dongiovanni1976x

I still see nothing wrong with the assumption that if a city was leveled in the way described in Ezekiel 26, and it did in fact become a bare rock AND was never rebuilt or inhabited, as predicted, then wouldn't it still be a bare rock? What else would that location be if it was "never rebuilt"? It seems like a perfectly valid assumption and doesn't imply any "twisting" of scripture as far as I can tell. Please help me out...

Steven Avery

Thanks.
That was my concern du jour, hope the minions catch the drift too ...

Try to catch you Sunday. Peter Ruckman is in the area this weekend, never saw him, so it may be a little busy Any (nice, friendly) messages from Farrell ?

Shabbat Shalom

David B

Glacial landscapes where rocks have been scraped bare, or lava fields, don't remain bare forever, though they are not necessarily built on or inhabited.

David B

dongiovanni1976x

Thanks for the "drift" David...I believe I caught it now.
Seems so simple but I completely overlooked it.
Grazie,
Mark

Question still remains as to when Tyre was made into this "bare rock"...have we received an answer for this yet?
And I assume that Praxeus, unlike Richbee, does not deny that Tyre, contrary to Ezekiel's prediction, has been rebuilt.

yummyfur

Thanks Farrell
I had already checked the Babylonian Chronicles, Nebuchadnezzar's reign is only coverd till 593, so nothing about the Tyre Siege is in them. I have been trying to track any other references to this seige, I know of Jospehus, who was using a Greek and Phoenecian history when he talks about it. I would trust his sources better than the Bible.

Interestingly he doesn't mention Ezekial, which he is aware of as he does mention it in Antiquities for other reasons. This makes me seriously doubt that Ezekial's story has any historical value, Because if it didn't totally contradict his other sources, Josephus would have mentioned it, because in Against Apion and in Antiquities, he is trying to show that Jewish histories match up to to other ancient histories.

Josephus mentions other sieges at Tyre during the Asssyrian period, where he does metion the mainland being taken and Tyre surrenderding. But when he talks about Nebuchadnezzar's siege, he says nothing about taking the mainland, or surrender. Also his list of Kings of Tyre, continues on for Tyre, for ten more years after the seige ended, at this point they are replaced by Judges, this is roughly the time that Nebuchadnezzar dies. My guess is that Tyre didn't actually submit to Babylon until this time, though they probably had some kind of truce/peace agreement.

I have looked at the secondary source you gave, and like many I have looked at, they have no primary sources listed except fot Ezekial. Usually good secondary sources footnote all primary sources, and as of yet I've found nothing footnoted but Ezekial, and I've looked at some history books as well. Also Smith's Bible dictionary says the sole source of information of the siege of Tyre is from the Bible, specifically Ezekial. While Smith is not completely right, as Josephus mentions it, and is using other source than the Bible in his mention, though these sources are no longer extant. This seems to back up my feeling that the only source of info on the seige that can be interpreted as saying any part of Tyre was taken, is the Bible, specifically Ezekial.

Since the sole source for the mainland being taken at all is Ezekial, and historians have decided to create a speculative story(very speculative in my mind) based on there being some historical accuracy to Ezekial. While I can understand historians doing this, I have some issues with it that I might get to in another post, as they would be quite long. But with that said, as far as innerantists go, they can't use the prophecy to prove the prophecy, ergo this scenerio of Nebuchadnezzar taking the mainland, is not supported by any ancient sources, except their own prophecy they are trying to prove.

If enough people are interested I could right up why I don't think Ezekial should be taken as historically pertinant or accurate, and the possible motivation involved in it's writing about Tyre, and other states. But this would be a longer peice, and I'm kinda straped for time, If people are interested I will write it, and if this thread is not still going, I'll post it as a new thred.

noah

Praxeus wrote:
Farrell replied:
Farrell, don't give ground where you don't have to. Praxeus is playing word games here. Of course permanency is implied in Ezekiel's prophecy. What else can you read into the statement without adding to or subtracting from it other than a sense of permanency? It may just be me but when I hear God saying he will turn a city into a bare rock and that it will never be rebuilt, I hear permanency. I hear that Tyre will be a bald rock forever. The two statements are apposite and, as such, in my opinion, impart the sense of permanency. The state of being a bald rock forever is inherent in the "built no more" qualification. Is that such an outlandish leap? The verse is an absolute statement by this enraged God regarding the fate he has determined for Tyre. And as an absolute the statement, Tyre's fate, is immutable, is it not? How do we know it's an absolute statement? Because, number 1, God is the one making it. Number 2, God employs the words "built no more". "Built no more" is an absolute. That means Tyre's fate is immutable, it will last forever.
In addition, God gives us no further info about Tyre's fate. He allows for no other possibility here other than Tyre will be a bald rock and that it will never be rebuilt. No mention of geological or glacial alteration of this fate. In the absence of any further info regarding Tyre's fate, it seems logical to me to take the prophecy to mean that Tyre will be a bald rock forever.
If God turns a city into a bald rock saying it will be built no more, what other fate can the city have other than to be a bald rock forever? The sense of "forever" is reinforced as God elaborates on the fate he has planned for Tyre saying it will (only) be a place for spreading nets which only builds on the "built no more" and "bare rock" theme, rather than detracting from it.
In other words, a city turned into a bare rock by God that will be built no more, that will be a place for fishermen to spread nets on, will always be a bare rock.

Regards,

noah

noah

Praxeus wrote:
Sources? Proof?

Farrell Till

Any nice, friendly messages for Peter Ruckman? If it is possible for anyone to be more venomous and sarcastic than Robert Turkel, it would be Peter Ruckman. You might remind him that I am waiting for him to agree to debate biblical inerrancy. Years ago, when I was conducting a written debate in a conservative Lutheran paper, he challenged me to debate, but after several exchanges to try to work out an agreement, he wound up sending my last letter back to me marked "refused" at the post office.

Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com

Farrell Till

I agree that the idea of permanence is implied in the prophecy. I was just granting that the prophecy doesn't specifically state that Tyre would be a bald rock forever. By granting the opposition this, they will then be in the position of having established standards of interpretation that will not allow them to say that Ezekiel was prophesying that just the "glory" or "greatness" of Tyre would be lost forever. That premise is certainly not stated in the prophecy.

I agree that this was the implied intention of the prophecy. Let's assume, for example, that Tyre had indeed been scraped clean of all of its surface dust and had become a bald rock but that years or centuries later, it had become, through modern means of reclamation, a fertile farming area or a scenic park. Even though no city had been rebuilt on the site, I would say that the reclamation projects would be contrary to the fate that Ezekiel had predicted for Tyre.

Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com

Farrell Till

While searching for information about Ushu's fall to Nebuchadnezzar during his siege, I found an article by Richard Carrier http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...indef/4d.html/, which I highly recommend. I have long admired Carrier's work, and this article would be well worth bookmarking. Those who are familiar with his work know that he is a strong advocate of the application of recognized historiographical methods to the analysis of ancient literature. His article just linked to discussed three prophecy fulfillments that Newman had claimed. The Tyre prophecy is the second one.

Those who read this section will see that Carrier makes many of the same points that we have used here in our replies to Richbee. An additional point that he makes is that even if everything that Ezekiel had predicted had undeniably happened to Tyre, this could still not be considered an amazing prophecy fulfillment, because Ezekiel was a captive in Babylon and could therefore have easily had inside information about preparations by the largest superpower of the time to attack Tyre. The status of Babylon would have naturally made Ezekiel assume that Tyre was doomed to fall.

Carrier didn't use this analogy, but I think that it is an appropriate one. If some self-proclaimed prophet living in the United States in early 2003 had predicted that the United States would invade Iraq and completely destroy the country, this "prediction" would have been somewhat like Ezekiel's prophecy. The fact that this modern prophet was living in the United States would have given him inside information about U. S. plans to invade Iraq, so given the power of the United States compared to that of Iraq, he would have naturally assumed that Iraq was doomed. The failure of U. S. forces to bring about the complete destruction of Iraq would therefore have been somewhat like the failure of Nebuchadnezzar to succeed against Tyre as thoroughly as the prophecy had predicted.

We have already noted that Ezekiel tried to cover his butt in 29:17-20 by admitting that Nebuchadnezzar failed to take Tyre as predicted but that Yahweh was going to give him Egypt as a consolation prize. We could compare this to the way that defenders of the U. S. invasion of Iraq have tried to rationalize the failure to find the infamous weapons of mass destruction by contending that the invasion was worthwhile anyway, because it rid the country of Sadam Hussein and made possible the establishment of democracy.

People haven't changed much in 3500 years, have they?

Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com