cajela

Dang, couldn't someone have posted a link?
It's this peanut gallery, not the other one. Prophecy discussion seems to be getting going around page 23.

Sauron

Fine. Then discuss Babylon, over in the Peanut Gallery. Still waiting on your answers, by the way.

Johnny Skeptic

Even if the Tyre prophecy "did" come true, there is nothing at all about it that indicates divine inspiration. Ezekiel could easily written the prophecy after the fact, or with advance information from spies. Regarding Nebuchadnezzar, considering his power, his proven penchant for conquest, the riches of Tyre, and Babylon's proximity to Tyre, his invasion of Tyre was not difficult to predict.

Regarding the spreading of nets, it is common for people living on or near water to spead their nets to dry.

In the NIV, Ezekiel 26:4 says "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock." There is no evidence that the mainland settlement was ever like a bare rock. When I debated this point with James Holding at the Theology Web, he said that Alexander used up all of the remains of the mainland settlement to build his bridge to the island settlement of Tyre. I told him that we don't know what Ezekiel meant by a bare rock, and that he might have meant completely bare as an indication of God's power and judgment. As far as I recall, his reply was absurd. I also told him that he would have a lot of difficulty finding a historian at a leading university who would agree with his arguments regarding Ezekiel 26:4, but just like Lee Merrill, he didn't want to embarrass himself by contacting some historians at leading universities.

Regarding the island eventually being covered with water, oceanographers will tell us that historically, it has not been at all unusual for islets and islands to become partially or completely covered with water.

In short, the Tyre prophecy is a loser.

Johnny Skeptic

I sure hope that Lee Merrill will try to contest my arguments on the Tyre prophecy, but I doubt that he will.

luminous

First of all, thank you Sauron for going through the pain of responding to the same objections of lee merril's over and over.

Second, I am truly exhausted after reading through this whole thread, but more than anything irritated at lee merril. Any sensible human being knows that if he makes an assertion he must prove it.

Now, for the first time I'm doing my own careful study of this prophecy, and it pains me to say that it looks like a failed prophecy. I will study it thoroughly before I come to a final conclusion, but this is where I'm at right now.

Let me start by asking Sauron something. I promise you I will not waste your time like lee merill did, but I want to bring up something that I didn't see addressed (I know you're asking if that's possible ). And yes, I realize that I have to prove that the prophecy is true, but I haven't made that claim yet so please indulge me for now.

If I were to draw a conclusion based on your post, I would agree with you. But, let's look at verses 4 and 9 from my point of view.

Ezek 26:4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock. NASB

Ezek 26:9 The blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. NASB

In verse 4, you will notice that it also says that God will "scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock." It is clear from the immediate context and from the Biblical writings in general that God is saying that he will scrape her debris etc... through the "nations". Thus the latter part of the verse cannot be separated from the first. Moving down to verse 9, Ezekiel states that Neb will destroy the walls and towers, but there's no mention of scraping the debris from her and making her a bare rock. So on this analysis I challenge your claim that Ezekiel equates the nations with Neb.


Also, let's look at verse 3. It says that "I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves."

"As the sea brings up its waves" leads me to conclude repeated attacks. I only recall Neb attacking Tyre once. How could the analogy of waves be applied to one attack of Neb? Seems clear to me that Ezekiel is trying to convey by that analogy that nations will attack Tyre like the waves slamming onto the beach - one after another.

Sauron

No problem. I have all the time and patience in the world for an honest question from a sincere person. I just have little patience for people playing games or wasting my time. In fact, if you've read the Tyre thread with lee_merrill, you'll notice that I spent an awful lot of time explaining many things to lee. I only stopped doing so when it became obvious that he wasn't going to lift a finger to support his claims, but wanted everyone else to run around and do research.

Yes. There are at least four points of argument that indicate this is Nebuchadnezzar, and not a succession of other invasions.

1. The nature of the Babylonian empire and its army. The usage of the term "nations" was appropriate for both, and was described in this thread fully. Please see this post, especially the first half, where a colored block of text starts as follows: Equating "many nations" to the army of Nebuchadnezzar's empire....

2. Reiteration of the point. The other data point is the transition we see at verse 7:
EZE 26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

If you follow the contextual flow of the verses, the first set (3 to 6) are a list of tragedies that will befall Tyre. Then the text pivots and refocuses at v.7. t is here that Ezekiel zeroes in on how the events described in verses 3-6 will come to pass. The first set of verses tells "what"; the second set tells "how". Here is another section from my document on Tyre, which explains this more fully. Please note that in the section below, whenever you see [Hebrew word], that indicates a word written in the Hebrew alphabet that I could not transpose into my document (because the software didn't support non-European letters).



3. Contemporary witnesses. The following chapter of 27 lists all the surrounding countries and trading partners that would be amazed and shocked at the downfall of Tyre. It's obvious from reading that chapter that Ezekiel expected that destruction to be immediate, because the reaction of Tyre's neighbors is spoken of as immediate. If you take the opposite viewpiont - that "nations" refers to a long, drawn-out decline by multiple conquerors - then this verse makes no sense. By the time that Tyre actually hit bottom (circa 1291 AD), most of those contemporary witnesses didn't exist.

4. No need to be oblique. For the sake of argument (and to illustrate a point), let's assume that Ezekiel intended for a long, drawn-own destruction by more than one conqueror here. Why not just state that? There was ample precedent for naming multiple nations, even in a veiled or prophetic sense. Daniel was quite adept at naming several "horns" that represented kingdoms; in the vision of the statue made from different "metals" we see the same thing. Nations described for the listening audience as being different actors, without the need to explicitly name them. The way this was done was to refer to them in allegory or parable form.

5. Differentiating prophecy from the flow of history. If a long drawn-out decline was the intent of the prophecy, then does it really even count as a prophecy? No kingdom or trading power lasts indefinitely. If Tyre took 6000 years to fall, and one day it simply ceased to exist, would that be a prophecy too? Predicting the fall of a city only takes a knowledge of history - especially when the "long view" of the prophecy has no time limit associated with it. Tyre lasted for 1800 years after Ezekiel's prophecy, and has since been reborn.

Doesn't work. The "make her a bare rock" text in v.4 does have a parallel verse, but it's found in v.14 -- not in v.9. Quoting rabbi Eisenmann again - note the bold below:

This explains the almost verbatim repetition of a number of phrases (v.8 parallels v.6; v. 12 parallels v.4; and v.14 parallels vs.4-5); this new prophecy, directed at Tyre, utilized many of the thoughts expressed in the earlier prophecy about Tyre.

Well, several items here:

1. The waves of destruction could refer to different battalions or companies of Nebuchadnezzar's army. In the same way that a modern army attacks with amphibious forces, followed by the Marines, followed by air strikes, followed by shore bombardment, etc. Each of those attacks is a "wave". To support that view, the text does mention multiple kinds of military units that Nebuchadnezzar would use against Tyre:

(a) with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

(b)And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

Remember that Nebuchadnezzar demanded soldiers from each vassal state to use in his army. I suspect that each country that contributed military units to Nebuchadnezzar had their own special units. If so, then you would see (for example) a battalion of Parthians attacking, followed by a special unit of Edomite archers, followed by three units of Medean cavalry, etc.

2. Nebuchadnezzar only attacked Tyre once - true. But he sieged Tyre for thirteen consecutive years. I suspect that in that thirteen-year period, there were numerous campaigns and attempts to break open the city. It wasn't one long siege; there had to be periods of quiet to strategize, wait for reinforcements, try new attack plans, etc.

luminous

Thank you for your prompt response.

Since you say correctly that the term "nations" was appropriate for both, you cannot use the term to support your argument and neither can I. After your first point, we're left with the conclusion that it could be either Neb, or Neb AND other kingdoms/nations.


I am in full agreement that v 3-6 gives an overview of the prophecy, or the "what", and that from 7 we have the "how". However I do not agree that Ezekiel equates Neb with the many nations PRECISELY because of the parallels of verse 4 with 9 and with 12. Why does Ezekiel switch from addressing Neb directly from 7-11 but switches to "they" in 12? My answer is because Ezekiel is saying that someone else other than Neb will do the scraping and the making her into a bare rock. In other words, I agree with the Rabbi you quoted that the subject switches in v 12 to "they", but where I disagree is who "they" is referring to.

You're initial evidence in support of your theory that "they" = Neb was the parallel between v 4 where the subject is "they" to v 9 where the subject is "he" (Neb). But this argument fails on close scrutiny because as I previously stated the "they" in v 4 also has a parallel in verse 12 where the subject is no longer "he", but "they". So Ezekiel is saying that part of verse 4 will be accomplished by Neb (v 9), and part by other nations/kingdoms (v 12).


This is not true. From ch 17:1-26 Ezekiel recalls Tyre's history of splendor and it's power. It is all in past tense. From v 27 to the end of the chapter Ezekiel pronounces judgement on Tyre. These verses refer to the future. Notice that NONE of the peoples mentioned in v 1-26 are mentioned from v 27 on when the judgement takes place. The people who will be shocked at Tyre's fall are referred to not specifically by name anymore but by "they", "inhabitants of the coastlands", "their kings" and "the merchants".

Show me in Ch 27 where Ezekiel "lists all the surrounding countries and trading partners that would be amazed and shocked at the downfall of Tyre." They are listed when Ezekiel is recalling Tyre's history not when looking forward to it's judgement. The reaction of Tyre's neighbors is immediate, but immediate in relation to what? To the day of Tyre's fall. There is no indication that Ezekiel is saying that the day of Tyre's fall will be soon after the day of his prophecy.


Your argument that Ezekiel not naming all the nations counts against this prophecy is absurd. What if God revealed to him specifically only Neb? Just because Daniel named other kingdoms doesn't mean Ezekiel had to for his prophecy to count. And if fact, the biblical writers state that sometimes their prophecies were "oblique" on purpose. This notion that Neb = "nations" because Neb was the only one named is ridiculous.


Surely naming a king who will attack in the future (Neb) and what he'll do (destroy Tyre's walls and break down her towers) is different from "the flow of history". If Ezekiel would not have named Neb, you would have had a point.

Good point. I'd say this is the same like the "nations" term. The waves can apply to both so it's no support for neither of our arguments.

I'm enjoying debating this with you. I'm sorry if I'm too direct but this is how I debate and it's nothing personal. Your argument that Neb = nations does not sway me.

Johnny Skeptic

Whether one nation or many nations, it doesn't make any difference. The point is, what is unusual about the prophecy even if it did come true? The correct answer is, nothing at all.

luminous

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you're saying that fulfilled prophecy is no evidence for God/Christianity, that's for another thread.

This is to discuss whether the prophecy was fulfilled or not.

Johnny Skeptic

My point is that many people could easily have predicted what Ezekiel predicted, and maybe they did but did not write down their predictions. Historically, many people who were not followers of the Bible predicted many things that came true. That doesn't mean that their predictions were divinely inspired any more than the Tyre prophecy was divinely inspired. In order for a prophecy to qualify as being divinely inspired, it must be reasonably proven that the results could only have been known in advance by means of divine inspiration. Ezekiel was a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar. He might have learned of Nebuchadnezzar's planned invasion from a spy, not from God. In addition, he might have made his prophecy after the fact. Given Nebuchadnezzar's proven penchant for conquest, his military power (Ezekiel called he a king of kings), the riches of Tyre, and Babylon's close proximity to Tyre, his invasion of Tyre was practically a given. It would have been much more unusual if he had not attacked Tyre. What is in fact unusual is why God did not tell Ezekiel about Alexander's eventual conquest of the island settlement. What is also unusual is that it took God centuries to defeat a group of puny humans after speaking harsh judgments against the residents of Tyre. Several generations of the island settlement's residents lived out their lives in relative comfort. The message of the Tyre prophecy is "Don't worry, God will not kill you, but he will get even with your descendants centuries later."

Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too.