happened. And you can't change history to make it seem like a prophecy was fulfilled.
Oh, and you can't claim the people then were Jehovah's Witnesses. The JWs weren't created until 1870. And you can't claim that those peolpe lived the same lifestyle as you. You don't know that. You have no proof. You guys really like to just make **** up to make it seem like you're the best religious people in the world, don't you? SMH.
Wait, the bible says that god created the universe in 6 days. So, yes the bible is still wrong about creation. Even if 1000 years to us is 1 day to god (as you've said many times before), we know the universe is at least 14 billion years old. This is a fact. We know that life on earth is at least 3.4 billion years old. This is a fact (and it seems now that suddenly you are willing to agree with me). The math doesn't add up. Even if we factor in 1000 years = 1 day.
So, yes the bible is wrong about creation. It is flat out wrong. This is a fact. An indisputable fact. There is nothing you have to argue against this. So again, if the bible is wrong about creation, how can it be right about the end of the world.
But again, if life existed 100 million years ago, the math doesn't add up to the bible's version of creation.
Wow. Complete made up bull****. So the passage of time to us before he created us was changed after he created us. Honestly dude. How can you believe this without laughing at yourself for believing this. Sounds like someone is changing their stories again to make it match with the evidene. You're beginning to run out of options.
Do you have any pictures of you as a baby with man hands? How come? Because you gradually changed over time. You have pictures of you as a baby, a child, a young man and as an adult. But not any baby-men. With your reasoning, you must have never existed as a child because there is no evidence of YOU as you currently are as a child. It's the same for evolution. The fossils are like pictures of the past. It was a gradual change over millions of years.
There are scientists that are like you. In the face of overwhelming evidence they can't give up their religion. But they still haven't actually published any findings that contradict evolution.
Publishing in a peer-review journal is the gold standard for science. It allows the scientific community to read, study and test the data supplied by the scientist. How come there are no publications contradicting evolution? You would think creationists would want this data out in the public.
I gaurantee it's not coming. With the utmost certainty.
The prophecy also states that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, "never to be rebuilt again". Nebuchadnezzar failed, which is why I pasted the wikipedia history of Tyre. Also it was rebuilt. It's the fourth largest city in Lebanon. It's a large seaport not a small fishing village. Oh, and it is still called Tyre.
But for some reason you focus on the fact that fishing exists in Tyre and that is the reason the prophecy is true. Seems like you are again trying to force something into making it look like a fulfilled prophecy.
So, the bible predicted that a city where fishing occurs would become a city where fishing occurs. Wow!! Bravo bible! Meanwhile, you messed up on the whole Nebuchadnezzar destroying it to "never to be rebuilt again". What a magical book. I should ignore every piece of indisputable evidence disproving the bible because of this. *sarcasm*
And I think possibly you are misinterpreting the saying of spreading fishnets. The prophecy talks about the city being destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, never to be rebuilt again and "I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets". It's a metaphor, meaning it will be leveled to bare rock. Bare rock is where people in those days spread their fishnets to dry. To be destroyed and never to be rebuilt again but to be rebuilt as a place for fishing. That doesn't make sense and is contradictory in itself.
Geez. I thought you guys were great at understanding the bible. And little ol' me, an atheist, understands the bible better than you. Ha!
But it's moot anyway. The prophecy is false because Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre. He never leveled it to bare rock and Tyre has been rebuilt. = Failed prophecy.
I can't believe we're still debating this. I proved this prophecy to be false long ago with the same evidence. It's quite evident it will take more than facts an logic to bring you out of your delusion.
Phew. Running out of time. I will have to edit this later but...
In 1983, Saddam Hussein started rebuilding the city on top of the old ruins (because of this, artifacts and other finds may well be under the city by now), investing in both restoration and new construction. He inscribed his name on many of the bricks in imitation of Nebuchadnezzar. One frequent inscription reads: "This was built by Saddam Hussein, son of Nebuchadnezzar, to glorify Iraq". This recalls the ziggurat at Ur, where each individual brick was stamped with "Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, who built the temple of Nanna". These bricks became sought after as collectors' items after the downfall of Hussein, and the ruins are no longer being restored to their original state. He also installed a huge portrait of himself and Nebuchadnezzar at the entrance to the ruins, and shored up Processional Way, a large boulevard of ancient stones, and the Lion of Babylon, a black rock sculpture about 2,600 years old.
When the Gulf War ended, Saddam wanted to build a modern palace, also over some old ruins; it was made in the pyramidal style of a Sumerian ziggurat. He named it Saddam Hill. In 2003, he was ready to begin the construction of a cable car line over Babylon when the invasion began and halted the project.
An article published in April 2006 states that UN officials and Iraqi leaders have plans for restoring Babylon, making it into a cultural center. 
As of May 2009, the provincial government of Babil has reopened the site to tourism.
Picture of rebuilt section of Babylon by Sadaam:
Also, currently we have troops stationed where Babylon was, at Camp Alpha. So this prophecy is wrong too. There are arabs in tents there.
Again you misinterpret the bible. When it says "neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there"
it means: No one will live in Babylon. Even people won't camp there, and shepherds won't let their sheep rest there.
The US Army is curently camped there. = Failed Prophecy
LJ 2, Bible 0. Come to think of it, is the bible right about anything? I mean really, anything? Give me one indisputable fact or evidence that the bible is correct on. Just one.
And why does god want to destroy so many cities? He has a temper problem. He should have known this before, since he can see in the future and all.