Originally Posted by sugarhitman

[IMG]www.ancientworlds.net[/IMG]

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

I will answer your question if you ask mine (since you all want to play that game with Arnoldo) Josephus says that Jesus was the Christ, do you trust him as a source to believe this?

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Josephus says that the priests in Jerusalem read the book of Daniel to Alexander, thus showing that the book of Daniel was written before the events and not after, do you believe these accounts of Josephus also? I remember asking you this and if I recall correctly you said you did not believe it. So do you trust this book or not?:wave:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

I did not plan on writing on this again, but the critics are still bringing this up, so let us go back to this accurate prediction of Ezekiel.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"Behold I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings..." Now here critics claims that the army under Nebby are the many nations predicted that would come against Tyrus. But look at the text Nebby's army is considered one army. A multi-national force is a coalition of soveriegn nations that are not under a single command (like the forces in Iraq) But this army is considered the army of Babylon under one command. Look at what Zek says:

"a king of kings, from the NORTH, with horses and with chariots, and with horsemen and COMPANIES and MUCH PEOPLE....

With HIS AXES (his not theirs)
HIS HORSES (not theirs)
WHEN HE ENTER YOUR GATES (NOT THEY)
HE SHALL BREAK DOWN YOUR WALLS (NOT THEY)
HE SHALL SET ENGINES OF WAR AGAINST YOUR WALLS (NOT THEY)

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

God says that he would make this place like the top of a rock and that it would not be built again. Critics says the city of Tyre is still there. Not in the place where it use to be.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Look! they say pointing to either a city on the island the causeway or a city on the mainland a pretty good distance away from the coast.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

But if you look right behind the buildings on the causeway, right behind the old coastline where Alex aquired rubble from the old city you will see a large bare spot which seems that construction has went out of its way to advoid. It encloses the Roman hippodrome which is more than large enough to house within it a large city. It is completely bare, and no building can ever take place there again because it is a UNESCO protected site. "thou shall be built no more" certainly has come true.

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The facts haven't changed: we are right, you are wrong. This isn't going to change anytime in the future either, no matter how many times you bring up the same stuff.

Why do so many fundies think that repetition will somehow make something true? Is it because this is how prayer works? Repeat something until you've brainwashed yourself...

Why did you forget to include the line (Ezekiel 26:11) where HE (not THEY) will rampage down ALL the streets of Tyre? This shoots down any "fulflled on the mainland" argument, because even if you include the mainland as part of Tyre, the ISLAND is ALSO part of Tyre.

Yes it is.

Nope, Tyre was on the island, and the modern city occupies the island AND the causeway AND a chunk of the mainland INCLUDING the coast.
Again you shoot yourself in the foot! The ROMAN hippodrome was built by the ROMANS (...duh...) AFTER Tyre was supposed to be destroyed!

It was only a small PART of the ROMAN city!