Jack the Bodiless

Incidentally, mata, I'd like you to explain the part of your fantasy where Tyre "rivalled Great Britain in its prime".

Are you saying that Tyre, in its prime, rivalled Britain as it was then (half a millennium BC)? Or are you claiming that Tyre in its prime rivalled Britain in ITS prime (the greatest empire the world has ever seen)? So the King of Tyre was also Emperor of India in your universe, and ruled much of Africa, Australia and New Zealand, Canada...

Johnny Skeptic

In case you haven't noticed, historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the norm, not the exception. Such being the case, any predicting that a given kingdom would eventually fall would usually be right. In addition, why do you believe that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version?

By the way, I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. Regarding "even your atheist buddies won't back you up anymore," there are hundreds of Internet articles on the Tyre prophecy that were written by atheists, and every single one of the articles is opposed to the prophecy.

lostnfound41

You assume the date is incorrect. If it is then it could be valid. Can you provide evidence as to the inaccuracy of the dating?

lostnfound41

I’ve been researching the prophecy of Tyre. Many claim that the city has been rebuilt and therefore the prophecy is false. To my reading in context of the prophecy, it is talking about the walled city on the mainland at the time of Ezekiel that would never be rebuilt. The secular sources say that the island city was ‘modest’ at this time. I cannot confirm that it was walled, although I know it definitely was at a later stage. The mainland settlement relocated to the island once it was clear that Nebuchadnezzar was going to prevail on the mainland. Tyre had a massive fleet to defend the island and Nebuchadnezzar left it at that. It is possible that the island city fortified for further protection after that. I note that the walls were 150 feet high from one source.

The body of the prophecy describes in detail what will happen to the walled city. The prophecy doesn’t say the city of Tyre won’t be relocated or renamed, but more so that it will not be rebuilt on the site as at the time of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Or put another way if a city is totally destroyed and built on another location, can it be considered to be the same city simply because it has the same name?

Ignoring dating issues, the prophecy needs to be analysed in terms of the context of the passage.

Prophecy Summary:

1) What the Nations will do 3-6.
Destroy towers, scrape the dust, break down towers, and make her like the top of a rock (by implication scraped bare), a place for spreading nets.

2) What Nebuchadnezzar will do 7-11.
Strike in the fields, his horses will trample the streets, use battering rams against the walls, and with his axes he will break down the towers, slay with the sword.

3) What the Lord will do 13-14.
Via a summary of what the nations have done. In other words it was the Lord who instigated it.

Those with the view that the prophecy is false need to analyse it within that context as do those who affirm it could be true.

I have seen a modern day picture of the present city. It is built on a Peninsula not extending very far on the mainland if at all. There is also ample room for the original site of the mainland city at the time of Ezekiel to be located elsewhere and still be close to the island.

What do you think? I am only researching and would appreciate comments. This is inconclusive at this stage constructive criticism would be appreciated.

Colin Lambert.

Apikorus

Colin mistakenly distinguishes between the actions of the nations, Nebuchadrezzar, and Yahweh in Ezek 26. Here, as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh himself executes punishment by using other nations as an instrument of his divine wrath. The plain sense of the Hebrew is unmistakable:It is Yahweh who is punishing Tyre, and not "the nations" nor Nebuchadrezzar. They are simply instruments of YHWH's will. To artificially separate the actors here would be like saying that Muhammed Ali beat on George Foreman's nose, and Ali's fists beat on Foreman's chin, and his gloves did other damage still. It is all part of the same action. When Yahweh warns, "behold, I will bring upon Tyre Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, from the north..." (26:7), it is like Mike Tyson promising to deliver a knockout punch using his right hook. Yahweh's promise to bring an end to the sound of songs and harps, and to make Tyre a bare rock (vv. 13-14) can only be read in the context of Nebuchadrezzar's impending attack (though some of this may have been written after the fact, as a vaticinia ex eventu).

It seems to me that such unnatural, unnuanced readings as that which Colin proposes have one aim and one aim alone -- to rescue the biblical text from contradiction or historical error. We know, for example, that Nebuchadrezzar did not completely destroy Tyre. Indeed, Tyre was a significant regional center during Greco-Roman times, some 500 years later.

Boro Nut

So how do you tell if it's a bona fide prophecy? Couldn't it just as easily be a hopelessly inaccurate historical record?

Boro Nut

Johnny Skeptic

I did not say that the date is incorrect. I said that the prophecy cannot be accurately dated. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I will be happy to consider it.

You can't ignore dating issues. Even if one agrees that all of the claims in prophecy came true, that would not reasonably prove that the prophecy was written before the events, and that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. There is also the issue of even if the prophecy was written before the events, it is plausible that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's planned invasion by ordinary means.
In short, the issue of fulfillment is irrelevant unless the other issues that I mentioned are settled first.

Sven

If you are really researching this, you should first read the thread you respond to. Before doing so, it would greatly help if you also read the former thread on Tyre, in which all your points were already addressed and answered.

Jack the Bodiless

lostnfound41:

I am not aware of any evidence that the mainland settlement HAD defensive walls. If you know of such evidence, please supply it.

Generally, in towns with fortresses, the population retreats to the fortress when danger threatens. Thus, they don't need to maintain walls around the entire town (which then tend to disappear, if formerly present: an expanding town engulfs its walls and uses them for building materials).

Tyre had a formidable fortress with a well-defined boundary (the island coast) and massive 150-feet-high walls. These are the walls that an attacker would have to breach: the walls that Nebby failed to breach after trying for 13 years: the walls that the prophecy was rather obviously referring to (unless we assume that God was a trickster).

And Tyre/Sur means "rock". It refers specifically to the rocky island. The mainland settlement, later dubbed "Old Tyre", had another name.

Boro Nut

Well let's see if you can provide an honest answer.

If it was prophesied that a certain city would not be destroyed but only damaged, and would be rebuilt anyway, and it was subsequently damaged and remodelled using a slightly different street plan, and skeptics claimed that although it was on roughly the same location, had always been there, had been continuously inhabited by the inhabitants, and had the same city name, that it was not really the same city, what would your answer be?

Boro Nut