dongiovanni1976x

I like to consider Biblical Criticism & History "more scholarly" than say the "Lounge" or "Free Thought and Humor" boards; and if someone just wanted a place to bloviate opinions without any substance, than by all means go to a message board where people bloviate unsupported opinions all day long. IIDB forums like this one tend to attract people who want to learn and share ideas- and quoting sources and supporting your opinions is the best way to foster this kind of learning as it allows others to go look the information up for themselves.

Farrell Till

Indeed it does matter, because Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would slay the "daughter-towns" of Tyre and then turn his military efforts against Tyre itself and destroy it completely. This has all been presented to Richbee in a verse-by-verse explication of Ezekiel 26, which he has completely ignored, but the fact that Nebuchadnezzar was unable to take Tyre proper shows that the prophecy failed.

Your opinion is wrong, because if Nebuchadnezzar did not succeed in taking Tyre proper and destroying it completely, then Ezekiel actually had it wrong from the beginning. I have already posted two or three times explications of sections of chapter 26, which show that the prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre. Here it is again.

Since we are discussing prophecy, I will make one here: Richbee will ignore this again, just as he has ignored almost all rebuttal arguments posted here.

As I have pointed out several times now, if the island "fell" in the sense of its becoming a vassal that paid tribute and taxes, then the prophecy failed, because Ezekiel had predicted that it would be completely destroyed and left like a bare rock, which would remain uninhabited. For the umpteenth time, here is the part of the prophecy that clearly predicted permanent destruction and abandonment.

As I have asked now more times than I can remember, is Richbee just unable to understand the meanings of words like laid waste, not inhabited, no more, and never? If tribute and taxes were being paid to Babylon, there had to have been some inhabitants on the island to pay them, but as any reasonable person who reads the passage quoted above can see, the prophecy was that the city would be destroyed and left uninhabited forever.

The prophecy was not that Tyre would become a vassal state of Babylon; the prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy it, make it like a bare rock, and leave it uninhabited forever. That didn't happen, so the prophecy obviously failed.

Once again Richbee seems to be arguing that the prophecy was that only the glory, wealth, greatness, etc. of Tyre would be destroyed, so I will challenge him again to show us where the prophecy said that the greatness of the city would be destroyed but that the city itself would continue to exist.

Excuse me? I never addressed Ezekiel 26 in total context. I just quoted above part of my explications of this chapter, which have been posted now two or three times. Richbee has yet to address those explications.

As for the "total context[s]" of chapter 27 and 28, I don't recall that they have ever been entered into the discussion beyond Richbee's mere cutting and pasting of chapter 28 (which he repeated below), but if he will enter into evidence explications of all or parts of these chapters, which he thinks helps his case, I assure him that I will respond point by point on the condition that he will agree to reciprocate and reply point by point to my explications of chapter 26. If he really thinks that he has a sound, verifiable case, he will accept this proposal. If he doesn't accept it, we will know that he understands that his position is indefensible.

I have snipped the rest of this, because the mere quotation of a chapter does not in any way prove Richbee's position. If he accepts my proposal above and then presents explications of chapter 28 that he thinks will support his case, I will reply to him point by point.

Farrell Till

I haven't been to Tokyo either or to San Francisco or to Cairo or.... Well, even Richbee should get the point.

The gods of Baal in Tyre, which Ezekiel prophesied about? Where did he prophesy about the "gods of Baal in Tyre"? Baal was mentioned nowhere in Ezekiel, and he didn't even use the word gods.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Ezekiel had prophesied that "the gods of Baal in Tyre" would come to naught. What would that prove? Like the Hebrew god Yahweh, they didn't exist, so what would be so great about prophesying that something that didn't exist would come to naught?

Richbee needs to heed his own advice.

EthnAlln

Actually, prophecy and prediction are not the same thing. Jeremy Rifkin, Rachel Carson, and other environmentalists, count as prophets. Their warnings are all hypothetical: "If present practices continue....". Most true Biblical prophecy, as in Amos, is of that hypothetical sort. Jonah, is of course, not a real prophet, only a fictional one, recognized as such by the Jews of the time when the book was written and by all sane Bible readers since that time. But notice that his dire prophecies to the people of Nineveh were not fulfilled. The Ninevites (?) repented, and Yahweh changed his mind, to Jonah's great indignation.

So, you can even say that Ezekiel was not lying. There was a tacit assumption that the people of Tyre would continue their wicked ways and be destroyed. But if they repented like the people of Nineveh, the prediction didn't have to come true.

All that being said, "biblical prophecy" is a barren, arid waste land, no better than the "predictions" of Nostradamus. You can find a dozen fits over a couple of millennia, for almost any "prediction." For example, when Jack van Impe was asked if the Bible predicted 9/11, he cited Revelation 18:19, which says, "And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, 'Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! For in one hour is she made desolate.' "

Seems to fit, doesn't it? It also fits Easter Sunday in Lisbon, 1755, when the city was destroyed by an earthquake. (Portugal had made immense fortunes from its merchant marine.) It also fits Rotterdam during World War II, which was bombed almost to extinction. It also fits Tyre in the time of Alexander the Great. It also fits..... well, make up your own scenario. I guess we can be thankful the USA was still rational enough in 2001 not to burn heretics to turn away the wrath of Jehovah, as the Portuguese did in 1755. (But give us time...)

Angrillori

Wow! That prophecy had the holy living fuck fulfilled out of it!

I imagine most prophecies only get fulfilled once or twice, that one sounds like it was fulfilled like a hundred times! Praise GOD!

Farrell Till

And this does what to answer what dongiovanni1976x said above?

And now Richbee is resorting to plagiarism. Compare what he wrote above to these opening lines from "Deconstructing Tyre" by Will Skiles accessible at http://www.loxafamosity.com/old_school/0200-01.html.

This is word-for-word plagiarism.

Now compare that to the next lines in Skiles' article.

Word-for-word plagiarism again.

Now here are the next lines in Skiles' article.

The only change that Richbee made was to insert [The Kingdom of] in brackets at the beginning of this paragraph.

There is no need to continue this, because we now know that Richbee is intellectually dishonest. I taught college English for 30 years, so as soon as I saw the polished style of writing, the improvement in syntax, the frequent use of transitional devices generally missing in Richbee's other posts, etc., I knew that he had cut and pasted all this from some other source before I saw his link at the end. Despite the link, this is still a form of plagiarism, because some who are not so skilled in recognizing stylistic changes in writing might not notice the link and actually think that he had written this himself. I suspect that this is what he wanted some to think; otherwise, he would have identified his source at the beginning and informed readers that he was quoting verbatim someone else's work.

As for what Skiles said in his article, there is really nothing in it that deserves a reply, because he showed his ignorance of history in paragraphs like this one. As you read it, please notice that he, like Richbee, doesn't seem to know the difference in prophesy and prophecy.

So Skiles is perpetuating the historical error of claiming that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to mainland Usu for thirteen years before he was finally able to take it, but this was not the case. The mainland villages were sitting ducks and were easily taken, but the island stronghold was something entirely different. Nebuchadnezzar could not take it, so he settled on a treaty and withdrew. Skiles indicated that he has bought in to the old inerrantist claim that the island city of Tyre didn't exist until inhabitants of the mainland escaped, went to the island, and "fortified a city." Richbee has now admitted that he realizes that the island stronghold of Tyre existed long before Nebuchadnezzar's siege, so I have to wonder why he is quoting someone who knows no better than what Skiles was claiming in his article.

Skiles also showed his ignorance in the final paragraph that Skiles quoted in his article.

We now know where Richbee got his numbered predictions, which he posted early in the Tyre discussion, but if he would like to defend the predictions that Skiles listed in the paragraph above, I defy him to do so. If he will take them one by one and present his supporting evidence, I will reply in detail if he will agree to reply in kind.

Farrell Till

And what problem is that? As I have shown by explications of Ezekiel 26, which you persist in evading, the prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would be Yahweh's instrument for destroying Tyre. He would "slay the daughter-towns with the edge of the sword" and then turn his military efforts against Tyre, make it like a "bare rock" and leave it uninhabited forever. He took the mainland villages, because, as the director of antiquities indicated in the quotation above, Ushu was overrun many times. The island stronghold, however, was something else, and the prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy it and leave it like a bare rock.

That didn't happen, so the prophecy failed no matter how much glory, wealth, and grandeur that Tyre may have since lost. As I have repeatedly said, the prophecy was that Tyre proper would be completely destroyed, an act that by natural consequence would have taken care of its greatness and glory. Richbee is trying to twist the prophecy to mean that the loss of Tyre's greatness was a fulfillment of the prophecy, but he has yet to show us where Ezekiel prophesied that the glory and greatness of Tyre would be destroyed forever but that the city itself would continue on through the centuries.

This is a syntactically poorly structured sentence, typical of Richbee's writing, which makes his plagiarism easy to detect. Anyway, he was here trying to recycle his claim that Tyre's subjugation to Babylon fulfilled the prophecy, but as I have said before, if Tyre became "subject" to Babylon, it could not have done so unless there was something there, inhabited by people, to be in subjection. Tribute could not have been paid unless there were people there to pay it. The prophecy, however, was that the city itself would be destroyed forever, and that didn't happen. The more that Richbee talks about the subjugation of Tyre to Babylon, the more he admits that Ezekiel's prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy it completely failed.

Who has denied its power, wealth, and position? The prophecy, however, was not that its power, wealth, and position would be destroyed but that the city itself would be made a bare rock and left uninhabited forever. If this had been done, then by natural consequence the power, wealth, and position of Tyre would have been destroyed too, but Richbee has yet to show us where Ezekiel prophesied that the power, wealth, and position of Tyre would be lost forever but that the city itself would continue to exist down through the centuries.

This depends on what you mean by destroyed. No one that I know will claim that Alexander didn't devaste the city and crucify or otherwise kill most of its population, but he didn't destroy it completely and leave it uninhabited like a bare rock. We have quoted to you information that shows that Alexander didn't completely destroy the city and its population and that he actually later engaged in rebuilding projects there.

For the sake of argument, however, let's just assume that Alexander the Great did completely destroy the city and its population and did not engage in rebuilding projects. How would that prove that Ezekiel's prophecy was fulfilled? As we have shown and shown and shown and shown you, the prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would be the one to destroy the city and leave it uninhabited like a bare rock.

Let me tell you something that's far more hilarious. That is a biblical inerrantist who refuses to admit that Ezekiel predicted the complete destruction of Tyre and its depopulation forever and that the presence of a city, complete with a population and commerce, now on the same site where ancient Tyre was located proves that Ezekiel's prophecy failed.

If you are referring to "current pictures" posted even by you, which show that the site of ancient Tyre is now occupied by a thriving city, then what are "facts" on display in these pictures that the moderator can't see?

If you want to talk about facts on display in pictures that you can't see, then what about your refusal to admit that pictures like these don't shown the utter ignorance of your position?






These pictures were originally posted in another thread http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...=1#post2369471
by "Sauron," who made the following observation about them.

With a little imagination, Richbee won't even need to rotate them to see the outline of the old island part, which is now covered by a city.

Will he now admit that he is wrong?

Will pigs fly someday?

Overkill

Woah, woah, woah, Richbee. Tyre, Lebanon is in your words a tiny little backwater with only a few Arabs in it? It has nearly 4 million people in it! Those are not the numbers of a tiny little backwater. Having nearly 4 million people doesn't mean utterly destroyed. Sure, the mainland was destroyed but the prophesy doesn't state the mainland of Tyre would be destroyed and made no more. It says the whole of Tyre.

dongiovanni1976x

I am not sure where the figure of 4 million came in here but according to the survey conducted in 1996 by the Ministry of Social Affairs, "the caza (region/district) of Tyre has 132,111 permanent residents… of which more than 30,000 reside in the city of Tyre.” (http://www.adr.org.lb/ENG/libansud_constat1_an.htm )

Farrell Till

You seem to disagree with him a lot. Why do you quote him if you don't agree with him? If you disagree with him in what he says that is contrary to the position you are trying to defend, is it all right if we disagree with him too when he tries to claim that the prophecy was fulfilled?

We don't want your opinion; we want explicated evidence that your interpretation of the prophecy (notice how it is spelled) is correct. You say that the prophecy (notice how it is spelled) was against "more than a physical city," so you need to explain yourself. Was the physical city at least a part of the prophecy? If so, what was the scope of the prophecy against the "physical city"? Was it not that the physical city would be completely destroyed, made like a bare rock, and left uninhabited forever? If not, then what did Ezekiel mean in the following verses?

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the prophecy did include predictions that Tyre would lose its glory, wealth, and power. It obviously included even more provisions that the "physical city" could be destroyed and the site left bare and uninhabited forever. Please tell us then how the prophecy could have been fulfilled unless Tyre was destroyed and left bare and uninhabited forever. A total destruction of the city would have taken care of its power and greatness, but destruction of its power and greatness wouldn't necessarily have destroyed the city.

You can't see that?

Where did Ezekiel prophesy against "the false gods--the Baals" of Tyre? I have already shown in another post that the words Baal and gods were not used in the book of Ezekiel. Is Richbee claiming that Ezekiel somehow prophesied against "the false gods--the Baals" without using either of the words?

But not all of them. He crucified many of them and took the others away as slaves, but he did not completely depopulate the island. He, in fact, assisted later in rebuilding it, but Ezekiel said that Nebuchadnezzar would completely destroy Tyre. What Alexander may have done centuries later is irrelevant, because if the prophecy was that Nebuchadnezzar would be Yahweh's destructive instrument against Tyre, and it didn't happen, then the prophecy failed.

I don't know what you are referring to.

Not so. As you have been told and told and told, reputable historians have recognized that Tyre made a rather quick recovery from Alexander's devastation and regained some of its wealth and greatness. Here, for example, is what Eerdmans Bible Dictionary says about its recovery.

The city, of course, could not have been administered from Syria if there were no city in Roman times to be administered. Richbee has apparently swallowed hook, line, and sinker the inerrantist claims about Ezekiel's amazing prophecy fulfillments that are being recycled without being investigated. Had he examined them more critically, he wouldn't be as confused as he obviously is.

Something that hasn't yet been mentioned in this discussion is Isaiah's prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed but only for 70 years, after which she would recover.

So Isaiah predicted that the Chaldeans [Babylonians] would make Tyre desolate but for only 70 years after which "her wages [would] be dedicated to Yahweh" and her merchandise would supply "food and fine clothing for those who live in the presence of Yahweh." When did this happen? Maybe Richbee can tell us.

At any rate, one prophet said that Tyre would be made desolate for 70 years and then recover but another said that it would be destroyed forever.

Which one should we believe?

Why not? If the prophecy was that Tyre would never be rebuilt, then why wouldn't that cover Greeks, Arabs, and anyone else who might try to rebuild it? The prophecy didn't say that Tyre would never be rebuilt except by Greeks and Arabs.

The prophecy failed, Richbee. Get over it.