Sheshonq

It's all detailed in the three threads I gave you the link to.


Wrong.

EZE 26:4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.

Here's an idea: read the three previous threads on the topic. There is enough detail to fill an entire book. Are you afraid to read them?

makerowner

Is your argument that Alexander's destruction of Tyre counts as Nebuchadnezzar's because the latter was somehow the leader of the former?

Matthew ch. 26:
Luke ch. 19:
Sorry, I don't see the connection.

Sheshonq

That isn't what you said.

1. "More than likely"? Says who?

2. The hippodrome dates from the Roman period - long after Nebuchadnezzar's siege during the height of the Phoenician period. The ruins being protected there are Roman, not Phoenician.

Which will protect Roman ruins, not Phoenician ones.

In point of fact, there are construction projects in Tyre now that are halted because they are occurring on top of ancient Phoenician ruins. Britannica point-blank states that:

The silted up harbour on the south side of the peninsula has been excavated by the French Institute for Archaeology in the Near East, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period still lie beneath the present town. Pop. (1982 est.) 23,000.

Which means that the majority of the Phoenician town are underneath the present-day city. Your entire theory just got blasted out of the water.

Failed miserably, to tell the truth.

renassault

Not directly the leader, but either the first one who starts on the trend of destroying Tyre in one way or another (mainland), or simply because that was the main figure in the time of writing who would have been the best to represent someone leading an army to destroy Tyre (for those of you who accept an early 6th century date, but for those who don't you have to explain why someone would write a failed prophecy after the fact).

In those passages Jesus refers to the bread as being His body directly. It's an example of the way Jews expressed themselves (sometimes) in ancient times.

Sheshonq

1. The principal city of Tyre was on the island, not the mainland. Any conqueror who failed to take the island failed to conquer Tyre; it's just that simple.

2. Who said anything about a 'trend'? The text in Ezekiel is explicit that the act of destruction would be done by Nebuchadnezzar and his armies. No trend indicated.

I think you're confusing Ezekiel with Daniel. AFAIK, no one doubts that Ezekiel was written before the actual siege of Tyre.

Daniel, on the other hand, points to a 2nd century authorship, not a 5th century authorship.

makerowner

And you claim to hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible? When the Bible says "Nebuchadnezzar will destroy this city" you interpret it as "Nebuchadnezzar will destroy a suburb of the city, then two hundred years later someone from a completely different kingdom will destroy it", and that's supposed to be literal?


In those passages Jesus refers to the bread as being His body directly. It's an example of the way Jews expressed themselves (sometimes) in ancient times.[/QUOTE]

These texts are at least 400 years later than the text in question and in a different language. Not a very useful comparison.

renassault

Actually I prefer as Answers in Genesis once said to refer to a "plain" versus a "literal" reading. Surely you don't think when the Bible uses the metaphor 'walking in the light,' for righteousness (e.g. 1 John 1.7) and someone doesn't interpret it as actual walking in the light to make them a non-plain reader.

There wasn't anything significant such as an expulsion from land and living in foreign places (for at least a few generations) to make time of a lot of consequence. I'd agree with you if it was from 100 AD to 600 AD (Israel vs. Babylon).

spin

No supplies could come from the mainland and no supplies could come from any other place held by the Babylonians which was basically all the rest of the Levantine coast. Ships have to get supplies from somewhere, so the amount of supplies that arrived was obviously small and from far away. Babylon didn't need ships for blockade.

Quid pro quo: if you insist for some reason that Tyre was not the island, why do you think the city doesn't conform to the site location of all other major Phoenician cities of the era which were islands? Look at Berytus, Byblos, Sidon, and Arwad. Look at the locations of Phoenician colonies throughout the Mediterranean, Nora and Sulcis (both in Sardinia), Kition (North Larnaca), Cadiz and Malaga in Spain, etc. All of these were built on islands for defensive purposes. What would ever make you think that Tyre wasn't originally built on the ripe little island, especially given the archaeological remains already found around what was the island? Why would you conceive of Tyre being built in some defenseless position based on the archaeological evidence?


spin

makerowner

You can call it what you want, but the plain reading (ie. the one supported by the text) is that Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to destroy Tyre, both on the island and the mainland, and that the sea was supposed to cover the island. Alexander is not mentioned, nor is a two-hundred year delay.

Ezekiel was most likely written during the Babylonian Exile, so I would say that the return to Palestine was a pretty significant shift. These centuries also saw the adoption of Aramaic as the everyday language throughout the Near/Middle East, including Judea, and saw several hundred years of Hellenisation in that same area. All these factors would be likely to have an effect on the language. Beside all that, the Gospels were written in Greek, which is completely unrelated to Hebrew. And your parallel isn't even very good: Jesus says that a piece of bread is his body vs. you read into a text that Alexander was a successor to Nebuchadnezzar (something the text never says).
I believe it's called "clutching at straws".

Nero's Boot

I just love it to pieces that inerrantists insist scriptures be taken literally; and then when bald fact shows those verses to be outright fabrication, suddenly inerrantists start speaking words like "figurative" and "symbolic."

--and I also get one Hell of a kick out of watching inerrantists goal-shifting liked crazed weasels NB