Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mordy · 03-15-2005, 06:24 PM

I'd just like to get a run down on what key criticisms I should focus on in argumentation.

EDIT: SEE 2nd post.

linwood · 03-15-2005, 06:30 PM

All you really have to say is that their position is subjective of their theistic perspective and not everyone sees what they see .

Case in point.....

"... stand too close to an oil painting and it looks ugly and distorted."

To an artist or one who truly appreciates artistic endeavor this "distortion" is part of the beauty.
To stand close enough to trace every brushroke, every layer of paint is to know the piece on an intimate level that one cannot appreciate from a distance.
It is to understand a bit of what the artist was doing when he was doing it.

Thats beauty.

Edit:
Actually on further reading I`m wondering why you want to argue with it at all.
The page doesn`t seem to contain a single logical premise to begin with.

Mordy · 03-15-2005, 07:02 PM

Well I thought someone would be knowledgeable about the so-called fulfilled tyre prophecies.

Here is (hopefully) a better description:

Quote:

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

God says that the destruction of Tyre will be the result of many nations.

What were these nations?

Nebuchadnezzar (586-573 BC.)

The Persians (525 BC.)

Alexander the Great (332 BC.)

Since Tyre consisted of two main centres (coastal and island), the prophet makes reference to both during the course of his address. The island city was reduced to a place where fishermen would spread their nets, after the coastal city was “thrown into the sea�? by Alexander the Great.

The prophet prophesies against both cities in turn, but addresses himself to Tyre as a whole. He differentiates between the coastal city and the island city by predicting the fall of the former at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and his chariots, and the fall of the latter (complete with its descent into the sea) at the hands of Alexander and his causeway.

Observe:

Ezekiel 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.

That’s the coastal city.

Ezekiel 26:5
It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

That’s the island city – to which the surviving inhabitants of the coastal city fled, following the 13-year siege by Nebuchadnezzar.

Thus:

Ezekiel 26:7-11
For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.
He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.
And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.
By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.
With the hooves of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

That’s the coastal city – besieged and defeated by Nebuchadnezzar. (Note the consistent use of “he�? in reference to the king.)

But a new narrative begins in verse 12, with a new mode of address. The prophet no longer speaks of “he�?, but instead refers to “they.�? Who are the “they�?? None other than the Greeks – the latest aggressors against the city of Tyre:

Ezekiel 26:12
And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

That’s still the coastal city – the remains of which were broken up and thrown into the water by Alexander the Great, who used it to build a causeway to the island city.

Now the narrative continues…

Ezekiel 26:13-19
And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.
And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.
Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee?
Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their embroidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee.

And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it!
Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.
For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;

…describing the fall of the island city, which is clearly identified by its peculiar characteristics.

Alexander had originally attempted a land-only offensive - but failed. History records that he built a causeway and attempted to bring siege engines across it. The engines (which were linked by a huge sheet of animal hide) were purely defensive. (The hide sheet was used to shield Alexander’s engineers, who were busy building the causeway.) But the Tyrians destroyed his towers with fireships, and broke down the causeway. Alexander lost several causeways and a number of towers before he finally succeeded.

And how did he finally succeed? By abandoning his original plan of a land-only offensive. He hired a total of 224 triremes from Phonecia and Cyprus, and launched them against the island city. In the ensuring naval conflict, the Tyrian fleet (consisting of a mere 80 ships) was annihilated.

With their navy wiped out, the Tyrians fell back inside the walls of their island city. Alexander finally captured it after a prolonged engagement, in which his ships provided covering fire for his land units.

Conventional warfare had been utterly out of the question, right from the very start. Alexander came to realise this as he was forced to change his tactics (and his forces) several times during the siege. Eventually, it was the triremes which guaranteed his success.

Today, all that remains of Tyre is a tiny Lebanese fishing village, consisting of 14,000 people at the very most...

And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon;

...and neither the coastal city nor the island city, has ever been rebuilt:

thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-16-2005, 01:45 AM

It is a failed prophecy.

Quote:

God says that the destruction of Tyre will be the result of many nations.

What were these nations?

Nebuchadnezzar (586-573 BC.)

The Persians (525 BC.)

Alexander the Great (332 BC.)

Nope, Nebuchadnezzar's army was multinational, with soldiers from the "many nations" in his empire.

Quote:

Since Tyre consisted of two main centres (coastal and island), the prophet makes reference to both during the course of his address. The island city was reduced to a place where fishermen would spread their nets, after the coastal city was “thrown into the sea�? by Alexander the Great.

The prophet prophesies against both cities in turn, but addresses himself to Tyre as a whole. He differentiates between the coastal city and the island city by predicting the fall of the former at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and his chariots, and the fall of the latter (complete with its descent into the sea) at the hands of Alexander and his causeway.

He does not differentiate. Tyre proper is the island, which survived Nebuchadnezzar's attack. The "coastal city" was a suburb.

Quote:

Observe:

Ezekiel 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.

That’s the coastal city.

...Sez who?

Quote:

It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

That’s the island city – to which the surviving inhabitants of the coastal city fled, following the 13-year siege by Nebuchadnezzar.

Nebuchadnezzar conquered the coastal suburb immediately (it was never designed to withstand a major assault), and then failed to take Tyre proper after a long siege.

Quote:

Today, all that remains of Tyre is a tiny Lebanese fishing village, consisting of 14,000 people at the very most...

And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon;

...and neither the coastal city nor the island city, has ever been rebuilt:

thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

A town of 14,000 people is a "tiny Lebanese fishing village"? Just how big does this author think a "village" is?

The prophecy failed, pure and simple. Tyre survived its prophesied downfall, and the subsequent attack by Alexander (the city fell, but wasn't destroyed). It has remained in existence, and inhabited, ever since.

Furthermore, Nebuchadnezzar's attack occured during the period in which Ezekiel was written: that's why he later refers to it in the past tense. According to Ezekiel, God then offered Nebuchadnezzar victory over Egypt as compensation for the failure at Tyre: but history records that the Babylonians never took Egypt either.

This exchange in the II Library shows the fate of one unsuccessful Christian apologist discussing the Tyre "prophecy", and seems to cover all the relevant issues:

Farrell Till: Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled

Matthew Hogan: Till's Errors Concerning Tyre

Farrell Till: Hogan's Errors Concerning Pronouns

Matthew Hogan: A Straw House Amid 10-Foot Waves

Farrell Till: The Romans, Greeks, and So Forth

From Matthew Hogan's capitulation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Hogan

I have been thinking carefully about the comments you made in response to my article, which dealt with the Tyre "prophecy" (TSR, September/October 1996). Farrell, I agree with you that the Tyre "prophecy" failed miserably.

PoodleLovinPessimist · 03-16-2005, 10:02 AM

How about the fact that Tyre is still here.

Mordy · 03-16-2005, 04:11 PM

Jack,

Well so far one of the respondants has said:"Scripture does not use the phrase 'many nations' of a multinational army. You're trying to redefine the language for your own purpose."

The other respondant said :"In the Bible the phrase 'many nations' is used to refer to just that (i.e. many nations, not a multinational army). For example, in Gen. 17:4 God says to Abraham:

(Gen. 17:4) -As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

Abraham wasn't the father of a "multinational" army; but he was the father of many nations (e.g. the Jews and the Arab nations).

In Deut. 7:1 the Children of Israel told about the different nations that they will disposses out of the land of Canaan; it says: -

QUOTE (Deut. 7:1) When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

It says 'many nations' and then it goes on to list seven nations.

The phrase 'many nations' is used to talk about lots of different nations all at once."

Me again: Is this the case?

Mordy · 03-16-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoodleLovinPessimist

How about the fact that Tyre is still here.

They acknowledge the existance of the lebonese village, but they think that the "Tyre" referenced in the prophecy was the "Tyre" then, look at this bit of verse:

It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

They claim that’s the island city – to which the surviving inhabitants of the coastal city fled, following the 13-year siege by Nebuchadnezzar.

They said: "Today, all that remains of Tyre is a tiny Lebanese fishing village, consisting of 14,000 people at the very most...

And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon;

...and neither the coastal city nor the island city, has ever been rebuilt:

thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD."

Jack the Bodiless · 03-17-2005, 02:03 AM

Are they trying to defend against the charge that Ezekiel's prophecy failed, or are they trying to present Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy as miraculously accurate? Are they on the offensive or the defensive?

There's certainly no reason to assume that the Tyre prophecy was prescient. Ezekiel was completed after the siege of Tyre, and even if the apologist interpretation was correct, it says nothing that requires prophetic ability: "at some unspecified time in the future, Tyre will be conquered by various people". This was a common fate of cities, and it's quite clear that the completeness of the destruction was overstated: Tyre has never been destroyed, and it remains inhabited (hence Matthew Horgan's attempt to argue that it would be finally destroyed in the future). There is nothing remarkable about the claim.

As for "many nations": another Farrell Till article, The Tyre Prophecy Again might be useful here.

Quote:

So if Ezekiel was declaring that Nebuchadnezzar would be the instrument that Yahweh would use to destroy Tyre, why did he say that "many nations" would be sent against it? A reasonable explanation of the prophet's reference to "many-nations" can be found in the ethnic compositions of early empires. Empires like Babylonia formed from the conquest and annexation of surrounding tribes and nations, so when an area was assimilated into an adjoining kingdom, the soldiers of the conquered nations served the greater empire. The Assyrian empire, for example, crumbled when the combined forces of the Medes, Babylonians, and Scythians plundered Assur in 614 B. C. and Nineveh in 612. When Haran fell to these allied forces in 610 and then Carchemish in 605, most of the Assyrian territory was annexed by Babylon. In such cases, defeated armies swore allegiance to their conquerers, so the armies of a king like Nebuchadnezzar were actually armies of "many nations."

Literally, then, when the armies of Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus or Alexander attacked a city or territory, it wasn't just the aggression of a single nation but of many nations. This reality of ancient warfare was reflected in a familiar scenario in the Old Testament in which biblical prophets and writers depicted battles against common enemies as the gathering of "many nations."

This is followed by several Biblical examples of "armies of many nations" attacking as one.

Quote:

It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

They claim that’s the island city – to which the surviving inhabitants of the coastal city fled, following the 13-year siege by Nebuchadnezzar.

Yes, it plainly IS the island: which WAS the city of Tyre, which SURVIVED the 13-year siege.

It never became a "bare rock", suitable only for the "spreading of nets": either then, or later.

Why can't they simply accept that Ezekiel's prophecy failed? Ezekiel himself apparently did!

Mordy · 03-17-2005, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Are they trying to defend against the charge that Ezekiel's prophecy failed, or are they trying to present Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy as miraculously accurate? Are they on the offensive or the defensive?

I started a post claiming it failed, they are claiming it didn't with responses that it is "miraculously accurate".

03-15-2005, 06:24 PM	#1
Mordy Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 420	Tyre prophecy, key criticisms? I'd just like to get a run down on what key criticisms I should focus on in argumentation. EDIT: SEE 2nd post.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2005, 06:30 PM	#2
linwood Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Sarasota, Florida Posts: 547	All you really have to say is that their position is subjective of their theistic perspective and not everyone sees what they see . Case in point..... "... stand too close to an oil painting and it looks ugly and distorted." To an artist or one who truly appreciates artistic endeavor this "distortion" is part of the beauty. To stand close enough to trace every brushroke, every layer of paint is to know the piece on an intimate level that one cannot appreciate from a distance. It is to understand a bit of what the artist was doing when he was doing it. Thats beauty. Edit: Actually on further reading I`m wondering why you want to argue with it at all. The page doesn`t seem to contain a single logical premise to begin with.

03-16-2005, 10:02 AM	#5
PoodleLovinPessimist Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 5,826	How about the fact that Tyre is still here.

03-16-2005, 04:11 PM	#6
Mordy Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 420	Jack, Well so far one of the respondants has said:"Scripture does not use the phrase 'many nations' of a multinational army. You're trying to redefine the language for your own purpose." The other respondant said :"In the Bible the phrase 'many nations' is used to refer to just that (i.e. many nations, not a multinational army). For example, in Gen. 17:4 God says to Abraham: (Gen. 17:4) -As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Abraham wasn't the father of a "multinational" army; but he was the father of many nations (e.g. the Jews and the Arab nations). In Deut. 7:1 the Children of Israel told about the different nations that they will disposses out of the land of Canaan; it says: - QUOTE (Deut. 7:1) When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; It says 'many nations' and then it goes on to list seven nations. The phrase 'many nations' is used to talk about lots of different nations all at once." Me again: Is this the case?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.