Julian

You are absolutely wrong. It is in the exact same place, it is the exact same city, doing just fine.

Instead of your condescending, ignorant posts we would appreciate that you back up your statements with some coherent arguments.

Julian

MiddleMan

Yawn.

Robert Turkel refuted:

Tektonics Exposed

Farrell Till

Tyre was certainly more than a city in Old Testament times. The Bible recognizes this in the very failed prophecy that Richbee is trying to defend.

The "daughter-towns" in verse 6 referred to the villages belonging to Tyre on the coastal area of the mainland, but the prophecy was obviously directed against the island stronghold. In verse 4, Yahweh said <snicker, snicker> that he would "destroy the walls of Tyre," but one would hardly think that an entire "kingdom," like Egypt or Syria or Babylonia, would have had walls around it. Towns and cities had walls, but entire kingdoms didn't. Furthermore, I know of no passage in the Bible that referred to Tyre as a kingdom, but the very prophecy that Richbee naively believes was fulfilled very clearly referred to Tyre as a "city."

I have had enough experience with diehard inerrantists to know that Richbee will likely quibble that the phrase in bold-print emphasis was just a simile, but there are other passages in this same prophecy that called Tyre a "city."

This verse very clearly shows that Ezekiel's prophecy was directed at the "renowned city" and not to some kingdom. The references to this renowned city's "vanish[ing] from the seas" and its once having been "mighty on the sea" are also clear evidence that Ezekiel was prophesying against the island stronghold and not some broader "kingdom" that existed on the mainland.

In this prophecy, there are also other references to the "city" called Tyre that Yahweh was going to destroy.

Here again Yahweh was saying <snicker, snicker> that he was going to destroy a city, and the references to bringing "the deep" over Tyre and covering it "great waters" is additional proof that this prophecy was directed against the city of Tyre, which was an island stronghold that would be destroyed and "brought to silence in the midst of the sea" (Ezek 27:32).

Here are some other passages that refer to Tyre as a city.

Notice that verse 6 referred to "inhabitants of the coast" who would "cross over to Tarshish," an idealistic place used in the Bible in reference to Tyre's commercial dealings. Later in this same prophecy against Tyre by Isaiah, Tyre was again referred to as a city.

Richbee tried to prove his unsupported claim that Tyre was a kingdom larger than just a city by saying that it had a king, but doesn't he know that there are many references in the Bible to city-states that had kings? A little reading in the book of Joshua might profit him. Here, for example, is a list of city-state kings who were defeated by Joshua. I will emphasize in bold-print just a few of the city-states of these kings, which Richbee will surely recognize were towns and cities.

Notice that in some case, like Goiim in Galilee and Jokneam in Carmel, the regions in which these cities were located were identified, but they were all cities in Canaan at the time of Joshua's invasion, and as Richbee can clearly see, all of these cities had kings. Thus, the fact that Tyre had a king, as it certainly did, is no evidence at all that Ezekiel's prophecy was directed against a region in which a "kingdom" existed instead of against a city on an island in the midst of the sea.

I have just shown that the major premise on which Richbee based his claim is completely without merit. When I enter a debate like this, I do so with a determination to answer every point and quibble of my opponent, so I am by no means finished with Richbee's defense of Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre. Later, I will be posting point-by-point replies to the rest of his claims, but this initial post should be sufficient to take some of the wind out of his sails.

MiddleMan

:notworthy:

Farrell Till

This was answered in detail in #3243379 /#23.

In my reply just referenced above, I gave detailed biblical evidence--something that Richbee should try to do--that Ezekiel's prophecy against "Tyre" was directed to the island stronghold, located off the coast at that time, in the "midst of the sea." Anyway, Richbee's use of the word "original" means that he is going to resort to the old inerrantist quibble, used by such apologists as Josh McDowell, that once the "original" Tyre had been destroyed, it could never be built again. I will show below that this is a quibble that contradicts biblical references to cities that were "rebuilt."

The prophecy in question said that the city would be destroyed and never build again. The reference to "glory" is just another quibble used by those who know that on the very site where Tyre stood, a city now stands, which is, in fact, the fourth largest city in modern Lebanon http://tyros.leb.net/tyre. The photos at this link will show the old island, which is now connected to the mainland by a peninsula formed by silt that has been deposited along both sides of the causeway that Alexander the Great built to gain access to the island. The modern city fills most of the old island and spills over onto the old mainland via the peninsula. A city has obviously been built here.

Quibbles about the "glory" of old Tyre's having been destroyed won't fly, because the prophecy was that the "city" would be destroyed and the place where it was located would become "a bare rock."

The antecedent of the pronoun you in this passage is Tyre, which has been personified as a person that can be spoken to. The prophecy was that "you" [Tyre], meaning, of course, the place where Tyre was located, would become a "bare rock" and a "place for spreading nets." This obviously didn't happen, because this place is now the location of a thriving city.

As noted in the first part of my reply, the prophecy was that Tyre would be made "a city laid waste, like cities that are not inhabited" (Ezek. 26:19). Nothing was said here about the destruction of a "glory" that would never be regained. Ezekiel was prophesying that the city would be destroyed and that it would never be rebuilt.

How can Richbee look at the pictures linked to above and say that Tyre has no more being or that it can't be "found again"? That the permanent and everlasting destruction of Tyre was being prophesied is evident from other texts within this same prophecy.

You was the city of Tyre, and so the prophecy was that this city would "be no more forever." How can Richbee look at the pictures linked to above and say that a city no longer exists on the place that was to become a "bare rock"? Forever seems to have been a relatively short time.

This is a ridiculous quibble. According to Richbee's logic, San Francisco doesn't exist. It was destroyed by an earthquake on April 18, 1906, and what is there now is "not in any shape or form" the San Francisco that was there when the earthquake struck. Richbee would also have to say that New Orleans has been destroyed forever, because anything that might be rebuilt there will not "in any shape or form" be what was there before the hurricane destroyed the city. I marvel at how the intellectual integrity of diehard biblical inerrantists apparently experience no embarrassment when they resort to such quibbles as this one.

The Bible itself speaks of the rebuilding of cities.

It's too bad that Richbee wasn't on the scene back then. He could have told Joshua that there was nothing to worry about, because Jericho had been destroyed, so whatever might be built on that site again would not be Jericho.

If Richbee had written this text, he could have informed his readers that Hiel didn't really "build Jericho," because what he built on the site was not "in any shape or form" what had been there when Joshua's forces destroyed it.

The Babylonians destroyed the city of Jerusalem in 597 BC, but the Bible makes several references to the rebuilding of this city.

Poor Jeremiah, he may have been inspired of God, but he seemed not to know that once the Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem, it was impossible ever to rebuild it, because whatever would be put on the site of the old Jerusalem would not be "in any shape or form" the city that Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed.

Other biblical writers seemed to be just as ignorant as Jeremiah.
What's that? They would "rebuilt the ruined cities"? It seems that biblical writers just didn't know that once a city had been ruined or destroyed it could never be rebuilt, because what was constructed on the old sites would "in no shape or form" be what was there before.

I could quote other examples, but I have already shown that Richbee's rebuilding quibble is completely without merit.

And nothing in Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre indicates that he meant only that its "supremacy" or "glory" would never be regained. He clearly prophesied that the city would never exist again.

I will reply to Richbee's other "points" in subsequent posts.[/quote]

Richbee

Just a brief reply for the moment.

I disagree, as the modern Tyre is not a "thriving city", and not at all in the same place as the Biblical Tyre. (On this note, I met someone from Lebanon who was actually been to this back water you call a "thriving city".)

Cheers!

Richbee

False.

Well, we agree that the Kingdom would have covered more than the city, but history informs us, that it was only after Nebbie that the island was built up into a city.

Ezekiel clearly leads off his prophesy (in my Bible at least) by mentioning the King and Kingdom.

Do you deny that the King of Tyre existed?

Sure, Tyre can be a city as well. Oh, and are you a literalist? Do you read, "in the midst of the sea" as only referring to the small island of from Tyre, the main city?

BTW, I am glad you mentioned the commercial trade of Tyre, because after Nebbie attacked, it was history, along with the King of Tyre. (Taken away in chains to Babylon?)

I'm not a sailor, but if I were sailing off of Tyre, I would find no port for my boat!

Tyre is no more!

;-(

Richbee

More......

I have posted two websites with hotlinks, and this an interesting POV:

PREDICTION:

1. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon shall destroy the mainland (“field” KJV) portion of Tyre (Ezekiel 26:7-8).

FULFILLMENT:

1. Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Tyre for thirteen years beginning in 585-586 B.C. During this time, the inhabitants transferred most of their valuables to the island. The king seized Tyre’s mainland territories but returned to Babylon, finding himself unable to subdue the island fortress militarily (cf. 29:18). Tyre, weakened by the conflict, soon recognized Babylonian authority, which effectively ended the city’s autonomy and any aspirations for a greater Phoenicia.

More......

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1675

Julian

So, what is this then?



and this?



and this?



Does this look like a harbor to you?



Now, Richbee, please stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Julian

Richbee

Thank you for the great pics.

Sorry, what the Arabs call Soûr, or Sur, is not in the same location as ancient Tyre. (I spoke with someone who has been there.)

Additionally, when Alexander the Great sold the citizens as slaves, there were no more Tyrians to rebuild Tyre.