mens_sana

Arnoldo, when Ezekiel is assessed by a historian, the book has no special status. It is no different than the Iliad. In other words, while you are investing "prophecy" with a special status, the historian treats prophecy as just a statement. What Ezekiel is doing, based on his knowledge of Nebby's history of successes, is making an assessment of the probability of Nebby's conquest of Tyre. For the historian, Zeke is no different than one of today's "talking head" political experts.

So when Zeke says the Lord told him that Nebby will take Tyre, the special status of "the Lord told me" is shelved for the duration and Zeke's contemporaneous knowledge of the political scene takes over. Zeke's "prophecy" is made before the event — and it was wrong, as he later admits, when he tells us that Nebby will ravish voluptuous Egypt (and Nebby comes back with an unused condom).

In the case of Daniel, special status is again shelved. The author's use of already extant heroe's tales sets the scene for a very accurate contemporary account of the military moves made by Antiochus III and IV, including Antiochus IV's desolating defacement of the temple precincts. However, the author stopped writing just before Antiochus IV's military "draw" at Gaza and death in the East, instead of in "his royal pavilion between the sea and the beautiful holy mountain" (Dan 11:45). The disparate time schemes, 3.5 yrs (Dan 7:25), 2300 evenings & mornings (1150 days, 8:14), 1290 and 1335 days in Dan 12:11&12 tell us that the author had to revise his figures (or that there is more than one tradition), possibly because Judas Maccabeus' reconsecration of the temple got delayed or didn't end the persecution in the author's opinion.

sugarhitman

The king in the Armana letters said that he was forced to leave the mainland by the king of Sidon (spin says that he "abandoned control" of the mainland city which is funny because that wording shows that it was a choice....but as he says in the letter he was forced from the mainland. Which also shows that he was on the mainland). On the island he said he would "die" because there was no water, no wood and no place to bury the dead. According to spin the king did not have Ushu before these letters, if not then how did he and his people survive on an island without water and a cemetary? Spin says that all these things were retrieved from the "mainland" (spin is being vague when he says "mainland" but the king is specific he says these things were retrieved in Ushu and not the "mainland" and that without Ushu he and his people would not survive. Spin says that this is his "whinged" to the king of Egypt to somehow trick this king into giving him Ushu by overstating his difficulties on the island. This makes no sense as the king of Egypt was in control of all these lands and was knowledgable about them. If the king of Tyre was getting supplies from other areas on the mainland such as water that enabled his survival would not the king of Egypt know it who was in control of these lands, therefore knowing that the king of Tyre was lying to him concerning his made up difficulties and his cries that he would not survive without Ushu? Critics dont think their theories through), But yet Spin has no evidence of this, and the letters, nor history says this. In the days of Joshua the city of Tyre is located on the coast next to Ramah another coastal city. It is a fortified city. The island was not a fortified island city until after Hiram. Before Hiram it was TWO islands. Spin in qouting the Armana Letters has unwittingly defeated the critics (thanks, spin) because it shows without a doubt that Ushu (Ushu, Uzu, Old Tyre) and Tyre are one and the same and are not independent of each other. Menander's history of Tyre was based on the Tyrian Archives qouting from their history of their kingdom, named the mainland city "Old Tyre" this name is also in the works of Josephus. Go to Google maps type in the search engine "Tyrus" the description of the city is "Double city" or the city that was located on both the island and mainland. Much history says the same thing....city on both the island and mainland...Ezekiel does not seperate the mainalnd city from the island....the mainland city was thrown into the "water" (note: not sea because the gulf of water between the mainland and the island is not the sea. Which is why Zek used the word water instead.) it was also scraped bare where fishers spread their nets on until this day. The springs were located on the mainland on the beach...this is the location of the mainland city that was south of the island city...and it is nowhere to be seen...never will it be rebuilt again...you can bet that. In the last part of ch 26 and 27 the island is foretold to be buried in the sea...deep under the sea. The destruction of Tyre cannot be done by the nations and God too unless it occurs at the same time....but if this were to occur at the same time, then how can it be a place for fishing if it is not there? It is very clear that the ultimate destruction of Tyre is by the seas....and that the nations were only to diminish her....which they did when they destroyed the mainland city. Don't let guys like spin fool you....this prophecy just like the ones about Israel and others.....are as real as it gets.

spin

Please try to stick to facts rather than display your misunderstanding of what I say. In EA 149 Abi-Milki says "I had to abandon it (Tyre)." Do you really have problems with that? If so, you might like to set the Abi-Milki straight.

You accept then that the king of Tyre was writing from the island of Tyre. EA 154 says, "the man of Sidon did not allow my men to set foot on the mainland to collect wood and obtain water to drink." Obviously, he was on the island. The use of the mainland is clear, not for living, but for getting wood and water. This should be simple enough even for you, sugarhitman. They left the island to get wood and water. EA 148 supplies more resources they collected from the mainland.

EA 149 tells you that Zimrida of Sidon "has taken Ushu" from Abi-Milki. Zimrida "has collected ships, chariots and soldiers to take Tyre...", Ushu has already fallen, but Tyre hasn't. (And why would Zimrida need ships if Tyre was on the mainland?)

Your goose is cooked.

Yup, there it is again: resources.

Now show that the people of Tyre lived on the mainland. I've shown that the island was where they were. That's where the king of Tyre wrote to the pharaoh from.

You what?

They got resources from the mainland.

When I recommended you go to a library to read the texts, it was so that you might know something about what you were talking about. Most of the kinglets whinged to the pharoah for this or that: "give me Ushu"; "give me 80 soldiers"; etc. because the kinglet was in umm, grave difficulty and is a umm, faithful servant. Please read the texts.

The pharaoh showed as little interest in the Levantine rabble as possible. Read the texts.

The self-irony meter just went off the scale.



It's too bad you can't even read your source text. Here it is (Jos 19:29):

And then the border turns to Ramah, and to the strong city Tyre; and the border turns to Hosah; and it ends at the sea; Mehebel, Achzib,

Note Hosah? That's Ushu for you. Get it, Tyre and Ushu??

Did someone see the evidence for the claim here? Or is it just more of the hot air we've come to know and expect from sugarhitman?

Umm, Menander is quoted by Josephus, no-one else cites the material. They, Menander and Josephus are the earliest references to "Palae Tyre". It doesn't appear anywhere before then. So, have you got some point?

Much history? Such as which primary sources? You have failed dismally to provide any sources in the months of babbling on the subject.

So the daughters in the field are part of Tyre? From as early as the Amarna letters Tyre was always the island. You have beaten yourself up concocting idiocies to try to make black white, but in the end you can see the difference.

Did you miss Ezek 26:5 and 27:32 on purpose? Perhaps you can transmogrify the text into lies to help you. Otherwise it says that Tyre is in the midst of the sea. And look at 27:29

And all that handle the oar, the mariners, and all the pilots of the sea, shall come down from their ships, they shall stand upon the land;

Obviously they can see from the land what befalls Tyre in the midst of the sea.

And what about all the houses on the island?? You have failed to show any time in the history of Tyre when it has been completely abandoned. Even after the siege by Alexander, the city was again sieged only twenty years later by Antigonus Monophthalmus. Tyre supplied the coins that were used as Jerusalem temple currency. The new testament tells you about Tyre. The crusaders were in Tyre. Get it? Never fully uninhabited. Never scraped bare. Prophecy failed.

The mainland city was Ushu, Hosah of Jos 19:29, clearly separate from Tyre. Tyre was out in the sea. Live with it.

Perhaps you'd also like to try to claim that Sidon was on the mainland as well, seeing as it is mentioned in the previous verse. No? Then stop assaulting the text of Joshua.

26:5 is not the last part. You're bullshitting.

A place for fishing?



Try to deal with reality for a little while.

Hey you are trying to peddle that god did a little bit two and a half thousand years ago, but the big fulfillment hasn't been done even now? That's called textual abuse. But hey, why not, if you can "unfail" a prophecy?

Real as it gets?



You've failed miserably so many times to resurrect this sorry excuse for a prophecy and there are just so many times you can clone something.


spin

DrewDiggler

What sort of people want these prophesies to come true in any case? Little wonder the blood lust of today's theists turns the righteous to more compassionate religions, or none at all.

arnoldo

Exactly, the skeptics around here insist that Nebby must have wiped Tyre off the map. On the other hand, Christians know God is merciful and wishes that none perish but that all come to repentance.

Johnny Skeptic

Obviously not. If a God inspired the Bible, there are not any doubts whatsover that he would be able to convince more people to love him and to accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will. It would certainly would not have been unfair for Jesus to accurately predict what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, which would surely have caused more people to become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

A loving God would do everything that he is able to do to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell.

All Bible prophecies are disputable. I wish to distinguish disputable prophecies from false prophecies. A false prophecy is a prophecy that does not come true. A disputable prophecy does not have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have failed to convince the majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be far less disputable than any Bible prophecy. In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies because that would mean that God needlessly creates doubt and confusion. You can argue that God has provided enough evidence, but you cannot intelligently argue that he has tried to convince as many people as possible to love him and to accept him.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Consider the following post that I made today at the Evolution/Creation Forum:

Please reply to my previous post.

juergen

Hi arnoldo, I had some questions for you regarding some things you mentioned in this thread http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=236135.

I'd be interested in reading about it a bit more, if you got the time. Thanks!

juergen

DrewDiggler

Sorry, but its theists that I observe drooling for the slaughter to begin.

arnoldo

Let them drool, Note Zekey 18

God clearly states he doesn't delight is anyone's death. Yeshua himself states that judgment is reserved for Tyre. Note Luke 10

Actually I'm glad the people of Tyre weren't wiped out by Nebby. Unfortunately Alexander the Great (who was part of the "many nations") didn't have much compassion on Tyre went he conquered it.