Sauron

I think you misunderstand what I said. The term nations was appropriate for both
(a) the Babylonian empire as well as
(b) its army.

That is what I meant by "both". I did not intend both to mean "a succession of nations", which was your position. Also remember that my comment was in response to your earlier statement that said the following:

"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."

Which brings me to another point: you are misinterpreting "nations". From my article on Tyre:

No. That would be reading something into the passage that was not present in the original context. And given what we know from history about the composition of the Babylonian empire and how it extracted vassal soldiers from its various states, the explanation for "nations" is right in front of our noses.

Besides, the text *specifically* mentions Nebuchadnezzar - "he shall do this, and he shall do that". That indicates a single conqueror - not a series of them.

Ask yourself this: if you did not have any knowledge of Tyre's history and you just happened to read this passage one afternoon, would you *ever* think it referred to a series of multiple attacks over 1500 years? The only reason why christians have come up with this alternate explanation is because they have compared Ezekiel against history and found Ezekiel in need of rescue. But the plain, straightforward reading of this passage would never lead someone to such a conclusion.

Because in v12 the author has just mentioned several plural nouns preceding, military units that would be used against Tyre:

engines of war against thy walls
his axes
his horses their dust shall cover thee
noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots
the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets

There was a subject matter switch; Ezekiel is getting into the details of the military units under Nebuchadnezzar's commmand. But now there are both singular as well as plural nouns entered into the conversation. The use of the word "they" is thus quite appropriate.

That doesn't work - and what's more, it's unnecessary. Verses 9-12 jump back and forth between mentioning Nebuchadnezzar ("he") and the various elements of his army ("they"). It's perfectly ordinary for a speaker - ANY speaker - to switch pronouns when they want to emphasize what one actor or group of actors will do. Please re-read this post. Go about halfway down in the post, starting with the section titled He vs. They: First Argument for a fuller explanation.

Besides, in order for your interpretation to stand, we'd have to believe that Ezekiel was talking about Nebuchadnezzar for the preceding 5 or 6 verses and then suddenly without warning switched to talking about another whole series of unknown conquerors that wouldn't appear for centuries to come. A cryptic change of topic, without any warning? Why would anyone assume that? Other than as a method to rescue Ezekiel's prophecy from historical problems, I mean?

Well, the plain text of Ezekiel shows a switch to the word "they", starting with the 2nd word of v12. So there isn't much to agree or disagree about here anyhow; it's impossible to dispute that the 2nd word of v12 is "they".

What the rabbi said was that the spoiling would be done by armies, which is consistent with what we know about military campaigns in the ancient near east. So you don't really agree with the rabbi after all.

That was not my theory. My theory is that "they" = the military units of Nebuchadnezzar's army. And that since the same actions are ascribed to both (a) Nebuchadnezzar and (b) his army, that indicates that Ezekiel had only one invasion in mind when he wrote the oracle against Tyre.

So? You're really confusing me now. Why do you think that makes my theory fail? As far as I can see, the scenario you describe in v12 is perfectly in harmony with my theory.

Maybe this will clarify it for you: in my view, all the following are correct:

1. nebuchadnezzar will destroy the walls and break down the towers
2. many nations will destroy the walls and break down the towers
3. [various military units] will destroy the walls and break down the towers

I think you've been tripped up by your own desire to put these actions into clear buckets - armies only do this, while nations only do that, and Nebuchadnezzar only does this over here. You want a hard-and-fast rule. The Hebrew text doesn't work that way. It's entirely consistent with the prophetic Hebrew form to repeat a prophecy several different ways, emphasizing different parts - lingering over it, to flesh out the details. In fact, Ch 26 says all three of the items above. But that's OK, because all three are saying the same thing, however - they are merely exploring it from different angles.

No. In order for your interpretation to stand, we'd have to draw a wiring diagram all over this chapter, just to keep the various sub-verses connected to the appropriate actor. Again: other than a desire to rescue Ezekiel's prophecy, there is no indication in the text that suggests this interpretation.

1. Incorrect. V1-4 are present tense.

2. The verses after v4 switch to past tense, because Ezekiel is trying describe the way things *used* to be, i.e., before the destruction arrives. He wants to impress upon Tyre how easy she *used* to have it in the "good old days" -- before the prophesied destruction hits. That's why this is called a lamentation for Tyre - because a lamentation is usually sung about events that occurred in the past.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lament

1. To express grief for or about; mourn: lament a death.
2. To regret deeply; deplore: He lamented his thoughtless acts.

You are right; none of those people are mentioned by nationality in the second section of Ch 27, verses 26 - 36. But look closely:

1. In the first section of Ch 27 (i.e., verses 5 - 25) Ezekiel lays out the story of how great Tyre was for us, by mentioning her trading partners. Ezekiel mentions groups of people by nationality, as well as by their trade or special skillset.

2. But in the second section v26-36, he switches from talking about how good things were - and who the trading partners used to be, and the nice things they brough to Tyre. Now he's talking about destruction, and also the reaction of those trading partners when they see Tyre's destruction. Ezekiel doesn't mention ANY nationalities at all in that section. Why should he? The complete list of nationalities and trades and special skills was presented already. It's perfectly acceptable to use "shorthand" and refer to them as "the merchants" or "the mariners" or "the inhabitants of the isles."

Yes, because they have already been mentioned before - identified by their nationality, trade, or special skillset. It's unnecessary to mention them a second time.

Flatly incorrect. The nations mentioned in Ch 27 are the same ones that would lament the fall of Tyre. In fact, not only are they mentioned in Ch 27: 29-36, but also in Ch 26: 15-18. In fact, 26:17 mentions a lamentation for Tyre, just as Ezekiel mentions in 27:2.

In relation to the impending invasion by Nebuchadnezzar. It was well-known at that time that Nebuchadnezzar was looking to take Tyre. Which is another reason why this hardly qualifies as a prophecy, since any news reporter could have made the similar prediction.

Except that Ezekiel connected Tyre's fall to Nebuchadnezzar's invasion. That gives us the timeline, and the indication of how soon Tyre's fall would be.

When we evaluate text, the first rule of thumb is to take the most honest, straightforward reading. What you've just done here instead is to invoke God as a way to get out of a prophetic tight spot.


Well, to be honest the most ridiculous thing I see here is someone trying to rescue Ezekiel's prophecy by hot-wiring different verses together, while skipping other ones in between. If we do things your way, then this is what we have:

in v.3, a succession of many nations stretched over history is described;
in v.7, the subject switches to *just* Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon;
in v.12, the subject switches back to many nations

And you argue this, all on the strength of a single word - "they". Your ENTIRE argument hinges on this one word; you want us to snake our way backwards through th preceding verses, ignore them, and attach the word "they" to "many nations" of v.3? Even when there are multiple plural nouns (horsemen, etc.) already introduced in the immediately preceding verses? Nouns which fully explain the usage of the word "they"?

Farrell Till, quoted in my article:

Moving along...........

No.
1. Nebuchadnezzar and his plans were well-known in Ezekiel's time. Predicting the obvious is not prophecy. It's more like being a news anchor.

2. Nebuchadnezzar did not succeed in destroying Tyre's walls or towers anyhow.

3. Finally, I think you misunderstood my actual question here. If we accept your interpretation of Ch 26, then this becomes nothing more than stating the obvious: Tyre will fall, at some unspecified point in the future. Big deal. I can say the same thing about the United States. Or India. Or Canada. Given enough time, all countries / cities / empires fall. Is this really all that the Ezekiel prphecy boils down to?

That's fine. That wasn't my argument anyhow. :huh: My argument is that "many nations" = Nebuchadnezzar AND the armies of the Babylonian empire, and that Ezekiel is inconsistent in the usage of pronouns in this chapter.

John A. Broussard

While I'm not familiar with Babylonian usage, I think we could argue that (using contemporary usage) Iraq was invaded by 37 nations. You and I know, however, that the "coalition" is directed and paid for by the U.S. May not that have been the case with Babylon?

I'm not sure whether that thought helps or hurts either side in this debate, but you might want to consider that viewpoint.

Johnny Skeptic

Why should anyone assume that the Tyre prophecy was not written after the fact, that Ezekiel wrote all of it, and that all of it was written during his lifetime?

Sauron

Indeed. During One Who Replies' ill-fated attempt to defend Josh McDowell, he pointed me to another probability related work published by a Christian engineer, James Dietz. That was probably a mistake for him to point me to it; unlike One Who Replies, I actually *read* it. I then quickly realized it had the same problems as McDowell: doing the math but never justifying the historical assumptions.

In any event, Dietz did publish a suggested list of criteria for judging whether a prediction actually qualifies as a prophecy:

1. Clarity: The prophecy must not be ambiguous.
2. Prior Announcement: The prediction must clearly be made before the fulfillment.
3. Independence: The prophet must not be able to cause the prophecy to occur.
4. Likelihood: The prophecy can’t be just a good guess.
5. No Manipulation: The one fulfilling the prophecy cannot be manipulating the circumstances.

To this list I will add the following:

6. Historical Accuracy:did it actually take place as described?

Please keep in mind that I'm not suggesting these criteria; I'm borrowing them from a Christian who has a vested interest in proving the Tyre prophecy correct. So given his own criteria, how does the Tyre prophecy fare?

1. Clarity:
That depends upon the point of view:

(a) if you assume (as I do) that the prophecy refers to a single invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, then the prophecy is quite clear and is a success;

(b) if you assume (as Liviu does) that it jumps around between describing Nebuchadnezzar as well as a list of future unknown conquerors, then the prophecy fails badly on clarity - hence this long discussion and the need for a wiring diagram to connect verses all over the chapter in special ways;

2. Prior Announcement: uncertain- anyone wishing to claim that this prophecy preceded the invasion needs to show strong proof of that, since we already know that Ezekiel lived during Nebuchadnezzar's time;

3. Independence: succeeds - no reason to believe that Ezekiel caused this invasion;

4. Likelihood: fails badly - this invasion was highly likely and was widely expected to take place;

5. No Manipulation: succeeds In reality, #5 and #3 are the same criterion, just phrased differently; Dietz missed this - in any event, this should not be counted twice;

6. Historical Accuracy: fails badly - there are numerousstatements in this prophecy that simply did not come to pass

Given the above -- and using a Christian's own yardstick for judging prophecies -- I'd say the overall score for the Tyre prophecy is pretty miserable. I don't know why anyone would try to defend it, except that they were unacquainted with Ancient Near East history.

luminous

I will reply to post 331, but it will take me some time so I want to ask you another question I've had on my mind about this prophecy.

In post 42 you state that in Eze 29:18-20 Ezekiel is attempting to "rescue the first failed prophecy by creating a new one about Egypt". I also read Farrel Till's article on the prophecy and he stated that Ezekiel admits his Tyre prophecy failed in Eze 29:18-20.

I'm struggling to understand the reasoning behind the conclusion that Ezekiel admitted his Tyre prophecy failed. When I read Eze 29:18-20, I took it as evidence of quite the opposite - that Neb's attack was only one part of the prophecy. The reason I looked at it like that is because it doesn't make any sense to me for Ezekiel to admit his prophecy failed when he and all the religious leaders knew that the penalty for a failed prophecy was death (Deut 18:20-22). Basically, if you say that Ezekiel admitted the prophecy was false, he's admitting that he's a false prophet! It's certainly possible that he was a false prophet, but I think it's quite impossible that he would've admitted it if he was!

Sauron

Well, that's a fair question. Let's take the last part first, though.

Question 1: Why would Ezekiel admit a failure, if the penalty was death?

Maybe I can use Britannica to explain:

Ezekiel's ministry was conducted in Jerusalem and Babylon in the first three decades of the 6th century BC. For Ezekiel and his people, these years were bitter ones because the remnant of the Israelite domain, the little state of Judah, was eliminated by the rising Babylonian empire under Nebuchadrezzar (reigned 605–562 BC). Jerusalem surrendered in 597 BC.Israelite resistance was nevertheless renewed, and in 587–586 the city was destroyed after a lengthy siege. In both debacles, and indeed again in 582, large numbers from the best elements of the surviving population were forcibly deported to Babylonia.

So the chronology is:
1. Jerusalem surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BCE.
2. Ten years later, Jerusalem was destroyed in 587-586 and the royal/artisan classes were carted off to captivity in Babylon.
3. One year later, Nebuchadnezzar sieged Tyre in 585 BCE.
4. The siege lasted 13 years, and finally ended in 572 BCE.

By the time that anyone figured out that Ezekiel's prophecy about Tyre had failed (572 BCE), Judah and Israel had been destroyed. In fact, they had been destroyed since 586 BCE, almost fourteen years earlier. So Ezekiel's life was perfectly safe. There was nobody left in power in Jerusalem to carry out any such death sentence for false prophecy. Power had passed to Babylon, and the Jewish ruling class was residing on the banks of the Tigris Euphrates, where they had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar.

Not that I really believe that Ezekiel would have been executed anyhow; perhaps in the early days of the judges of Israel, but by the year 600 BCE or so the kings of Israel weren't following those laws very carefully, as evidenced by the frequent forays into pagan idolatry, etc.

And in fact, if you look at verse 26:2 here:

EZE 26:2 Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste:

This verse strongly suggests that Ezekiel's 26th chapter was written between:
(a) the 2nd destruction of Jerusalem/Babylonian captivity in 586, and
(b) the start of the siege of Tyre a year later, in 585

It almost looks like Ezekiel is telling Tyre, "Hey you - rich kid. Don't be so quick to laugh at Judah's downfall. Don't worry; your time is coming and is right around the corner. Then everyone will laugh at you instead." Now I don't have any hard evidence that this chapter was written precisely in that single year. But this specific verse is intriguing, when viewed in the light of the historical events and their relative timing.



Question 2: Why did Nebuchadnezzar's failure to take Tyre constitute a failure of Ezekiel's prophecy?

This is pretty obvious, I think. The text clearly indicates that Nebuchadnezzar will take the city and take its riches as booty for himself and the armies under his command:

Nebuchadnezzar only succeeded in taking the suburbs on the mainland. But all the power, riches and merchandise were on the island city. And predictably, that's where the strongest military defenses were. So the island has a city, strong defenses, and lots of gold and expensive merchandise -- no wonder Nebuchadnezzar wanted it. And no wonder that Tyre's destruction would have been a really big deal.

But why is this a failure? Remember that Ezekiel had predicted Nebuchadnezzar would:

(1) eradicate and totally blow down Tyre's military defenses; then
(2) take riches and merchandise as the booty from his invasion; and finally
(3) level the island city to the ground, as Nebuchadnezzar had done to Jerusalem

Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would succeed in all three. And to be honest, the smart money would have been betting on Nebuchadnezzar to succeed. The Babylonian army had been roaming around the Near East like a voracious steamroller, gobbling up everything in its path. Tyre *should* have fell. But then something unexpected happened: Tyre held out. Jidejian mentions Nebuchadnezzar's lack of a navy as a key shortcoming of the Babylonian military in this siege.

Anyhow, when Nebuchadnezzar failed on all three of these counts, Ezekiel gives us another prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar spoiling Egypt as compensation. But that prophecy also fails. There was never a Babylonian invasion of Egypt, either. Poor Nebuchadnezzar – he still hasn't gotten paid for his service. :thumbs: But as you can see, we have not one, but TWO failed prophecies here.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Liviu: Even if the Tyre prophecy did come true, what about it indicates divine inspiration? Historically, many non-religious people have accurately predicted the future many times. Why do you assume that Ezekiel did not write the Tyre prophecy after the fact?

luminous

Nothing about it indicates divine inspiration - by itself. But if there are 100 prophecies in a book and all that are verifiable come true, and none are demonstrably false, then I'd think even you would conclude there's something supernatural about it.

I'd like to point out that I'm not making the assertion that all verifiable prophecies were fulfilled and not one was false. I'm just saying IF. Until recently I've accepted the biblical prophecies without much questioning and have accepted superficial answers. It's only now that I've decided to take the prophecies 1 by 1 and do my own exhaustive research. The Tyre prophecy is 1st on the list.


I think in an objective analysis the assumption should be that Ezekiel did write the prophecy after Neb invaded. No sense to invoke the supernatural without evidence. But I don't put much importance on this question right now anyway. If Ezekiel prophecied that Neb would carry out everything in the prophecy, the question is irrelevant because only a fool would maintain the prophecy was fulfilled. However, if Ezekiel's prophecy was meant to be fulfilled through subsequent invaders as well, it gives him more credibility that he wrote it prior to Neb.

This is why I'm focused on determining what the prophecy actually said and whether it was fulfilled or not.

Johnny Skeptic

The only prophecies that make any difference are the ones that can be reasonably proven to have been written before the fact, and that can be reasonably proven not to have been lucky guesses. Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the norm, not the exception.

I do not understand your point. If Ezekiel wrote the prophecy after Neb attacked Tyre, then he had no choice but to claim multiple invaders. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest known Bible, and they post date the Tyre prophecy by centuries. Why do you exclude a reasonable possibility that Ezekiel did not write the prophecy, and that it might have been first made by someone else centuries after he died? You must reasonably prove the authorship and the dating of any Old Testament prophecy that you wish to discuss.

It doesn’t matter if it was fulfilled. Nothing about it indicates divine inspiration.

Even if God can predict the future, what does that tell us about his nature that is useful to us? Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too. If God can predict the future, how does that reasonably prove that he is a God and not an advanced alien? Why can't God be amoral?

lee_merrill

Well, this is the sort of problem that caused me to bow out, Liviu has a valid point, none of these are firm conclusions, "many nations" need not mean only Neb. I don't know why this point cannot be acknowledged, but it seems there is no budging on insisting that Neb had to do it all. But he didn't, and round and round and round we went...

Regards,
Lee