Blui

Hi people.

I have a few questions of some peoples interpretation of Isaiah's prophecy of Tyre.

Now i know there is one of Ezekiel, but i consider that firmly false that it could be true since:
1.Tyre is still around.
2.Credible sources on the internet detail that Nebu never destroyed Tyre (like Brittanica etc).

However there are some interpretations of Isaiah's prophecy that Alexander did destroy Tyre which they claim fulfilled the prophecy.
Going through the internet, i found it hard to read a credible site that explains Alexander's seige of Tyre and whether he destroyed Tyre and whether it was rebuilt in 70 years or not.

There are numerous sites, some just saying Alexander did destroy Tyre and fulfilled the prophecy, some said ALexander destroyed only half the mainland city and it was soon rebuilt.

So can anyone help me with reliable sources? im also willing to grab a book if its a text that is generally available in the library.

Cheers.

aguy2

The point that the 'nitpickers' all seem to miss is that the 'L/G of Hosts' swore to destroy the 'baby burners' and did. By the time Alexander destroyed the 'main nest' at Tyre, they had built a 'fall back' position called "New Trye" or "Carthage", and it took the Romans till 146 BCE to totally forfull the prophecy. The point being that the arm of the Lord/God of Hosts is long and strong.

aguy2

Doug Shaver

I am going to infer that the men who wrote the Bible were imagining things.

Jack the Bodiless

Blui: The "Tyre prophecy" was made by Ezekiel, not Isaiah. Here are a few references from previous discussions of Tyre.

The Farrell Till / Matthew Hogan exchange is a good place to start:

Farrell Till: Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled

Matthew Hogan: Till's Errors Concerning Tyre

Farrell Till: Hogan's Errors Concerning Pronouns

Matthew Hogan: A Straw House Amid 10-Foot Waves

Farrell Till: The Romans, Greeks, and So Forth

Matthew Hogan's capitulation

A few others assembled by IIDB member "noah" here (mostly to demonstrate Tyre's continued existence):
There is also Phoenician Cities, and Wikipedia on Tyre.

Alexander destroyed "half" of the city, and executed or enslaved as many people as he could: however, many escaped to Sidon by sea and returned later. I'll try to find references. Tyre was repaired, and the only lasting legacy of Alexander's conquest was the causeway he built connecting the island to the mainland, since enlarged by silting-up.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii, I'd like to revisit this:
bfniii, here you almost actually made a correct point, but the truth slipped through your fingers.

As I pointed out before, Hebrew doesn't have the same tense structure as English. Actually, it doesn't have a clearly-recognizable FUTURE tense. ALL Hebrew future-references were actually written in (what looks like) the past tense. But this has NOTHING to do with any daft notion such as "the reason why is because the prophectic message was considered so certain, it was as good as already completed". It was an inherent feature of the Hebrew language. The tense needs to be determined from the CONTEXT.

Isaiah 53 is NOT a messianic propechy, this is already clear from the context. And Ezekiel 29 was written AFTER the siege of Tyre: this, too, is clear from the context (it describes the aftermath). What's interesting is that this feature of the Hebrew language destroys YOUR claim that Ezekiel's "prophecy" was written BEFORE Nebby's attack: because the Bible doesn't say so, in the original Hebrew. "I will cause many nations to come up against you" would be written as, and would be indistinguishable from, "I have caused many nations to come up against you"... and so on.

So, not only was the book not COMPLETED until after Nebby's siege: there is no evidence from the text that the "prophecy" was originally MADE before the siege (except its failure). Were it not for Nebby's failure to actually breach the walls of Tyre and destroy the city, the entire "prophecy" could be read as a past-tense account of something that had ALREADY happened!

Blui

I always thought there were 2 prophecies of Tyre, one mentioned by Ezekiel and Isaiah.
'Look at the land of the Chaldeans! This is the people; it was not Assyria. They destined Tyre for wild animals. They erected their siege towers, they tore down her palaces, they made her a ruin. Wail, O ships of Tarshish, for your fortress is destroyed. From that day Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, the lifetime of one king. At the end of seventy years, it will happen to Tyre as in the song about the prostitute: Take a harp, go about the city, you forgotten prostitute! Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that you may be remembered. At the end of seventy years, Yahweh will visit Tyre, and she will return to her trade, and will prostitute herself with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth. Her merchandise and her wages will be dedicated to Yahweh; her profits will not be stored or hoarded, but her merchandise will supply abundant food and fine clothing for those who live in the presence of Yahweh'
http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...5/995isai.html

Thats what i thought, thanks for looking for references, and thanks for the other references you gave cheers

tellgryn

The problem with this whole topic is down to one point and that is the number of people that post don't understand how to read the Bible.

The passage in question is a two part prophecy, one dealing with Nebucahrezzar and the other dealing with the nations in the future that would come against Tyre.

Sven

No. The problems with this thread are:
1) that people come here making wild assertions how to read the bible without providing a shred of evidence.
2) these people fail to see that even creative interpretation does not rescue the prophecy from failure.
3) these people fail to read the thread itself which clearly states even more problems: an accurate dating of the prophecy is problematic; it's problematic to determine if it even was regarded as a prophecy at its time, a "navi" was something different than a "pophet", etc., etc. etc.

But thanks anyway fro playing.

Jack the Bodiless

Blui:

Thanks for that Isaiah reference. So Isiah made his own "Tyre prophecy" which contradicts Ezekiel's! Heheh.

On the 15,000 who escaped: reference here.
I presume that "Curtius" is a reference to the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, author of a biography of Alexander.

bfniii

an amoral God wouldn't care about creating beings for the sake of a relationship with them.

an amoral God wouldn't care to provide atonement or propitiation for said beings

an amoral God wouldn't care to be merciful to said beings

an amoral God wouldn't care to reveal Himself to said beings

an amoral God wouldn't care to provide an existence that has the end goal of betterment of it's inhabitants



because then no one would go to heaven. what would be the point of existence?



correct. the rock was the metaphor that referred to tyre.



incorrect. ezekiel/God weren't ultimately concerned with a physical city. they were concerned with the inhabitants of the place. i have provided several verses to jack that illustrate that point.



the book of revelation is one. the book of daniel contains some others. that's just a couple that came to mind immediately.



you're missing the point. tyre was a great, important city before nebuchadnezzar got there. afterward, it's influence was greatly reduced. the reduction was compounded by alexander's attack. left to it's own devices, tyre had become a shell of it's former self.



i think you are confused. nebuchadnezzar apparently implemented great destruction on the mainland. the island is where he stopped.



would you present that evidence so we can discuss it?



this source supports the fact that nebuchadnezzar controlled the mainland which means he probably did have horses riding down every street.



at one point, the jews/hebrews were everyone. people who were non-hebrews were people who chose not to live as the hebrews did. therefore, it isn't a case of God choosing certain people. it is a case of certain people choosing God and God honored that choice.



how do we know anything from antiquity is true?



i have answered this before. the logical progression of what you are saying here means that Jesus must show up for everyone, for all time. that's ridiculous. furthermore, how often does He show up, every day? every minute?



actually, i did in post #444 of the biblical errors thread. it was you who did not respond.



ridiculous.



and christians feel like they have evidence of God working in their lives today. it's just a different kind than existed then because we are now in the dispensation of grace because of the new covenent.



based on what? as i said in the other thread, there is nothing in life that you can use as a standard to justify such a statement. again, there is no "amount" of suffering because it is relative to the individual. there is no more suffering now than there ever has been because it just exists, period.



even if there were, it could be said that they were mistaken just as it was said at that time. therefore, eyewitnesses living on forever is not relevant to belief. they merely needed to witness said events.



to create the eyewitness belief in people. no eyewitnesses to those particular events would have significantly abated the ability to associate with the sacrificial acts.



no.



no, there is not. read my responses in the other thread.



it has nothing to do with embarassment and everything to do with your irrelevant, repetitious, already responded-to questions.



you can say "if" all you want but you would never be able to prove it no matter how many polls you conducted.