Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dongiovanni1976x · 05-02-2006, 07:11 AM

Richbee, it is interesting to read Bloom’s argument on how Ezekiel’s prophecy was finally “fulfilled in totality” as you claim. He reasonably asks the common question, that given enough time all cities face war, famine, plague or disaster of some sort, and says:

Quote:

“But weren't most ancient cities destroyed? Weren't many sites abandoned? One would think that if one wait long enough, eventually any site will be abandoned.”

Bloom sounds very sensible asking this obvious question. He then makes the following suggestion, which he claims is a “possible” answer to the skeptic:

Quote:

“Tyre's sister city, Sidon, located about 20 miles up coast, serves as a good control for this possibility. Ezekiel prophesies (28:22-23) that Sidon will face war, plague and famine, but he never says that she will never be rebuilt...

So far he suggest we compare and contrast the two cities- Tyre and Sidon. One, Tyre, that was prophesized to never be rebuilt; and the other, Sidon, which was just prophesized to face disasters- (like the majority of cities in history)

Quote:

“Sidon…today she persists as a small coastal city of Lebanon, a fact which hampers archaeologists from studying the area.”

So the city of Sidon exists today. Which does not discredit Ezekiel’s prediction in 28:22-23, because he never said it would be rebuilt.

Quote:

“Clearly, if Ezekiel or a later editor had simply switched the names of these sister cities in the predictions, neither would have been fulfilled.”

He is where Bloom is so interesting. This is how he ends his argument. He thinks that if the word Tyre was placed and inserted in the predictions made against Sidon, and vice versa, then neither prediction would be fulfilled…Hmmm, why is that you ask? Well for one because if Sidon exists (as Bloom mentioned earlier) and it was prophesized to never be rebuilt (if the prophecies had been swapped) then it (the prophecy) would have failed. But since they were not swapped Ezekiel’s prophecy against Sidon is “safe”.
Hmmmm. Can anyone smell Red Herring on the stove? This ridiculous distraction does not disguise the fact that Bloom is supposed to be summarizing why Tyre was never rebuilt. Since he admits that both Sidon AND TYRE are cities today, then at least ONE of Ezekiel’s prophecies has failed. And given the fact that Alexander and the Mamelukes were never specified in verse 12 as being the agents of God’s wrath, this further erodes Ezekiel’s prophecy and makes it unspecific. On top of this, Bloom has failed utterly to answer the skeptic’s question, “But weren't most ancient cities destroyed? Weren't many sites abandoned? One would think that if one wait long enough, eventually any site will be abandoned,” thus rendering Ezekiel’s prophecy insignificant.
An insignificant, unspecific and ultimately UNFUFILLED prediction is a bad example to use to support the inerrancy of the Bible and inerrancy is the only reason people such as Bloom and Richbee cling to such nonsense.

Farrell Till · 05-04-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till:
Since when does flagrant evasion of opponents' rebuttal arguments constitute "ass kicking"? When, for example, is Richbee going to reply to the rebuttals that I am reposting below?

Richbee:
IMO, you have continued to avoid the key facts in the history of Tyre.

What "key facts"? Post them, and I will reply to them in detail, point by point if you will agree to reply in kind, which means that you will reply to all of my points instead of evading them as you have done thus far.

Do you agree to reply point by point? If so, post your "key facts" about Tyre that you think I have "avoid[ed]."

Quote:

I will try to slug through your SPIN and Posts.

While you are slugging, try to answer posts #134-136 in which I replied to your claim that modern Tyre is not today 'in any any [sic] shape or form to be compared with the great city of the Old Testament" by pointing out that this silly quibble would mean that San Francisco, which was destroyed in 1906 by a devastating earthquake, no longer exists, because it is not in any shape or form like the city that was destroyed.

Your reply to this was what?

In #134, I also pointed out that biblical passages like Joshua 6:26, 1 Kings 16:34, Jeremiah 30:18 and 31:38, Malachi 1:4, and Amos 9:11 show that biblical writers certainly thought that destroyed cities could be rebuilt.

Your reply to this was what?

In #135, I replied in detail to your claim that since Tyre was a "kingdom" that had a king, it had to be more than just an island. I responded with biblical passages like Joshua 12:7, which listed several cities whose kings Joshua had defeated in battle.

Your reply to this was what?

I also quoted passages like Joshua 19:29 and Isaiah 23:5, 16, where Tyre was referred to as a city.

Your reply to this was what?

In #136, I replied in detail to your claim that modern Tyre "really can't be compared in any sense to the Biblical Tyre. Size, location, international trade, glory, wealth, people, King, Kingdom." I asked you to show us the biblical passages that predicted that only the glory, wealth, and splendor of Tyre and not the city itself would be destroyed forever.

Your reply to this was what?

In #140, in reply to your repeated claim that "Tyre was more than just a city," I reposted the part of #135 that had replied to this in detail.

Your reply to this was what?

In this same post, I replied again to your repeated claim that the glory, wealth, and splendor of Tyre had been permanently destroyed, just as the prophecy had predicted. I cut and pasted previously ignored rebuttals in which I had shown that the prophecy was that the city itself would be permanently destroyed.

Your reply to this was what?

In #142, I replied to your pasting of an article by Bloom in an effort to show that the prophecy had been fulfilled. That reply included the following response to Bloom's statement that Tyre became a vassal of Babylon but that "the island was not pillaged."

Quote:

If the Island was not pillaged, then Ezekiel's prophecy failed, because, as I showed in an earlier post that Richbee has not replied to, an analysis of the prophecy shows that Ezekiel was saying that Nebuchadnezzar was the instrument by which Yahweh would "slay" the "daughter-towns" [on the mainland] and then destroy the city.

I also reposted here my previous analysis of Ezekiel 26:3-19 to show that the prophecy clearly predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would take Tyre and destroy it forever.

Your reply to this was what?

I also posted here the following reply to Bloom's claim that "God" had granted success against Egypt for payment of his "minimal returns" at Tyre.

Quote:

"Minimal return" had not been prophesied. The prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would totally destroy Tyre. As for Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt, it also failed. If Richbee wants to deny this, then I challenge him to post a defense of Bloom's claim that Yahweh granted the Babylonians "success against Egypt.

Your reply to this was what?

By the way, are you going to accept the proposal to debate the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt?

In #143, I replied to your claim that "many nations" and not just Babylon were to destroy Tyre. All I had to do was paste here a reply that I had earlier written to the very article (published by Apologetics Press) that you had quoted in support of your many-nations quibble.

Your reply to this was what?

I want to know if you intend to debate or not, Richbee? If so, get on with it and stop wasting our time with evasive posts that don't answer anything.

Farrell Till · 05-04-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till:
It helps readers to distinguish between Tyre and the mainland area that inerrantists like you try to make the same as Tyre. This name was in use at the time of your alleged fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, so what's the problem with using this name?

Richbee:
I guess it depends on what you're attempting to SPIN.

I'm not trying to "spin" anything. I have presented in posts 134-136, 140, and 142-143 clear evidence that Ezekiel's prophecy was that the island stronghold would be destroyed forever by Nebuchadnezzar.

Your reply to this was what?

Quote:

Richbee:
IMO, Nebbie destroyed the Kingdom of Tyre,

We don't care about your opinion. We want to see evidence that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre. As for your continued attempts to make Tyre a "kingdom" that encompassed more than the island stronghold, I answered that in detail in post #142 where I explicated Ezekiel 26:3-19 verse by verse to show that the prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would be the instrument through whom Yahweh would destroy forever the island stronghold.

Your reply to this was what?

Quote:

Richbee:
and the maninland [sic] side of the city.

In post 142, I replied to this by pointing out in my analysis of Ezekiel 26:3-19 that the prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would take the "daughter-towns" on the mainland and then direct his efforts against Tyre proper, so no one denies that Nebuchadnezzar took the mainland. The island stronghold, however, was not taken by Nebuchadnezzar. He extracted an agreement from Tyre to pay tribute and then withdrew his army after a 13-year siege. Tribute, however, is not the same as total destruction, so Nebuchadnezzar failed to destroy Tyre forever as Ezekiel had prophesied.

Your reply to this was what?

Quote:

Richbee:
Obviously the island reamins [sic] became more important after Nebbie, but the Kingdom was no more, and what remained paid taxes or tribute to Babylon, and then the Persians.

The prophecy was that nothing would remain.

Quote:

Ezekiel 26:14 I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets. You shall never again be rebuilt, for I Yahweh have spoken, says the Lord Yahweh.

Tyre never became a bare rock, and the city still exists today; hence, the prophecy failed. This has been repeatedly shown in photographs and other sources that you continue to ignore.

Quote:

Richbee:
You're also hung up on "permanently destroyed", [sic and "city". [sic

In addition to the part of the prophecy quoted above, which said that Tyre would become a bare rock and "never again rebuilt," other parts of the prophecy clearly predicted a permanent destruction of the city.

Quote:

Ezekiel 26:19 For thus says the Lord Yahweh: When I make you a city laid waste, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you, 20 then I will thrust you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of long ago, and I will make you live in the world below, among primeval ruins, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you will not be inhabited or have a place in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no more; though sought for, you will never be found again, says the Lord
Yahweh.[/b]

If this was not predicting a total, complete, everlasting destruction, what was it predicting?

Quote:

Ezekiel 27:36 The merchants among the peoples hiss at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever."

Ezekiel 28:19 (Y)ou have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever.

Do you know what no more forever means? If it doesn't mean permanent and everlasting, what did it mean?

Will you answer this, or will you just come back with more of your evasion?

Quote:

Richbee:
To move forward,

Move forward? No, let's not move forward until you have answered all of the arguments and rebuttals that you have ignored. As I pointed out earlier, you can find them in posts #134-136, 140, and 142-143.

If you don't reply to them, we will assume that you can't reply to them.

Quote:

Richbee:
one must agree to what existed in the first place, and what actions took place over and through history, such as the siege of Alexander the Great.

But as I pointed out in a detailed, grammatical analysis of Ezekiel 26:3-19 (in post #142, the prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre forever. It said nothing about Alexander the Great, and even if you want to force Alexander into your fulfillment claim, you will still have the problem of explaining how he could have fulfilled the prophecy, since he did not destroy Tyre permanently and make it like a bare rock.

Quote:

Till:
And how does this prove that the city of Tyre was destroyed and never again rebuilt? Where does the prophecy say that the port of Tyre that faced the south would be "destroyed at some point"? Richbee has a hard time recognizing what is relevant to his prophecy-fulfillment claim, doesn't he?

Richbee:
Here is another sticking point, and you can keep spinning "rebuilt", but IMO, it doesn't fly.

As I noted earlier, nobody cares about your opinion. If what I said "doesn't fly," you have an obligation to show us that it doesn't, and you can't do that by just saying that it doesn't fly.

Do you know what the fallacy of argumentation by assertion is?

Quote:

Richbee:
I laugh often and outloud, especially when you count fishing boats and stinking fish markets as a Tyre rebuilt?

I have never "counted" just fishing boats and stinking fish markets as a rebuilt Tyre. You have been bombarded with pictures of modern Tyre, which show a thriving city built on the location of ancient Tyre.

Quote:

Richbee:
4th largest city in Lebanon? Hahhahaha. A back water.

Even if modern Tyre were a "back water," its existence would make the prophecy a failure, because as you have been shown and shown and shown and shown, the prophecy was that Tyre would be made a bare rock and would never exist again.

That didn't happen, so the prophecy failed.

Quote:

Richbee:
I met a lady from Lebanon, and a sad story, her brother was run over by an Israeli truck and killed.

She related to me that the biblical Tyre is no more. The modern Tyre is not in the same place, and it is a back water for a few Arabs.

I related to you that there was once a member of my Errancy list http://iierrancy.com who lived in Sur or modern Tyre, and he said that everyone there knew that this was where the island city of ancient Tyre was once located. He is not right because he said this but because what he said agrees with all reputable information about modern Tyre. We have presented you with archaeological information that pointed out that ancient Tyre is now difficult to excavate because it is located under a modern city sitting on the same location. How could that be so if modern Tyre is not on the same site where ancient Tyre was located?

The woman who told you this was wrong, but if you are going to persist in claiming that modern Tyre is not on the same location as ancient Tyre, then you should comply with a request that you have repeatedly ignored.

Post a map that shows the location of ancient Tyre with reference to the city of modern Tyre.

Why won't you do this?

Quote:

Richbee:
Go fishing in Tyre. Lots of Luck!

Even if just a lone shack existed on this location, it would prove that the prophecy failed, because the prediction was that the site of ancient Tyre would become a bare rock and would never be rebuilt or inhabited again.

Quote:

Richbee:
Pun intended, I will fish through the next post and see if you have any evidence in your favour.

While you are fishing don't forget to reply to the arguments and counterarguments that you have ignored in posts #134-136, 140, and 142-143. If you could answer them you would have done so by now, so your continued evasion of them is clear evidence that you know you are wrong.

Farrell Till · 05-04-2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x
What is the original Greek in the Codex Regius Parisinus and the Codex Oxoniensis for Antiquities 9:285? Some versions (in the English that I have read) say, “but Sidon, and Ace, and Palaetyrus revolted; and many other cities there were which delivered themselves up to the king of Assyria. Accordingly, when the Tyrians would not submit to him, the king returned, and fell upon them again, while the Phoenicians had furnished him with three-score ships, and eight hundred men to row them;” while others say, “And Sidon and Arke and Old Tyre and many other cities also revolted from Tyre and surrendered to the king of Assyria. But, as the Tyrians for that reason would not submit to him, the king turned back again and attacked them after the Phoenicians had furnished him with sixty ships and eight hundred oarsmen.”

The reason I ask is that if the latter translation is correct then it seems that Old Tyre on the mainland was a completely separate entity from Tyre the island further supporting the Usu/Uzu/Ushu theory whereas if the former is correct then it sounds like this passage is saying that the Tyrians revolted against the king of Assyria and didn’t actually ally with him against Tyre the island. Does anyone know how these translations became so different?

Richbee:
Let's stick with the Biblical Tyre quoted and it's [sic King, denoting a Kingdom.

Say what! Richbee has quoted entire articles from Bloom and Apologetics Press, but now he is refusing to reply to extrabiblical sources that corroborate biblical claims that Tyre was a city on an island. Since Richbee has set the standard, we will expect him to comply with it and stop cutting and pasting articles from other sources.

As for his continual quibbling about Tyre's having to be a kingdom because it had a king, I will refer him again to what I said in post #134, which he has refused to answer.

Quote:

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.

Joshua 12:7 The following are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the Israelites defeated on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, that rises toward Seir (and Joshua gave their land to the tribes of Israel as a possession according to their allotments, 8 in the hill country, in the lowland, in the Arabah, in the slopes, in the wilderness, and in the Negeb, the land of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites): 9 the king of Jericho one the king of Ai, which is next to Bethel one 10 the king of Jerusalem one the king of Hebron one 11 the king of Jarmuth one the king of Lachish one 12 the king of Eglon one the king of Gezer one 13 the king of Debir one the king of Geder one 14 the king of Hormah one the king of Arad one 15 the king of Libnah one the king of Adullam one 16 the king of Makkedah one the king of Bethel one 17 the king of Tappuah one the king of Hepher one 18 the king of Aphek one the king of Lasharon one 19 the king of Madon one the king of Hazor one 20 the king of Shimron-meron one the king of Achshaph one 21 the king of Taanach one the king of Megiddo one 22 the king of Kedesh one the king of Jokneam in Carmel one 23 the king of Dor in Naphath-dor one the king of Goiim in Galilee, one 24 the king of Tirzah one thirty-one kings in all.

Till:
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.

Richbee's king-and-kingdom quibble has been answered many times, but he continues to recycle it as if no one can reply to it.

Farrell Till · 05-04-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till
Finding a website, book, or article that agrees with one's religious position is as easy as spending a little time in the library or on the internet. This is an obvious fact that I have never been able to make Robert Turkel understand. And now along comes Richbee....

Richbee:
I don't know who Robert Turkel is,

Richbee has posted not once but several times on the Theology Web http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=64589, where Turkel (known by his phony name J. P. Holding) is considered king of the hill, so I seriously doubt that Richbee doesn't know who he is. In addition to being an evader, Richbee also has a credibility problem.

Quote:

Richbee:
and I am not approaching this Religiously, but Historically.

Yeah, right. If you are approaching the issue "religiously," then why do you consistently reject all historical evidence that clearly shows that Tyre was never permanently destroyed. I just finished a reply to your rejection of a post by dongiovanni1976x, which quoted extrabiblical documents that indicated that Usher was considered separate from Tyre in biblical times. You didn't even try to comment on it. You summarily dismissed it with a terse demand to concentrate on biblical texts.

So why don't you follow your own advice and concentrate on answering the many biblical texts that you have so far evaded?

Quote:

Till:
Remember when Richbee was arguing that the island city of Tyre didn't exist until people on the mainland fled from there to the island during Nebuchadnezzar's siege?

Richbee:
Did you forget where I posted a correction on this factoid?

When are you going to post a correction about your repeated claim about Tyre's being a "kingdom" larger than the island stronghold?

Quote:

Richbee:
In any case, I don't see how an island fortress helps your case

You don't? The fact that it was a fortified island was what enabled it to hold out during a 13-year siege by an army that had no navy.

Quote:

[/b]Richbee:[/b]
It has become fruitless to discern and dissect city lines or boundries [sic], and IMO, it doesn't matter.

If Tyre was an island stronghold and if Ezekiel's prophecy was that the city on this island would be permanently destroyed, then Nebuchadnezzar's failure to take the island--which all reputable historians acknowledge that he failed to do--then the "boundaries" of Tyre become very important in determining the failure of the prophecy. As for your opinion, I have now told you several times that nobody cares about your opinion. We want verifiable facts, which you obviously don't have on your side.

Quote:

Till:
If the Island was not pillaged, then Ezekiel's prophecy failed, because, as I showed in an earlier post that Richbee has not replied to, an analysis of the prophecy shows that Ezekiel was saying that Nebuchadnezzar was the instrument by which Yahweh would "slay" the "daughter-towns" [on the mainland] and then destroy the city.

Richbee:
You're focusing on a short time period,

I am focusing on the "period" when Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre would be destroyed forever, and that period was the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Hence, the "period" that I am focusing on is very relevant to the claim you are trying to defend.

Quote:

Richbee:
and do you deny the many Nations that attacked and destroyed Tyre?

No, I don't. Do you deny that I showed in post #143 that Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre was in reality a siege of "many nations," because his conquests of surrounding kingdoms had enabled him to absorb their armies into his. I posted this in reply to your quotations from Brad Bromling, a staff writer for Apologetics press, and it consisted primarily of an earlier article that I had written in response to Bromling's "many-nations" quibble. For your benefit, I will repost this, so that you can evade it again.

Quote:

Till:
Richbee has repeatedly shown that he cannot reply to the rebuttal points of his opponents except by posting URLs that agree with him. Finding a "source" that agrees with one's religious position is easy to do, but replying to rebuttals of "apologetic" arguments isn't so easy. I have repeatedly pointed out that Ezekiel's prophecy was not that the "glory" of Tyre would never be regained but that the city would be destroyed and never rebuilt. Richbee is obviously unable to rebut this counterargument. I am going to post beneath this some of my rebuttal arguments to the popular apologetic claim that Tyre was to be destroyed not by Nebuchadnezzar but by "many nations." We can then sit back and watch Richbee ignore these rebuttals too.

Richbee has joined the ranks of biblical inerrantists who have tried to rationalize the obvious failure of Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre by claiming that the prophecy said that "many nations" would be involved in the destruction of the city (Ezek. 26:3). In the last post that Richbee sent--at least up until the time that I began writing this post--he concluded with a link to an article on the website of Apologetics Press, a fundamentalist organization, staffed by members of the Church of Christ, which publishes the religious paper called Reason and Revelation. In the past, I have tried to get members of this organization to defend biblical inerrancy in some kind of public forum but all such efforts were unsuccessful. I once asked Dr. Bert Thompson, one of the editors of this paper to allow me to reprint its articles in my journal The Skeptical Review, along with my replies to them, and he refused to let me do this http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992mail.html. Brad Bromling, one of the staff writers wrote an article in support of the Tyre prophecy, which I replied to here http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...2/992tyre.html under provisions of the copyright laws that permit reasonable quotations for educational purposes. One of Bromling's arguments was that "many nations" were to come against Tyre before it would be destroyed, so my article concentrated mainly on rebutting that point.

I have often addressed the "many-nations" apologetic claim, so since Richbee has injected it into the present debate, I have decided to put together a rebuttal of this "argument" from different articles I have written on the subject. The information below depended primarily on another article that I published in the December 1994 issue of The Skeptical Review. This information will effectively reply to Richbee's "many-nations" defense.

The claim that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre in Ezekiel 26 was fulfilled with amazing accuracy has been thoroughly refuted, yet uninformed biblicists keep repeating it, as Richbee has recently done here. In an article by Brad Bromling, published in Reason and Revelation, which executive editor Dr. Bert Thompson refused to let me reprint in [url]TSR,[/i] Bromling listed six details that Ezekiel prophesied about Tyre and then said, "Each of these items came to pass exactly as Ezekiel said" (December 1994, p. 96). In the preceding issue of TSR, I had published an article by a reader who had described some of the struggles he is experiencing as he makes the transition from Bible believer to skeptic. One of those struggles concerned prophecy fulfillment and in particular Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre, so even though I have already discussed this prophecy in earlier issues of TSR, I am going to review it to show the absurdity of trying to pawn this off as an example of remarkable prophecy fulfillment.

Although Apologetics Press would not permit me to reprint Bromling's article, copyright laws don't prohibit quoting it, so I will have to rely on this method to show how wrong Bromling was in his claim that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled. The reader referred to above expressed doubt that Ezekiel had intended to prophesy that Tyre would be destroyed and left desolate by Nebuchadnezzar, because "God has Ezekiel saying that He would bring many nations against them as the waves of the sea" (Vol. 10, Num. 1, p. 6), and Bromling stated the same position. The second of the "six specific predictions" that Bromling listed in his article was that "(m)any nations would come against Tyre (v:3)." Before addressing the claim that Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would be destroyed by "many nations," we should look at the reference to these nations in its context.

Bromingling quoting Ezekiel 26:
In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word of Yahweh came to me: Mortal, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem, "Aha, broken is the gateway of the peoples; it has swung open to me; I shall be replenished, now that it is wasted." Therefore, thus says Yahweh God: See, I am against you, O Tyre! I will hurl many nations against you, as the sea hurls its waves. They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down its towers. I will scrape its soil from it and make it a bare rock. It shall become, in the midst of the sea, a place for spreading nets. I have spoken, says Yahweh God. It shall become plunder for the nations, and its daughter-towns in the country shall be killed by the sword. Then they shall know that I am Yahweh. For thus says Yahweh God: I will bring against Tyre from the north King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, king of kings, together with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great and powerful army. Your daughter-towns in the country he shall put to the sword. He shall set up a siege wall against you, cast up a ramp against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. He shall direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls and break down your towers with his axes. His horses shall be so many that their dust shall cover you. At the noise of cavalry, wheels, and chariots your very walls shall shake, when he enters your gates like those entering a breached city. With the hoofs of his horses he shall trample all your streets. He shall put your people to the sword, and your strong pillars shall fall to the ground. They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise; they shall break down your walls and destroy your fine houses. Your stones and timber and soil they shall cast into the water. I will silence the music of your songs; the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets. You shall never again be rebuilt, for I Yahweh have spoken, says Yahweh God (Ezek. 26:1-14, NRSV with Yahweh substituted for the LORD).

Till:
Bromling depicted the "exact" fulfillment of this prophecy as a series of events that happened over a period of almost 1900 years.

Bromling:
Within a few years of Ezekiel's oracle, Nebuchadnezzar besieged the mainland city (586 B. C.). When he finally defeated Tyre 13 years later, the city was deserted--most of the inhabitants had already moved to the island. Things remained that way for about 241 years. Then in 332 B. C., Alexander the Great took the island city for Greece. This was accomplished by scraping clean the mainland city of its debris, and using those materials to build a land-bridge to the island. Although Alexander brought much damage to the city, it still stood. Tyre persisted for the next 1,600 years. Finally, in A. D. 1291, the Muslims thoroughly crushed Tyre, and the city has remained in ruins ever since. Aside from a small fishing community, nothing is left.

Till:
There are so many distortions and misrepresentations in this short paragraph that I hardly know where to begin replying to them, but when we read stuff like this, we can see how amateur "apologists" like Richbee manage to get their facts so distorted when they try to defend biblical inerrancy. They are simply parroting what they have read by writers like Bromling, who are assumed to know what they are talking about. At least two important counterpoints must be made in reply to Bromling's comments quoted above: (1) Nebuchadnezzar didn't finally defeat Tyre as Bromling claimed. Tyre was a stronghold on an off-shore island, and Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege (587-574 BC) against it failed, as even general encyclopedias will inform those who bother to check. Nebuchadnezzar succeeded only in capturing the mainland suburb, which was known as Ushu, but that certainly didn't require 13 years. The mainland area was taken without difficulty, and then the unsuccessful siege was directed against Tyre proper, which was the island stronghold. Nebuchadnezzar finally withdrew his forces after securing a Tyrian agreement to pay annual tribute to Babylon, but he did not capture the city much less destroy it permanently, as Ezekiel predicted he would. (2) Bromling also erred in saying that Tyre has remained in ruins ever since the Muslim conquest of 1291. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 4, p. 721) has an aerial photograph of modern Tyre, which shows the former island part covered by a town that is much more than just the "small fishing village" that Bromling described above. Also, the town is obviously much more than a "bare rock," where fishing nets are spread, which Ezekiel predicted it would forever be (v:14). What the photograph shows agrees with Harper's Bible Dictionary, which claims that an "important deep sounding in the 1970s" showed that "(t)he city has been almost continuously occupied from the third millennium B. C. until the present, except for a major gap from 2000 to 1600 B. C." (1985, pp. 1101-1102). This photo also agrees with the ones that have been posted here during my exchanges with Richbee http://tyros.leb.net/tyre/.

Biblical inerrantists have resorted to all sorts of verbal gymnastics to try to explain how Ezekiel's prophecy could have been fulfilled if the site of ancient Tyre is still occupied by a city. They say such things as it never regained its former splendor, as Richbee has done repeatedly, but the prophecy didn't predict this: it said that the city would never be rebuilt. Some inerrantists even say that present-day Tyre is not built on the same site, as Richbee has also done, but a look at modern maps of Lebanon will show (as do the photos linked to above) that Sur [the modern name] is located on the very site of the former island. It just isn't so that each of the items in this prophecy "came to pass exactly as Ezekiel said." He predicted that the city would be destroyed and never built again, but a city is there now on the same spot that Ezekiel said would be a bare rock forever.

That brings us to the matter of the "many nations" that Ezekiel said would be involved in the destruction of Tyre. The literary organization of the prophecy (quoted above) seems rather simple. It began with an introductory statement of what Yahweh intended to do to Tyre. He said that he would (1) cause "many nations" to come against it, (2) destroy its walls, (3) break down its towers, (4) scrape the dust from it and make it like a bare rock, and (5) slay its "daughter villages" in the field. After describing in general terms what he was going to do to Tyre, Yahweh then proceeded to state the specifics of how this would be done: "For thus says Yahweh God: I will bring against Tyre from the north King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon...." In other words, the organization of the text is in a familiar pattern of general to specific, and those who recognize this pattern should be able to see that Yahweh was saying that Nebuchadnezzar would be the instrument that he would use to destroy Tyre as promised in the introductory (general) statement. After the introduction, the writer then proceeded to state the specifics of what Nebuchadnezzar would do to Tyre. He would put Tyre's daughter-towns in the country [the mainland villages] to the sword, he would set up a siege wall, he would cast up a ramp, etc., etc., etc. The prophecy listed a dozen specific military actions that he would direct against Tyre, and the only reasonable antecedent of the pronoun he is Nebuchadnezzar.

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 conquerors, 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." In 2 Chronicles 20:1-4, this allegedly happened when Jehoshaphat was king of Judah.

Quoting 2 Chronicles:
It happened after this that the people of Moab with the people of Ammon, and others with them besides the Ammonites, came to battle against Jehoshaphat. Then some came and told Jehoshaphat, saying, "A great multitude is coming against you from beyond the sea, from Syria, and they are in Hazazon Tamar."

Till:
Psalm 2:1-2 depicted the "kings of the earth" as having set themselves
against Yahweh and his anointed. Isaiah 13:4 told of a "tumultuous noise of
the kingdoms of nations" that were gathered together against Yahweh of hosts. Zechariah 12:3 warned that "all nations of the earth" that were gathered together against Jerusalem would be cut in pieces. Ezekiel himself clearly used this same scenario at times. In the allegory of the two sisters (Oholah and Oholibah), he warned Judah that Yahweh would send against it the Babylonians, Chaldeans, Pekod, Shoa, and Koa, and all the Assyrians (23:23).

In his denunciation of Judah under the rule of Jehoiakim, the prophet Jeremiah prophesied that Yahweh would send Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, and he depicted the army of Nebuchadnezzar as a multinational army.

Jeremiah 25:8 Therefore thus says Yahweh of hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words, 9 I am going to send for all the tribes of the north, says Yahweh, even for King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these nations around; I will utterly destroy them, and make them an object of horror and of hissing, and an everlasting disgrace. 10 And I will banish from them the sound of mirth and the sound of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

Till:
In verse 9, Nebuchadnezzar was used in apposition to "all the tribes of the north"; hence, Jeremiah was saying that when Nebuchadnezzar moved against Jerusalem, it would actually be a multiplicity of tribes or nations laying siege.

The "many-nations" scenario was a commonplace hyperbolic device that biblical prophets used in their vitriolic denunciations of those who were enemies of Israel and Judah. This device was even used to denounce Judean kings who "did evil in the sight of Yahweh." After Nebuchadnezzar had installed a puppet king in Jerusalem and by a strange twist of thinking had come to be considered by some biblical writers as God's servant, Jehoiakim (the puppet) rebelled, and "Yahweh sent against him bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites to destroy Judah" (2 Kings 24:1-3), but the last two chapters of this book make it very clear that it was Nebuchadnezzar's army that destroyed Judah and took the people captive to Babylon, but in a real sense it was actually a conquest of "many nations," because Nebuchadnezzar's armies were comprised of more than just Babylonians.

When inerrantists today look at Ezekiel's prophecy through the glasses of historical records, they can clearly see that it was not fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar, and so they must look for some way to explain away the failure. Ezekiel's reference to "many nations" is a straw that some inerrantists like Richbee have grabbed to try to salvage the prophecy, and so they have tried to make the prophecy mean that a series of attacks by many different nations spread out over 1900 years would result in the eventual destruction but that Ezekiel never meant that the total desolation of Tyre would be caused by Nebuchadnezzar. However, the literary organization of the prophetic passage (which I analyzed above) and the facts just noted about the multinational composition of ancient armies like Nebuchadnezzar's make this "explanation" questionable to say the least. It is more likely that Ezekiel meant that "many nations" under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar would bring about the total destruction of Tyre.

I will post this now to see if Richbee will ever get around to trying to reply to rebuttals of his quibbles. I will reply to the rest of his post separately.

Angrillori · 05-04-2006, 12:51 PM

Duh, it's easy to see that "destroyed forever" means that it will be not really destroyed, and not really forever! See the prophecy was fulfilled!

Seriously though, excellent posts Farrell. I appreciate the education!

Farrell Till · 05-04-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Richbee:
You're focusing on a short time period, and do you deny the many Nations that attacked and destroyed Tyre?

I replied to this in part one of my response to Richbee's "many-nations" quibble.

Quote:

Richbee:
And, IMO, Nebbie did destroy the Kingdom of Tyre and they had to pay taxes or tribute.

For the umpteenth time, I will remind you that nobody cares about your opinion. We want to see verifiable historical facts, but you seem to be short of these.

You also seem unable to see that payment of tribute and taxes does not equal total destruction. Just think about it for a moment, Richbee. If Nebuchadnezzar had permanently destroyed Tyre and left it as nothing but a bare rock, there would have been no one left there to pay tribute and taxes.

Duh!

Quote:

Richbee:
They could not operate without supplies and fresh water from the mainland.

Nebuchadnezzar had no navy, and that is why his siege failed. Tyre, however,
was a commercial city with ships, which were used to resupply the city during the siege, and there was nothing that the Babylonians could do to prevent it.

Quote:

Till:
"Minimal return" had not been prophesied. The prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would totally destroy Tyre. As for Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt, it also failed. If Richbee wants to deny this, then I challenge him to post a defense of Bloom's claim that Yahweh granted the Babylonians "success against Egypt.

Richbee:
You're twisting again, and neglecting the "many nations". [sic]

Just what am I twisting? As for the "many-nations" quibble I have already answered that at least three times. The last time was in part one of this reply. Nebuchadnezzar's army, through conquests of neighboring kingdoms was a multi-national army. When he laid siege to Tyre, it was a siege of many nations.

Quote:

Till:
I have posted evidence that the "many nations" in Ezekiel's prophecy was Nebuchadnezzar's multinational army. Richbee, needless to say, has not replied to this, so I will repost it later.

Richbee:
So what?

I assume that everyone has seen that Richbee has no reply to my rebuttal of his "many-nations" quibble.

Quote:

Richbee:
Nebbie's many peoples or Nations in his Army, doesn't preclude the many more Nations that destroyed Tyre. (e.g. Greeks)

If Ezekiel's prophecy had been fulfilled, there would have been no Tyre left for the other nations to destroy. The failure of the prophecy was why Alexander the Great had a city to conquer, but even he didn't destroy it.

The city of Tyre is still there, Richbee. Get over it.

Quote:

Richbee:
I don't know why skeptics are so obsessed with this prophesy? [sic]

Because it is such an obvious example of prophecy failure, and diehard inerrantists like you are so intent on defending this prophecy that you make for easy pickings.

By the way, Richbee, please learn the difference in prophesy and prophecy. The first is a verb; the second is a noun.

Farrell Till · 05-04-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee
Here is a great resource:

http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm

Note, the "glory" of Farrell Till's Tyre!

Hahahahahahaha!

Note that the prophecy was that the city of Tyre would be totally destroyed forever. I have asked you to show us where anything was said in the prophecy about just the glory, wealth, and grandeur of Tyre being destroyed while the city itself would linger on.

Where does the prophecy say this?

Quote:

Richbee:
More of Farrell Till's Tyre!

http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900...t02/index.html

Looking at the pictures of Tyre makes me laugh more than any debate topic objected to by the skeptics.

What are you laughing at, the fact that there is a city there now? If so, you are laughing at evidence that the prophecy failed, because the prophecy was that Tyre would be destroyed forever and would never be inhabited again. The fact that there is a city there now--regardless of its size and greatness--is clear evidence that the prophecy failed.

Get over it, Richbee.

Quote:

Richbee:
One fact lost on the morons is the great port city of Tyre. Whenther [[i]sic[/i/] taken as a Kingdon, [sic[] a mainland city or an island city or taken all togther, [sic] it was destroyed.

The only morons I am aware of are those who deny clear evidence that Ezekiel's prophecy failed. The fact that Alexander brought destruction--which was by no means a complete destruction that left it like a bare rock--is no proof at all that the prophecy succeeded, because, as we have shown here over and over and over, the prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre forever. He was mentioned specifically by name.

Where does this prophecy mention Alexander the Great? It doesn't.

Now if Yahweh had wanted Ezekiel to issue a really earth-jarring prophecy, he could have had him say that Nebuchadnezzar would lay siege to Tyre but fail to destroy it but that centuries later a great Grecian king by the name of Alexander the Great would build a causeway to the city and conquer it.

If this is what the prophecy meant, Richbee, why wasn't it written this explicitly?

Quote:

{b]Rochbee:[/b]
In ancient imes [sic] there was a great harbor port facing South toward Egypt, and accordingly called the Egyptian Port.

It was destroyed.

But Nebuchadnezzar didn't destroy it. The prophecy, however, was that he would destroy Tyre and leave it like a bare rock. That didn't happen.

The prophecy failed, Richbee. Get over it.

Quote:

Richbee:
Today, a tiny little port remains for tiny littl' fishing boats on the North side far enough from the old Tyre such that the locals know very well, this is not the old Tyre.

But the prophecy was that Tyre would be completely destroyed and its site left as a bare rock and that it would never be rebuilt and inhabited again.

Quote:

Ezekiel 26:19 For thus says the Lord Yahweh: When I make you a city laid waste, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you, 20 then I will thrust you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of long ago, and I will make you live in the world below, among primeval ruins, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you will not be inhabited or have a place in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no more; though sought for, you will never be found again, says the Lord Yahweh.

A city--Lebanon's fourth largest--now sits on the site of ancient Tyre. People live there, and no amount of derogatory talk about "fishermen" living there will negate the fact that the site of ancient Tyre is now inhabited and is certainly not a bare rock.

The prophecy failed, Richbee. Get over it.

Quote:

Richbee:
Case closed, for any rational adult with half of a brain!

For once, I agree with Richbee. The case is indeed closed, because any rational adult with half of a brain can see that Ezekiel's prophecy that Tyre would be completely destroyed, its site left as a bare rock and uninhabited forever, did not happen.

The prophecy failed, Richbee. Get over it.

Quote:

Richbee:
The great trade and wealth, and power of Tyre was destroyed. [period]

As I have repeatedly said, the prophecy was that the city of Tyre would be destroyed forever, left as a bare rock, uninhabited, but that didn't happen. Hence, the prophecy failed. The fact that Tyre lost its wealth and grandeur would be natural consequences of its subjugation to Nebuchadnezzar and its later defeat by Alexander, but the prophecy was not about the loss of wealth and grandeur but about the total, complete destruction of the city forever.

That never happened; hence, the prophecy failed.

Quote:

Richbee:
Any attempts to qualify modern Tyre as a rebuilt Kingdom of Tyre or the Biblical Tyre is a joke.

We don't have to "qualify" modern Tyre as a "rebuilt kingdom of Tyre." All we have to do is show that it was never destroyed permanently and left uninhabited forever, because those were key elements of Ezekiel's prophecy that never happened. Does Richbee just not know what words like desolate, no more, never more, forever, bare rock, and not inhabited mean?

Isn't it tragic that people can become so blinded by allegiance to an ancient collection of superstitious writings that they would argue against obvious historical facts as Richbee has been doing?

Farrell Till · 05-04-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Richbee:
John Bloom considers the Ezekiel prophesy as true over 700 years.

Richbee still doesn't know the difference in prophesy and prophecy, yet he expects us to think that he knows that a prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed and left uninhabited forever has been fulfilled, even though there is a city now situated on the site of ancient Tyre, whose presence interferes with archaeological excavations of the ruins of old Tyre that lie beneath it. The fact that "ruins" of ancient Tyre exist today is more evidence that ancient Tyre was not left like a bare rock.

As for what Bloom considers, it doesn't matter, because if he thinks that the prophecy--notice how it is spelled--was fulfilled over 700 years he is in a state of denial about the obvious meaning of the prophecy, which was that Nebuchadnezzar would come against Tyre, totally destroy it, and leave it uninhabited like a bare rock forever.

Does Richbee still not know what forever means?

Quote:

Richbee:
In some ways I disagree,

Well, if Richbee disagrees with Bloom, he surely won't mind if we disagree even more.

Quote:

Richbee:
because I find a near total humilating [sic] defeat of the Kingdom of Tyre, both Politically and Spiritually in a sense of power or evil destroyed.

The poor syntax in this sentence makes it hard to understand, but if Richbee is still arguing that Tyre's loss of wealth and greatness was a fulfillment of the prophecy, perhaps he can show us, as I have asked him many times to do, where Ezekiel prophesied that the glory, wealth, and grandeur of Tyre would be destroyed but that the city itself would hang on.

Quote:

Richbee;
In any case, no matter how many extra details and extraneous facts Farrel Till throws into the debate, he's refuted, repudiuated and retorted!

Oh, no, have I been repudiuated? Whatever this is, it sounds bad, but if Richbee is saying that I have been reputiated, then he won't mind answering for us all of my rebuttal arguments that he has ignored until now. I have posted some of them two or three times, and today I summarized most of them in answering his long list of evasive posts that did nothing to try to reply to rebuttals that have hammered him flatter than a cow patty.

He mentioned "extraneous facts" that I have thrown into the debate, but he didn't bother to identify any of these. That leaves me nothing to reply to.

By the way, Richbee, if you are going to debate me--well, strike that, because nothing you have said yet even remotely resembles debating. If you are going to post about me, please have the courtesy to spell my name right.

Richbee requoted here the article by Bloom, but he has already set a standard that eliminates consideration of nonbiblical texts, so I don't need to reply to it. Besides, I have already replied to it.

Farrell Till · 05-04-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightson
Because it's the most obvious failure of biblical prophecy?

Your hilarious inability to realize this nonwithstanding.

Richbee:
Why don't you and Farrel plan a summer vacation to Tyre?

It's too dangerous. Besides, I don't need to take a vacation to Tyre to have confidence that it is there, any more than I need to go to Toyko to be confident that it too is there. The fact that a city--no matter what size it is--now sits where ancient Tyre did is proof that Ezekiel's prophecy failed.

Quote:

Richbee:
Go and enjoy the "great city of Tyre", the fourth largest in Lebanon. Hahahahahaha!

For the umpteenth time, I will ask Richbee to show us where Ezekiel's prophecy said that the glory, grandeur, wealth, etc. of Tyre would be destroyed forever but that the city itself would linger on.

Quote:

Richbee:
A place for fish nets and back water Arab fishing boats. Littl' tiny littl' boats!

If even a single mud hut were situated on the site where ancient Tyre was located, that would prove Ezekiel's prophecy failed, or does Richbee still not understand what words like bare rock, desolate, and not inhabited mean?

Quote:

Richbee:
Enjoy the glory that was the Kingdon of Tyre, if you can find the old foundations of the old Tyre.

Show us where Ezekiel's prophecy said that the glory, grandeur, wealth, etc. of Tyre would be permanently destroyed but that the city itself would continue to exist? How could a city exist on a "bare rock"? If buildings were on it, it wouldn't be a bare rock, would it?

Quote:

Richbee:
Good luck!

Good luck finding where Ezekiel's prophecy said that the grandeur, glory, wealth, etc. would be permanently destroyed but not the city itself.

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

05-04-2006, 12:51 PM	#186
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	Duh, it's easy to see that "destroyed forever" means that it will be not really destroyed, and not really forever! See the prophecy was fulfilled! Seriously though, excellent posts Farrell. I appreciate the education!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.