Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 01-24-2008, 05:59 AM

Maybe it's time to actually spell out the failure of the Egypt prophecy. It is somewhat on-topic for this thread (unlike the Book of Daniel), because it's another "prophecy" by Ezekiel (author of the Tyre "prophecy") and follows on directly from the failure of his earlier prophecy against Tyre:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezekiel

Ezekiel 29:1-2 "In the tenth year, in the tenth [month], in the twelfth [day] of the month, the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt..."

Ezekiel 29:8-15 "Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and will cut off from thee man and beast. And the land of Egypt shall be a desolation and a waste; and they shall know that I am Jehovah. Because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it; therefore, behold, I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt an utter waste and desolation, from the tower of Seveneh even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt a desolation in the midst of the countries that are desolate; and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be a desolation forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries. For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the peoples whither they were scattered; and I will bring back the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their birth; and they shall be there a base kingdom. It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it any more lift itself up above the nations: and I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations."...

Ezekiel 29:18-20 "Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyre: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was worn; yet had he no wages, nor his army, from Tyre, for the service that he had served against it. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt as his recompense for which he served, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord Jehovah."

So, what actually happened?

Amasis II

Quote:

Herodotus relates that under his prudent administration Egypt reached the highest pitch of prosperity; he adorned the temples of Lower Egypt especially with splendid monolithic shrines and other monuments (his activity here is proved by remains still existing). To the Greeks, Amasis assigned the commercial colony of Naucratis on the Canopic branch of the Nile, and when the temple of Delphi was burnt he contributed 1,000 talents to the rebuilding. He also married a Greek princess named Ladice daughter of King Battus III (see Battus) and he made alliances with Polycrates of Samos and Croesus of Lydia.

His kingdom consisted probably of Egypt only, as far as the First Cataract, but to this he added Cyprus, and his influence was great in Cyrene. At the beginning of his long reign, before the death of Apries, he appears to have sustained an attack by Nebuchadrezzar II (568 BC).

Ezekiel was a false prophet. So why bother to try to rewrite history in the case of Tyre?

Sheshonq · 01-24-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Nope, there was no city called "Palae Tyrus" on the mainland at that time.

How do we know this?

Because that's a GREEK name!

The Tyrians weren't Greeks. They called their city "Sur" (later referred to by the Greeks as "Tyre"), meaning ROCK.

The mainland settlement was called USHU.

Later Greek names are irrelevant. And the dates of the building of the settlements are irrelevant.

Indeed. Red parts for sugarhitman:

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ne/019043.html

> In the specific case of Tyre (not mentioned in Isa. 20), remember that the city WAS an island, almost a kilometer from the coast. The "suburb" on the coast was called Ushu in Mesopotamian documents, probably the Hosah of Josh. 19:29, mistakenly called Paleotyrus by the Greeks. It was Alexander who connected the city to the coast in order to conquer it, in a huge engineering project.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-24-2008, 09:16 AM

What evidence is that the Tyre prophecy is a prophecy? The correct answer is, there isn't any. "Like a bare rock" is an absurd argument. That could mean many things. Regarding "the spreading of fishing nets," that was nothing more than wishful thinking on Ezekiel's part because he was jealous of the wealth and prestige of Tyre and wanted God to destroy the mainland settlement and the island settlement. The fact that the New Testament also speaks harshly of Tyre provides more evidence that Jews and some New Testament writers were jealous of the wealth and prestige of Tyre.

There is nothing at all unusual about kingdoms rising and falling. It would have been much more unusual if Tyre had not been defeated.

It is an absurd notion that with all of the other bad people in the world that God would pick on the Tyrians, AND take centuries to finally get even not with them, but with their DESCENDANTS. It is also an absurd notion that a loving God would punish Tyrians babies for the sins of their parents.

If God really wanted to prove to everyone's satisfaction that he can predict the future, he could easily have done that long ago, and he could easily do so today if he wanted to. The logical conclusion is that if a God exists, he has not tried to convince people to believe that he can predict the future.

Sheshonq · 01-24-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huguenot

The King is dead and the Kingdom of the Phoenicians is gone.

That applies to one race of people and one race of people only, the Phoenicians.

Yesterday when I read this I was stunned by the breathtaking stupidity of this comment. A sweeping dramatic conclusion, posted by a person who hasn't done 30 seconds' worth of research to support such a claim, other than reading a 4 page fundamentalist tract published by some no-name evangelist.

First, it is wrong. We know an amazing amount about the Phoenicians, from their writings, Roman interactions with Carthage, 3rd party references, archaeological digs, etc. In fact, we owe our alphabet to the Phoenicians, who were the fathers of western writing systems. Second, the Phoenicians did not become extinct, either - as the National Geographic DNA project has discovered.

Third, as for groups of people going extinct - there have been many groups of people who have gone extinct over time; to claim (incorrectly) that the Phoenicians are the only ones is easily disproven. The Seattle Times had an interesting article today demonstrating precisely my point:

Quote:

Language dies with chief

By MARY PEMBERTON

The Associated Press

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Chief Marie Smith Jones, the last full-blooded Eyak and the last person fluent in her Native language, died at her home in Anchorage. She was 89.

Ms. Jones died in her sleep Monday. She was found by a friend, said Bernice Galloway, a daughter who lives in Albuquerque, N.M.

"To the best of our knowledge, she was the last full-blooded Eyak alive," Galloway said.

She also was the last person alive who was fluent in Eyak, said Michael Krauss, a linguist and professor emeritus at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who collaborated with Ms. Jones for years in an effort to preserve the Eyak language.

"With her death, the Eyak language becomes extinct," Krauss said.

sugarhitman · 01-24-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

the historical accounts of Hiram building the island city by Josephus is derived from the historian Menander. Josephus used him as a source for this account. Menander also says that there was indeed a city on the mainland called Palae Tyrus....Old Tyre. Named so because it was more ancient than the island.

If that really were the name (see below), you wouldn't have a clue as to why Menander's text was called that. Now admit it.

Here is the text I quoted from Contra Apion 1.17 with the attribution from Josephus:

Now, that this may not depend on my bare word, I will produce for a witness, Dius, one that is believed to have written the Phoenician History after an accurate manner. This Dius, therefore, writes thus, in his Histories of the Phoenicians:— (113) “Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hiram took the kingdom. This king raised banks at the eastern parts of the city, and enlarged it; he also joined the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which stood before in an island by itself, to the city, by raising a causeway between them, and adorned that temple with donations of gold.

Umm, you notice no Menander? Strange that, isn't it? For some reason Josephus supplies the name Dius. Oops, well, hey, Menander says something in the next paragraph, some rather interesting information. Here it is:

And now I shall add Menander the Ephesian, as an additional witness. This Menander wrote the Acts that were done both by the Greeks and Barbarians, under everyone of the Tyrian kings, and had taken much pains to learn their history out of their own records. (117) Now, when he was writing about those kings that had reigned at Tyre, he came to Hiram, and says thus:—“ Upon the death of Abibalus, his son Hiram took the kingdom; he lived fifty-three years, and reigned thirty-four. (118) He raised a bank on that called the Broad Place, and dedicated that golden pillar which is in Jupiter’s temple; he also went and cut down timber from the mountain called Libanus, and got timber of cedar for the roofs of the temples. He also pulled down the old temples, and built new ones: besides this, he consecrated the temples of Hercules and of Astarte. (119) He first built Hercules’ temple, in the month of Peritios, and that of Astarte when he made his expedition against the Tityans, who would not pay him their tribute; and when he had subdued them to himself, he returned home.

Notice first that the text Josephus uses from Menander he refers to as the Acts (that were done both by the Greeks and Barbarians).

Then notice that when Hiram put the pillar in the Jupiter temple, the temple was already standing (on an island, Dius tells us) and when he built the new temples, he first pulled down the old ones. This means Hiram simply rebuilt on the island. The city was plainly already there. Now you have to justify the silliness of having invented an Old Tyre on the mainland when all the major buildings of Tyre were already on the island before Hiram.

It becomes entertaining to see how big a corner you paint yourself into with each new preposterous assertion. You now plainly admit that the island was built up at the time of Hiram, so you have a good match with the city "in the midst of the sea", Ezek 26:5, phrase that you admit describes the island of Tyre in 27:32. The only person you convince with this sorry game of hopscotch is yourself.

There were three questions in the last post:

What makes you think that at the time of Nebuchadnezzar the descendants of Hiram did not live in the city that Hiram built on the island, ie that Tyre was in fact the island?
What happened, according to the evidence, to the island city (which you admit existed from the time of Hiram) during and after the siege of Nebuchadnezzar?
Was this city on the island referred to in Ezek 26:3-5a as being in the midst of the sea?

Got any answers yet?

spin

The only thing mention as being built are temples and not 'buildings' and there is no mention of the famous walls either. There were also no ports on this island and no palace before Hiram. Hiram is also credited with building the Eurychoros the market place on the island. Why doesnt Josephus mention the walls by these sources? Maybe island Tyre was not a fortress, until after Babylon sacked the mainland. Which may explain why Tyre surrendered with its king being sent into exile by Nebby (so much for Tyre being victorious). According to some historians, Hiram built the ports and palace and walls on the island (some say ports built on the mainland). These could not have been there before, because Hiram increased the land mass by filling the shallow waters with dirt. These historians does not say anything about the walls or the ports. The building of these things had to occur during or after Hiram. And if the ports were not on the island then where were they? And if Hiram did not build the walls, who did? Menander (Dius history was dependent on Menanders) mentions Old Tyre he said that once existed on the mainland, Old Tyre existed before the island, the book of Joshua also mentions this city as being on the coast. It appears by your quotes that before Hiram, the island was only a place....for temples. :wave:

Sheshonq · 01-24-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The only thing mention as being built are temples and not 'buildings' and there is no mention of the famous walls either.

How lame. A lack of mention does not mean that those things didn't exist.

If you notice, the only things described were the things that Hiram improved, the construction projects he was involved in. It's a list of things he was notable for. If the buildings and the walls were in satisfactory condition, then Hiram wouldn't have put any construction effort into them and they wouldn't get mentioned as part of his list of accomplishments.

You really think there was nothing but temples there?

Quote:

There were also no ports on this island and no palace before Hiram.

Says who? You? Puh-leez.

Let's see your evidence for no ports and no palace. Especially considering that the people had to get from the mainland to the island *somehow*, what is your evidence for no ports?

Quote:

Hiram is also credited with building the Eurychoros the market place on the island. Why doesnt Josephus mention the walls by these sources? Maybe island Tyre was not a fortress, until after Babylon sacked the mainland.

Nope. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken 13 years of a siege to take the island.

Quote:

Which may explain why Tyre surrendered with its king being sent into exile by Nebby (so much for Tyre being victorious).

1. It was a draw - Tyre gave nominal tribute.
2. There is no evidence for any such exile.

Quote:

According to some historians, Hiram built the ports and palace and walls on the island (some say ports built on the mainland). These could not have been there before, because Hiram increased the land mass by filling the shallow waters with dirt.

1. What "historians" say this? No handwaving - be specific.

2. Your argument is based on faulty logic. Even if the landmass of the island was expanded by filling in shallow waters with dirt, that does not mean that ports and palaces couldn't have existed earlier, on the smaller piece of island that existed before it was expanded. A large portion of the Netherlands has been reclaimed from the sea by similar means in the last century. Yet their royal palace and their ports both existed before this recent effort.

Quote:

These historians does not say anything about the walls or the ports.

Which as we have seen, means nothing at all. The historians weren't trying to list all the features of hte city, only those features that Hiram expanded or built.

Quote:

The building of these things had to occur during or after Hiram.

Sadly incorrect.

Quote:

It appears by your quotes that before Hiram, the island was only a place....for temples. :wave:

Wrong as usual. :rolling:

Johnny Skeptic · 01-24-2008, 02:39 PM

Message to sugarhitman: How hard is it to make predictions after the fact?
What evidence is that the Tyre prophecy is a prophecy? The correct answer is, there isn't any. "Like a bare rock" is an absurd argument. That could mean many things. Regarding "the spreading of fishing nets," that was nothing more than wishful thinking on Ezekiel's part because he was jealous of the wealth and prestige of Tyre and wanted God to destroy the mainland settlement and the island settlement. The fact that the New Testament also speaks harshly of Tyre provides more evidence that Jews and some New Testament writers were jealous of the wealth and prestige of Tyre.

There is nothing at all unusual about kingdoms rising and falling. It would have been much more unusual if Tyre had not been defeated.

It is an absurd notion that with all of the other bad people in the world that God would pick on the Tyrians, AND take centuries to finally get even not with them, but with their DESCENDANTS. It is also an absurd notion that a loving God would punish Tyrians babies for the sins of their parents.

If God really wanted to prove to everyone's satisfaction that he can predict the future, he could easily have done that long ago, and he could easily do so today if he wanted to. The logical conclusion is that if a God exists, he has not tried to convince people to believe that he can predict the future.

Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander? After all, didn't God predict the future to strengthen the faith of believers?

Jack the Bodiless · 01-25-2008, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The only thing mention as being built are temples and not 'buildings' and there is no mention of the famous walls either...

...Why doesnt Josephus mention the walls by these sources?...

...These historians does not say anything about the walls...

...And if Hiram did not build the walls, who did?

Amazing. Blatant hypocrisy doesn't bother you at all, does it?

The walls of Tyre (the 150-feet-high walls of the island fortress) were definitely built by somebody, and it would have taken a lot of time, effort and materials. Not something that could be built quickly during battle with Nebby!

Yet you still want to pretend that Nebby actually breached "the walls of Tyre" on the mainland: despite the fact that NOBODY has ever said there were ANY defensive walls there, and NO remains of such have ever been found! (on the island of Tyre itself, the foundations of the walls still exist).

sugarhitman · 01-25-2008, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The only thing mention as being built are temples and not 'buildings' and there is no mention of the famous walls either...

...Why doesnt Josephus mention the walls by these sources?...

...These historians does not say anything about the walls...

...And if Hiram did not build the walls, who did?

Amazing. Blatant hypocrisy doesn't bother you at all, does it?

The walls of Tyre (the 150-feet-high walls of the island fortress) were definitely built by somebody, and it would have taken a lot of time, effort and materials. Not something that could be built quickly during battle with Nebby!

Yet you still want to pretend that Nebby actually breached "the walls of Tyre" on the mainland: despite the fact that NOBODY has ever said there were ANY defensive walls there, and NO remains of such have ever been found! (on the island of Tyre itself, the foundations of the walls still exist).

No remains of the mainland has been found period. Why? "I will make you like the top of a rock" was not said in vain. Think about it if there were two islands seperated by water, how could there be one wall around them both? The walls of island Tyre was said not to have any land outside them. If Hiram enlarge the island with the walls already built, then there would have been land outside the walls. Can any of you cite a source that says Hiram built the walls?

Herodotus who visited Tyre during the reign of the Medo-Persians (yes I said Medo-Persians spin) said that the priests of Melqart told him island Tyre was founded the same time the temple of Melqart was built. They may have exaggerated concerning the date, but I believe accurate when they said the city was founded during this temple. Menander, Dius and others says Hiram built the temple of Melqart when he was enlarging the island. It makes perfect sense. Hiram founded the island city. Menander (Spin qoutes Dius, but Dius works is dependent on Menander's) whose history according to Josephus is directly from the Tyrian Archives, says that there was indeed a mainland city called....Old Tyre. The old city of Tyre which is no more. :wave:

Johnny Skeptic · 01-25-2008, 07:22 AM

Message to sugarhitman: Consider the following posts from other threads:

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Just my personal belief is that prophecy is just as important after the fact than before the fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Why yes, but that is MY argument. The Bible does not contain one single indisputable prophecy that was confirmed after the fact. By "indisputable," I mean a fulfilled prophecy that at least 90% of the people in world would have have accepted. If President Bush predicted when and where the next hurricane would occur, and all of the world media let people know about his prediction, if his prediction came true, it is reasonable to assume that at least 90% of the people who knew about the prediction would believe that he knew in advance when and where the hurricane would occur. If he continued to make accurate predictions, pretty soon every mentally competent person in the world would believe that he was able to predict the future.

If the God of the Bible exists, he would easily have been able to convince every mentally competent person in the world that he is able to predict the future.

You are quite mistaken that God uses prophecy only as a sign for believers. If a number of Old Testament prophecies actually came true, surely at least one person who was not a Jew would have become a follower of the God of the Bible. Today, many skeptics have become Christians because of what they believe are fulfilled Bible prophecies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Although you [arnoldo] claim that is was the Jews' fault that they did not accept Jesus, if the God of the Bible exists, he could easily have prevented any confusion regarding disputes about whether or not Jesus was the messiah. All that he would have needed to do would have been to inspire Old Testament writers to write unmistakable messianic prophecies. For instance, Micah 5:2 says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." If the writer had said that the ruler would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom, that would have helped a lot. In addition, regarding the Pharisees' claims that Jesus healed people by the power of Beelzebub, if an Old Testament writer had said that the messiah would heal people by the power of God, that would have helped a lot. Further, if an Old Testament writer had said that the messiah's name would be Jesus, and that his mother would be Mary, and that the messiah would be crucified, and rise from the dead, that would have helped a lot.

Now those are just a few of many examples of where God could easily have prevented disputes regarding whether or not Jesus was the messiah. A God would not have any trouble at all preventing disputes about anything, including slavery. Jefferson Davis was President of the Southern Confederacy. He was a Christian. He believed that the Bible endorses slavery, which it does. Even if the Bible did not endorse slavery, God could easily have prevented Davis from believing that the Bible endorses slavery. First of all, he could have inspired Bible writers to write more clearly about slavery. Second of all, he could have appeared to Davis in a dream and told him that slavery is wrong. Third of all, he could have sent a tangible angel to tell Davis that slavery is wrong.

Since you are not able to provide reasonable motives why God undermines his credibility by making disputable prophecies when he could easily make indisputable prophecies, you lose.

Why haven't you produced any credible evidence that the Tyre prophecy was written before the facts, and was not revised? Ezekiel 26:5 says "It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God: and it shall become a spoil to the nations." That is easily explained by the fact that kingdoms rising and falling is to be expected. It was only a matter of time before some conquerer defeated Tyre. Ezekiel 26:14 says "And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God." Again, "That is easily explained by the fact that kingdoms rising and falling is to be expected. It was only a matter of time before some conquerer defeated Tyre."

Now how do you explain the fact that Ezekiel did not mention Alexander?

Even if God can predict the future, power does not legitimize authority.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-24-2008, 09:16 AM	#273
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	What evidence is that the Tyre prophecy is a prophecy? The correct answer is, there isn't any. "Like a bare rock" is an absurd argument. That could mean many things. Regarding "the spreading of fishing nets," that was nothing more than wishful thinking on Ezekiel's part because he was jealous of the wealth and prestige of Tyre and wanted God to destroy the mainland settlement and the island settlement. The fact that the New Testament also speaks harshly of Tyre provides more evidence that Jews and some New Testament writers were jealous of the wealth and prestige of Tyre. There is nothing at all unusual about kingdoms rising and falling. It would have been much more unusual if Tyre had not been defeated. It is an absurd notion that with all of the other bad people in the world that God would pick on the Tyrians, AND take centuries to finally get even not with them, but with their DESCENDANTS. It is also an absurd notion that a loving God would punish Tyrians babies for the sins of their parents. If God really wanted to prove to everyone's satisfaction that he can predict the future, he could easily have done that long ago, and he could easily do so today if he wanted to. The logical conclusion is that if a God exists, he has not tried to convince people to believe that he can predict the future.

01-24-2008, 02:39 PM	#277
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to sugarhitman: How hard is it to make predictions after the fact? What evidence is that the Tyre prophecy is a prophecy? The correct answer is, there isn't any. "Like a bare rock" is an absurd argument. That could mean many things. Regarding "the spreading of fishing nets," that was nothing more than wishful thinking on Ezekiel's part because he was jealous of the wealth and prestige of Tyre and wanted God to destroy the mainland settlement and the island settlement. The fact that the New Testament also speaks harshly of Tyre provides more evidence that Jews and some New Testament writers were jealous of the wealth and prestige of Tyre. There is nothing at all unusual about kingdoms rising and falling. It would have been much more unusual if Tyre had not been defeated. It is an absurd notion that with all of the other bad people in the world that God would pick on the Tyrians, AND take centuries to finally get even not with them, but with their DESCENDANTS. It is also an absurd notion that a loving God would punish Tyrians babies for the sins of their parents. If God really wanted to prove to everyone's satisfaction that he can predict the future, he could easily have done that long ago, and he could easily do so today if he wanted to. The logical conclusion is that if a God exists, he has not tried to convince people to believe that he can predict the future. Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander? After all, didn't God predict the future to strengthen the faith of believers?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.