Sven

Thanks a lot! And apparently I was mistaken that Hebrew does not distinguish between singular and plural. Maybe it was something about verb tenses what I thought to remember?

lee_merrill

Actually it does make this distinction.

Oops, no, "[much] people" is a singular noun in Hebrew. Thus "they" could be the horses (but I don't think so!), or Alex, and others, along with Neb.

More tomorrow, or this weekend...

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

Are you a scholar in Semitic languages as well, lee?
let's see now:

* ancient military tactics;
* ancient siegecraft;
* iron age mediterranean maritime skills and practices;
* civil engineering of the ancient near east;
* genetic engineering and forensic DNA examination;
* geology;
* archaeology;

Goodness me -- is there ANYTHING that you aren't willing to (pretend) to speak forth about, as an expert?
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:


Says who? You?

1. Alexander isn't an option, since Alexander wasn't mentioned.

2. What's more, since Alexander is singular, obviously "they" (a plural noun) does not refer to Alexander.

Oh, wonderful. I was running out of manure....

Sven

Umm, is "horsemen" and "companies" also singular? :huh:

badger3k

Don't forget "much people" - I know I use that to refer to one man.

meforevidence

Theory of Sur

There has been much debate over the prophecy of Tyre and Ezekiel 26 and 27. Part of the problem may lie in the fact that in the oldest text we have, the Septuagint (written 250 B.C.) that the original word was not actually “Tyre� but “Sor� (Sur). Modern linguists try to make Sor and Tyre synonymous, however, when looking at the spelling of each, we find that the word “Syria� is much closer to Tyre than Sor is.

We see that the Greek spelling of Tyre is much more similar to Syria than it is “Sur� (or Sor) yet it is obvious that Tyre is not Syria nor is Syria called Tyre.

Sur = EOVP
Sor = EOP
Tyre = TVPOV
Syria = EVPOV


Perhaps we have been looking in the wrong place for Sur. For if we refer back to the more ancient texts, we may find the location of Sur and find that it was not speaking of the Tyre area after all. Let’s look at some Biblical verses first.

Genesis 21: :1 And Abraam removed thence to the southern country, and dwelt between Cades and Sur, and sojourned in Gerara.

Genesis 25: 18 18 And he (Abraham) dwelt from Evilat to Sur, which is against the face of Egypt, (DRB “looks toward� Egypt) until one comes to the Assyrians; he dwelt in the presence of all his brethren.

1 Samuel 15 4 And Saul summoned the people, and he numbered them in Galgala, four hundred thousand regular troops, and Juda thirty thousand regular troops. 5 And Saul came to the cities of Amalec, and laid wait in the valley. 6 And Saul said to the Kinite, Go, and depart out of the midst of the Amalekites, lest I put thee with them; for thou dealedst mercifully with the children of Israel when they went up out of Egypt. So the Kinite departed from the midst of Amalec. 7 And Saul smote Amalec from Evilat to Sur fronting Egypt (at the face of Egypt). 8 And he took Agag the king of Amalec alive, and he slew all the people and Hierim with the edge of the sword.


Exodus 15: 22 So Moses brought up the children of Israel from the Red Sea, and brought them into the wilderness of Sur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water to drink. 23 and they came to Merrha, and could not drink of Merrha, for it was bitter; therefore he named the name of that place, Bitterness.

Notice that Sur is not located near Tyre at all but close to Egypt.

Joshua 13: 15 And Moses gave the land to the tribe of Ruben according to their families. 16 And their borders were from Aroer, which is opposite the brook of Arnon, and theirs is the city that is in the valley of Arnon; and all Misor, 17 to Esebon, and all the cities in Misor, and Daebon, and Baemon-Baal, and the house of Meelboth; 18 and Basan, and Bakedmoth, and Maephaad, 19 and Kariathaim, and Sebama, and Serada, and Sion in mount Enab; 20 and Baethphogor, and Asedoth Phasga, and Baetthasinoth, 21 and all the cities of Misor, and all the kingdom of Seon king of the Amorites, whom Moses smote, even him and the princes of Madian, and Evi, and Roboc, and Sur, and Ur, and Robe prince of the spoils of Sion, and the inhabitants of Sion.

Judith 2: 28 Therefore the fear and dread of him fell upon all the inhabitants of the sea coasts, which were in Sidon and Tyrus, and them that dwelt in Sur and Ocina, and all that dwelt in Jemnaan; and they that dwelt in Azotus and Ascalon feared him greatly.

Now as we look at the verses above, we find that Sur and Tyre are two separate cities and at two totally different locations. Tyre is in Phoenicia and Sur in near Egypt.

When Ezekiel 26:7 mentions the direction Nebuchadnezzar would be coming from, he writes it would be from the “North� and not the “East�. Babylon was actually Southeast from Tyre in Phoenicia. If Nebuchadnezzar marched toward Egypt (and history records that he did in the Battle of Carchemish) then this would fit the directions given in the Bible.

We also know through history and the Bible that just before Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, that Jerusalem turned toward Egypt for support and for military strength. Egypt ruled that region of the coasts at that time. Ezekiel 26:2 reads: 2 Son of man, because Sor has said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is crushed: the nations are destroyed: she is turned to me: she that was full is made desolate: 3 therefore thus saith the Lord; Behold, I am against thee, O Sor, and I will bring up many nations against thee, as the sea comes up with its waves. We do not really have a history that Jerusalem turned toward the city of Tyre other than for trade.

Very few details of Nebuchadnezzar’s battles remain to this day or have yet to be revealed, yet we know by history that he went through many regions destroying cities and taking slaves. This could be when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city of Sur. There is not much said of Sur after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The only other reference that I could find outside of the Bible is a letter written during the Crusades. The letter specifies that Tyre was besieged while at the same time, Sur was safe.

Letter from the East to Master of Hospitalers
(1187) from the Crusades
“After this Saladin collected his army again and on Sunday came to Saphora and took Saphora and Nazareth, and Mount Tabor, and on Monday came to Acon [Acre], which is also called Acris; and those in Acon surrendered. Likewise those of Caifas and those of Cesarea [Casarea) and of Jafa [Joppa], and of Naple [Neapolis], and of Ram [Ramlah], and of St. George, and of Ibelinon [Ibelin], and of Bellefort [lielfort], and of Mirahel, and of Tyron [Tyre], and of Gwaler, and of Garer [Gaza], and of Audurum [Darum], all surrendered. After this, when our galley moved from Tyro [Tyre], they sent Sabani to Saladin that he should go to Jerusalem and they would surrender the city. And we fled with the galley to Lechia [Laodicea], and we heard that Tyre had surrendered. Moreover, the following cities are still safe and are awaiting aid from the western Church; namely, Jerusalem, Sur, Saehea [Asealon], Marchat, Antyochia [Antioch], Lassar, Saona, Triplis [Tripoli]. Moreover, so great is the multitude of the Saracens and Turks that from Tyre, which they are besieging, they cover the face of the earth as far as Jerusalem, like an innumerable army of ants, and unless aid is quickly brought to the remaining above-mentioned cities and to the very few Christians remaining in the East, by a similar fortune they will be plundered by the raging infidels, thirsting for the blood of the Christians�.

Perhaps this is one of the many villages found in the Northwestern Negev Desert along the coasts. Perhaps it is even a totally different place called Sur. Two points could be made. The first one is that Sur and Tyre are two different locations and cities. The second one is that Sur was not originally just another rendering of “Tyre.�

Note for Sauron: If you are so good at English, then why do you still insist that "Tyrians" is a noun and not an adjective describing the people. Tyrians is not a place but a description of the people. I did expect you to look it up but also expected you to know how to read it.

Amaleq13

Actually, such a word can be either a noun or an adjective depending on the context. When referring to a characteristic of Tyre or its people or culture it would be an adjective. When referring to a native or inhabitant of Tyre, it would be a noun.

See a dictionary entry for "Syrian" as an example:

adj : of or relating to or characteristic of Syria or its people or culture; "the Syrian government" n : a native or inhabitant of Syria

Diogenes the Cynic

"Tyrian" is an adjective. "Tyrians" is a noun.

One can be AN American (noun) and still be AS American (adj) as apple pie.

The Hebrew word for Tyre is Tsor. Sor is just the Greek spelling of "Tsor."

Shur (Hebrew: SHUWR) is spelled in the Septuagint as Sour.

That was an amusing angle, though.

Johnny Skeptic

Ah, the topic of the destruction of Tyre again. I once opened opened a thread on this topic at the Theology Web, and for a number of weeks it was the most visited thread at the Apologetics 301 Forum. Lee Merrill posted several times, and I am pleased that he opened a thread on the Tyre prophecy here at the Secular Web.

In an article here at the Secular Web, Alex Matulich discusses the Tyre prophecy. Following are excerpts:

"Let's get on to the interesting stuff: the prophecies. There are many the author (Dr. D. James Kennedy) could have selected as examples. He chose first Ezekiel's prophecies concerning the destruction of the city of Tyre, so I will do the same. I must confess amazement at the use of Ezekiel 26-28 as an example here, since it is in fact an excellent instance of unfulfilled prophecy. Here's the account in an old standard textbook, Introduction to the Old Testament, by R. H. Pfeiffer:

“In a series of oracles against Tyre (26-28), Ezekiel in 585 BC anticipated its capture by Nebuchadnezzar (26:7-14). In reality, Josephus, quoting Philostratus . . . and Phoenician sources report that Nebuchadnezzar vainly besieged Tyre for thirteen years. . . . Accordingly, a later oracle dated in 571, when Nebuchadnezzar had abandoned the siege, states that as a reward for his services against Tyre, for which he had received no wages, the Babylonian king would conquer Egypt (29:17-20; cf. 30:10-12). This Babylonian conquest of the Valley of the Nile, anticipated also by Jeremiah (43:10-13), remained a dream. . . . the victory of Nebuchadnezzar over Amasis did not result in a conquest of Egypt; at most it barred the Pharaoh from interference in Palestine.[1]

“Why does Kennedy consider this prophecy about Tyre a hit rather than a miss? Ezekiel predicts disaster, sacking of the city, etc. by Nebuchadnezzar, but after 13 years (or 15, depending on which Bible you have), the city wasn't sacked. He reached a settlement with Tyre instead, so the terrible destruction in Ezekiel 26 and 27 was a bit less than predicted (the siege probably did great harm, but Tyre had put up with this sort of thing off and on throughout its history). God relents in Ezekiel 29 and gives Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as a consolation prize for trying to do God's will. In reading the prophecy, however, one gets the distinct impression that Tyre would be taken, sacked; the prediction is long, poetic, but also impossible to mistake. It just didn't happen, and the Bible even admits this. Perhaps Ezekiel's prediction simply illustrates his overenthusiastic loyalty to Babylon (he said nothing against Babylon, only against its enemies including Judah). In the grips of nationalist pride, a prophet could make mistaken predictions.

“But Kennedy insists that this prophecy was fulfilled after all, 250 years later when Alexander the Great came through and leveled the newer island city of Tyre after building a road using the ruins of the old mainland city of Tyre. This is irrelevant. Ezekiel quite plainly named the conqueror, saying of Tyre (26:7-12) that Nebuchadnezzar and his troops would bring down its towers, enter its gates, kill its people, and break down its walls. That did not happen, as we know from other sources including a later statement by Ezekiel himself. What Alexander may have done two and a half centuries later has no bearing on it. It's like predicting that the President will die this year of liver disease. If he actually dies of a heart attack fifty years from now, that does not "fulfill" the prediction.

“More serious, though, is something easily missed: Dr. Kennedy misrepresents Alexander's conquest of Tyre. Let me sketch a bit of the city's history. There's a whole book about it, by W. B. Fleming; for Alexander's siege, there are several ancient sources, notably Diodorus.

“This walled city stood on an island; it also controlled some territory on the mainland coast, about a half mile away. It passed peacefully into Persian control before 500 BC. After Alexander defeated the Persian king Darius at Issus (late 333 BC), he turned south toward Egypt, and Tyre held out against him. Unwilling to leave hostile forces in his rear, he laid siege to Tyre. He adopted the unprecedented stratagem of using stone and wood from the mainland to build a wide path to the island, and he conquered the city within less than a year. Women and children had long since been evacuated, but he did sack the city, and a good part of it burned. He then marched on south.

“Alexander used stone from the mainland to build the path to the island. But of course it wasn't rocks from the actual walls of Tyre; these were on the island, and Alexander hadn't yet conquered it when he built the path. Furthermore, we know that the city not only recovered quickly but was being besieged again (by Antigonus) less than 20 years later - proof that the walls still stood! In fact, Tyre remained a major city for another millennium and a half. Thus Dr. Kennedy's defense of the prophecy is not only illogical but depends on an outright falsehood." End of quotes.

Ezekiel 26:10-11 say "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 hoofs 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." The verses clearly indicate a complete conquest, and even Christians would readily acknowledge a complete conquest if the same kind of description were used to for instance indicate the fall of Constantinople during the days of the Roman Empire.

The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition refutes Ezekiel 26:10-11 with the following:

"For much of the 8th and 7th centuries BC the town (Tyre) was subject to Assyria, and in 585–573 it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II. Between 538 and 332 it was ruled by the Achaemenian kings of Persia. In this period it lost its hegemony in Phoenicia but continued to flourish."

I ask Lee Merrill to reasonably prove that Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy was made before the fact. I also ask him what about the prophecy indicates divine inspiration. Babylon was in close proximity to Tyre, Tyre was wealthy, Nebby had a prove penchant for conquest and he was a powerful king. It would have in fact been much more unusual had he not attacked Tyre. It would also have been much more unusual had Tyre not eventually been defeated. Historically, kingdoms rising and falling have been the norm, not the exception.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

It appears that if I post a comment in any of these areas, I must be claiming to be an expert! And Sauron, apparently is not making this claim, when he posts in these areas. Or maybe he is, I'm not sure.

But no, a post by me, about Hebrew grammar, does not mean I claim to be an expert.

The word is "am," which is indeed singular, the plural would be "ammim," as "goy" is the singular for "nation," and "many nations" in verse 3 is "goyim rabbim," this is basic Hebrew, with no requirement to be an expert.

Well, certainly I meant Alex among others, not just Alex corresponding to "they."

Horsemen is indeed plural, companies is actually singular, "singular absolute," which I'm not sure what that means! But "horsemen" could fit under singular "people," under "much people," and "many nations" could well indicate many such groups of people, that is a real possibility, which I would say is the most probable one...

I was actually trying to apply the rule Sauron posted! Though I did overlook "horsemen." But then by this rule, "they" must refer to just the horsemen, they have to do all that is mentioned, but that seems improbable. I actually don't believe in this rule, English is not so simple as just always looking back to the nearest plural noun, I would be surprised if Hebrew is so simple as that, especially with such an odd result, in this instance...

Well, "early to bed" shouldn't mean 12:30 A.M., but this Friday (Saturday!), it does...

Regards,
Lee