Gullwind

Then you haven't been paying attention. They may not have had exactly the same influence, but they were certainly not lost and never found.

Can you prove that happened?

But that is just your opinion, made necessary by the fact that the prophecy would fail if it didn't include the trading empire. You have admitted that the text itself does not say what you interpret it to say.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Surely you must know that you will never be able to successfully resolve the issue of possible revisions regarding the Tyre prophecy even if you win your arguments regarding whether or not it was fulfilled. It is an indisputable, irrefutable fact that it is impossible to rule out a reasonable possibility that the prophecy was revised. With so many prophecies to debate where possible revisions are not an issue, why in the world have you wasted years debating the Tyre prophecy at the Theology Web, at the Secular Web, and in private e-mail debates. Surely debating the Tyre prophecy is not the best use of your time since no one but a person who is already a Christian would rule out a reasonable possibility that the prophecy has been revised even if they believed that the prophecy was fulfilled.

Actually, the worst thing that could possibly happen to you regarding your debates about the fulfillment of the Tyre prophecy would be if skeptics AGREED with your arguments and then questioned the issues of dating and possible revisions. Do you dispute this?

You said that you mention the Babylon prophecy frequently. May I ask where? Certainly not anywhere that you will tell me about.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, I would disagree of course, my conclusion being that it is more reasonable to conclude that the prophecy was not postdated. But that is another topic…

Well, it would discredit the claim that the Bible is supernatural and infallible. But one of the claims could be true, and another one false. And my response was, and has been, and still is, that these other aspects are not the ones I chose to focus on, you asked me to pick what I would defend, and I did. Some aspects of various prophecies are more difficult to demonstrate, which would be, I expect, why Farrell Till chose the prophecy of Tyre! And not rebuilding Babylon.

I don’t actually know that! I do think this point defensible, but this was not Farrell Till’s question, so this will not be my answer.

Well no, what I said was that it would be more convincing to have buildings there to point to, that would be most undeniable.

As far as where I make reference to this prophecy, well, search for lee_merrill and Babylon, I think that would turn up such references...

I duly note this! And yet dwellings still don’t dwell, and thus the reference of “you” must have changed, as here:

Genesis 48:21-22 Then Israel said to Joseph, "Behold, I am about to die, but God will be with you and will bring you again to the land of your fathers. Moreover, I have given to you rather than to your brothers one mountain slope that I took from the hand of the Amorites with my sword and with my bow."

Now the first “you” must mean Joseph’s descendants, and indeed, all the Israelites in the Exodus, but the last “you” is more specifically to Joseph’s descendants, and also specifically to Joseph himself.

But the word is “dwell,” not “be set”, and that is the basis of my point, with other aspects here.

There are many references to the trading empire of Tyre, and they are not dominant in trading now…

Not this text! Another text does, though:

Ezekiel 27:28-36 At the sound of the cry of your pilots the countryside shakes, and down from their ships come all who handle the oar. The mariners and all the pilots of the sea stand on the land and shout aloud over you and cry out bitterly. They cast dust on their heads and wallow in ashes; they make themselves bald for you and put sackcloth on their waist, and they weep over you in bitterness of soul, with bitter mourning. In their wailing they raise a lamentation for you and lament over you: 'Who is like Tyre, like one destroyed in the midst of the sea? When your wares came from the seas, you satisfied many peoples; with your abundant wealth and merchandise you enriched the kings of the earth. Now you are wrecked by the seas, in the depths of the waters; your merchandise and all your crew in your midst have sunk with you. All the inhabitants of the coastlands are appalled at you, and the hair of their kings bristles with horror; their faces are convulsed. The merchants among the peoples hiss at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever.'"

Which is certainly part of the prophecy about Tyre.

Actually, “Yashab” means to dwell: “dwell, have one's abode in (Beth-prefix [Lee: which is the case in Ezekiel 26:20]) a land, city, house, etc.; in tents…” (WTM Morphology)

Blessings,
Lee

Gullwind

First of all, this was dongiovanni's point, not mine, but it's related.

You are reading it from the point of view of someone who knows Joseph didn't return to Canaan. If God was telling you that same thing, speaking about the future, would you assume that "Bring you to the land of your fathers" did not refer to you but only to your descendants?

By the same token, you are reading the Tyre prophecy with the knowledge of how history has developed. "Never found" cannot mean the physical city because then the prophecy would have failed, therefore it must refer to something else. You are reading in the conclusion you want.

It is still referring to physical aspects of the city, not an intangible element. This does not support your point in any way.

So define how much trade constitutes an "empire." They traded before Alexander, they traded after, and I'm willing to bet trade is still taking place there. You are simply asserting that since they do not have the same level of trade as before that their empire is gone, because you've decided that "never found" must refer to this aspect and the prophecy can't have failed.

Do you actually read what you post? This passage says that the city will be destroyed, sink into the water and will be no more forever. THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED!!!!! This passage proves beyond reasonable doubt that the destruction, including being lost and never rebuilt, refers to the physical city, not the intangible trading empire. Yes, it mentions merchants, but is quite clearly indicates their displeasure at the loss of the physical city, not just the trading empire.

Johnny Skeptic

You are probably referring solely to Alexander’s land bridge whereby the mainland settlement became “like the top of a rock.” Using that argument you would ask “if the prophecy was revised after Alexander built his land bridge, why didn’t Ezekiel mention Alexander?” The KJV says "like the top of a rock." The NIV says "a bare rock." In order to make such a claim, you would have to know what Ezekiel meant, which you don’t. He could have meant partially bare, in which case you don’t know how bare, or completely bare, a claim for which there is not ANY historical evidence at all. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines the word “bare” as follows:

1 a : lacking a natural, usual, or appropriate covering b (1) : lacking clothing (2) obsolete : BAREHEADED c : UNARMED
2 : open to view : EXPOSED
3 a : unfurnished or scantily supplied b : DESTITUTE <bare of all safeguards>
4 a : having nothing left over or added <the bare necessities of life> b : MERE <a bare two hours away> c : devoid of amplification or adornment
5 obsolete : WORTHLESS
- bare•ness noun
synonyms BARE, NAKED, NUDE, BALD, BARREN mean deprived of naturally or conventionally appropriate covering. BARE implies the removal of what is additional, superfluous, ornamental, or dispensable <an apartment with bare walls>. NAKED suggests absence of protective or ornamental covering but may imply a state of nature, of destitution, or of defenselessness <poor half-naked children>. NUDE applies especially to the unclothed human figure <a nude model posing for art students>. BALD implies actual or seeming absence of natural covering and may suggest a conspicuous bareness <a bald mountain peak>. BARREN often suggests aridity or impoverishment or sterility <barren plains>.

Regarding “bare of all safeguards,” “having nothing left over or added,” and the lack of any statements elsewhere in Ezkiel’s writings that would clarify this issue, your argument is clearly not valid. Regarding the NIV’s use of the word “bald,” in the NIV the word appears five times. Four times the word refers to a COMPLTELY bald human head, and the fifth time to a COMPLETELY bald headed vulture.

The prophecy could easily be revised even today, with the Bible being taught in every country in world, by revising it, taking it to some remote jungle regions and deceiving some people. All that it would take to discredit your argument would be for one person to be deceived. It is your position that this is impossible?

But I am only interested in the false ones. Even Mafia members sometimes tell the truth. Does one lie discredit Biblical inerrancy or not?
If some Arabs pitched their tents in Babylon, would you conclude that the Bible had been discredited? You said that rebuilding Babylon would be more impressive to some people than Arabs pitching their tents, or shepherds grazing their flocks. I am sure that that is true, but will you agree that some people would be convinced, thereby making the effort worthwhile for skeptics and Muslims since those tasks would be quick and easy to carry out? Logical people are well aware that all predictions are equal regardless of how difficult it is to overturn them.

Well, when I asked you why you don’t debate prophecies where dating and possible revisions are not issues, you mentioned the Babylon prophecy, but you refuse to debate it anymore because you are well aware that I reasonably proved that Muslims do not have adequately incentives to rebuild Bablyon, those incentives being a reasonable guarantee that the Christian church would become substantially smaller, or even moderately smaller (you can’t even produce evidence that the Christian church would become 1% smaller, EVEN AMONG FUNDAMENTALIST CHIRSTIANS), and/or that the U.S. would adopt a friendly foreign policy towards Muslims. The likelihood of either of those incentives is easy to determine and you know it. Polls can easily be conducted among fundamentalist Christians, and it is easy to contact the U.S. state department. Everyone knows that you are not in the least bit interested in pursuing either of those issues even though your entire case depends upon it.

So if Farrell Till brings up my arguments about dating and possible revisions, will you discuss them? How about if I can convince Richard Carrier to show up and discuss these issues? I correspond with him frequently. How about Dr. Robert Price? I correspond with him frequently as well.

dongiovanni1976x

Are you suggesting that yashab cannot be used to refer to an inanimate object? There are many uses for this primitive root which refer to inanimate object contrary to the limited way you seem to suggest :
1) to cause to sit
2) to cause to abide, set
3) to cause to dwell
4) to cause (cities) to be inhabited
5) to marry (give an dwelling to)

Even in the same book of Ezekiel we have good examples of yashab being used to refer to inanimate objects- like cities (see entry number 2, 4 & 5 above)

Lee, again…what reason do you have to support such an arbitrary switch in verse 20? Just read it again carefully before you respond:

P.S.
Words being subjective entities have multiple uses in and of themselves. The evolution and usage of the word "dwell" can be traced to "linger" "reside" and even the Latin combination: re + sedere, hence the way it is used in the KJV and others to refer to "sitting" (sedere= to sit) or to be placed/set.

Johnny Skeptic

Well you ought to know it. Even in the world that we live in today, with Christianity being the largest religion in the world, and the Bible being taught in every country in the world, it would be a quite simple matter for some skeptics to revise the prophecy, take it to some remote jungle regions, and pass it off as "the real thing." Not everyone would be convinced, but surely some people would. This would have been much easier to accomplish centuries ago. If even one person became convinced, then Biblical inerrnacy would fly right out of the window, right, Lee? The Bible has never been difficult to revise, and in fact, you don't have any idea whatsoever what the Bible is. The books of the Bible were chosen after discussions took place in a number of places over a number of centuries. If it had been obvious which writings were Scriptural, there would have been no need for any discussions. As Elaine Pagel's has said, "the victors rewrote history, 'their way.'"

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I don’t see how knowing Joseph would or would not return himself undoes my point, though, surely Joseph realized this was a plural “you” (it’s actually a plural “you” in the Hebrew).

Actually, that is not part of my argument, I think my point works fine even if just what the people then would have thought, is in view.

But it turns out that “dwell” is a word that applies to people, as in “you will live there.”

Would you define how much doesn’t? We both have claims here to defend, and both claims could require such a definition.

I will say involved in 40% or more of the local trade, within say a 50 mile radius, and 25% within a 500 mile radius, or some such, and also having what people generally think of when they think of Tyre being: “trade and merchandise.”

I think the point defensible, actually.

Certainly, if you are right about the whole prophecy being about geography, I however conclude people and trade are in view too, and this latter part in Ezekiel 27:28-36 is clearly about trade.

I expect these aspects can be defended, I’m not sure I’m the one to do it, but if appropriate (I don’t have unlimited time, for one) I would be willing to try this.

Why though do skeptics presume that people long ago were rather easily deceived, though? I think they were perceptive at about the same rate as people nowadays, especially Jewish people, in evaluating prophecy! The penalty for a prophecy that did not turn out was not to be rebuked, or defrocked, but to be stoned. They would therefore be careful, and not casual, about each prophetic claim.

They were saying when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, we would have “a whole new Bible.” This, however, did not turn out to be the case.

Yes, I am, in the form in which it is used in Eze. 26:20.

But with the Beth-prefix? That is distinctly about people, I would argue here. And even in the examples you mention, people dwelling is an essential part of the focus in every case.

And I think this an improbable reading, as given by the lexicon I quoted, as given by the ESV/NAU/NET/NIV translations (major translations, all of them). The Septuagint ancient Greek translation in addition, uses a word for “take your place” that means “to inhabit, dwell, live, settle; trans. inhabit, live in” (BLM Morphology).

Blessings,
Lee

Gullwind

The point is whether Joseph would recognize that he was included in one of the plural "you's" but not the other one, with no transition between them. That is what you are arguing here, that "you" goes from the physical city and/or its people, to the trading empire with no transition.

So you think someone at that time reading "you will sink beneath the waves, you will never be inhabited, and you will be lost forever," that they would automatically understand that the last "you" referred to the trading empire?

You still haven't answered the question I asked a while back: Isn't it likely that the writer thought that a city that was going to sink would probably never be found again?

Fine, but "you" referring to the population of the city still gets you no closer to "you" referring to the trading empire. Can you show any other examples in the bible of the word "you" referring to an intangible aspect of a physical object?

Setting aside the question of whether these are arbitrary numbers or not, can you prove that Tyre was reduced to these levels after Alexander's conquest? You are the one asserting that the trading empire was lost, after all.

So defend it, then. All you've done so far is assert that it means something other than what it says.

You have done nothing to show that the prophecy refers to anything other that the city and possibly its population. The latter part mentions merchants, but they are looking for the whole city, not just the trade. Notice the specific differentiation between "you" and "your merchandise." In this passage, "you" clearly refers to the city itself. Notice also the last line: "you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever."

Remember all those pictures of modern Tyre? It was not "no more forever."

Johnny Skeptic

What I meant was that centuries ago, say in 450 A.D., the Bible was not available at all in many areas of the world. Such being the case, with no existing Bible to use as a means of comparision, a revised Bible could easily have deceived at least a few people. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN PEOPLE DISCOVER A FAKE WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AVAILABLE TO MAKE A COMPARISON, AND EVEN IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO READ IT? Some people are much more gullible than you assume. What about the members of the Flat Earth Society? If some people are gullible enough to believe that the earth is flat, why wouldn't they be gullbile enough to believe a revised Bible? In other words, if some people will believe one lie, why won't they believe another lie?

Your mention of Jews is patently absurd. The vast majority of Jews have rejected all so-called messianic prophecies, so what good would it do them if they believed that the Tyre prophecy was inspired by God? Ancient Jews might not have ever read about or heard about the Tyre prophecy until after it had been revised. There is in fact not any credible evidence at all that Ezekiel recorded it himself.

Are you saying that it would be impossible for some skeptics to revise the Tyre prophecy today and deceive anyone in the entire world? If so, if that happens, will you give up Christianity, or will you try to discredit the evidence no matter what the evidence is, including making up some kind of excuse even if the deceived person shows up and tells you in person that he believed the version that skeptics told him about? I have sufficient funds to get some skeptics to accomplish a deception if you are up to the challenge. If you are, I will ask you to sign a carefully written document stating what would be sufficient evidence for you that a person had been deceived with a revised version of the Tyre prophecy. I also have sufficient funds to easily discredit the Babylon prophecy by getting some Iraqis to pitch their tents in Babylon. How about it, Lee?

You ought to know better. Matthew 24:5 says "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." What about that, Lee?

You have merely guessed and speculated by faith that God chose which writings comprise the Bible. God has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without having heard the Gospel message. An inerrant Bible is most certainly not any better than no Bible at all as far as those hundreds of millions of people were concerned. Obviously God doesn't really care whether people know about the Bible or not. If he did care, he would tell everyone about it himself.

Since God caused babies to be killed at Tyre, babies who most certainly had not committed any crimes against him, we know that he did not want to give them the opportunity to know about his existence and will. God has historically directly killed millions of babies, including the firstborn males in and allowed millions more to die. If the God of the Bible exists, he is in fact responsible for causing or allowing all of the injuries and deaths that have ever occurred, and that are occurring today. That makes him the biggest threat that humans have ever faced, and all because Adam and Eve ate some forbidden fruit, right, and in spite of the claim that they did not have any knowledge of sin?