Toto

A reminder: Please do not quote excessive material, especially where quotes of quotes do not identify the original poster.

Also, we discourage one-line responses, especially those that can be classified as either preaching or boasting.

Thanks for your attention to this.

Toto

Sheshonq

Sometimes even the lobster doesn't know that it's being boiled.

sugarhitman

*Actually this prophecy is accurate...coming soon*

makerowner

First, you need to figure out how to use quote tags, because it makes your posts hard to follow when you don't. I've fixed them for you.
Second, repeating your assertions isn't proof. The 'bare spot' isn't bare, it's a protected archaeological site with Roman ruins on it (Roman as in "after Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander came through"). The fact that Ezekiel was ignorant of military tactics doesn't mean that the siege never happened. Nebuchadrezzar was there for 13 years, so it obviously wasn't the mainland that was resisting him. Mainland Tyre is definitely not gone as any satellite photo will show. Several have been provided both in this thread and in the previous one on the same subject; perhaps you'd like to take a look at them.
Finally, even Ezekiel knew the prophecy had failed: "Son of man, Nebuchadrez'zar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had performed against it." (Ez. 29:18 RSV)

Sheshonq

No. it was an island city, with a mainland colony.

Wrong.

That spot is not bare. See the aerial photo.


Who cares if the bible missed it? (In point of fact, it did not miss it, as I mentioned earlier:

> 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.

Maybe red text will help you to see it. God knows nothing else has worked.

2. "Tyre" comes from the word Sur, meaning "rock". Tyre is not a Greek word.


It doesn't say "mainland". It says ALL. Stop twisting the text just to suit your purposes.

1. You have presented no evidence of Babylon having only land-based weapons.
2. You have also failed to present evidence for a lack of naval power.
3. Finally, you have failed to explain why Nebuchadnezzar would spend months and lots of money to march his army against an island city-state, and arrive without a way to attack it.

These are the same holes in your argument that I've been presenting for at least a week. They aren't going away, just because you lack the intellectual horsepower or integrity to respond.

That isn't what the prophecy claimed. The prophecy said that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy ALL of Tyre during his invasion.

No, it isn't - as the aerial photo shows.

sugarhitman

Ezekiel has Nebby destroying only the towars, making a breach (not destroying) in the walls then entering the gates, causing the walls to shake. This shows that the walls are still standing. Because one cannot enter through the gates if it is not standing. And walls cannot shake if they are not standing. verse 9-10. Verse 12 has THEY the other nations actually destroying the walls. This cannot be Nebby because that would be a contradiction. And you cannot ride through a city that had walls with no land outside of them unless there was a causeway. There was none during Nebby's siege. If the Tyrians had such a fortress during Nebby's siege which was impregnable during the days of Alex why did they surrender and allow their king to be taken? Why did they pay tribute for 70 years? Critics call this a draw. Well it has to be the worst draw in history of warefare for the Tyrians. If Island Tyre had always been an island fortress as some critics argue, how did they conquer or subjugate such a city? Alexander had to invent ships with battering rams to damage the walls. There was up to that moment no such ships. History does not say that Hiram built the walls, because if he did then those nations who had subjugated Tyre would have had to do what Alex did or somethig similier. Were the walls built during the Medo-Persian Empire? Isaiah does say that after the 70 rule of Babylon Tyre would once again become a great power, which happened during Medo-Persia. Critics says that Nebby was supposed to completely destroy Tyre. But in later verses God says the city will not be uninhabited or desolate until it is brought down into the pit. Chapter 27 of Ezekiel says that "all your men of war that are in you, and all your company which is in the midst of you, SHALL FALL INTO THE MIDST OF THE SEAS IN THE DAY OF YOUR RUIN" "In the time WHEN YOU SHALL BE **BROKEN BY THE SEAS**(OR DESTROYED BY THE SEAS) IN THE *DEPTHS* OF THE *WATERS* YOUR MERCHANDISE AND ALL YOUR COMPANY IN THE MIDST OF YOU SHALL FALL (THAT IS INTO THE SEA. Now go back to ch.26 "When I shall make you a DESOLATE CITY like the cities that are NOT INHABITED; when I shall bring UP THE DEEP UPON YOU, and GREAT WATERS SHALL COVER YOU." This without a doubt proves that Nebby is not to destroy Tyre. And the fact that one judgement calls for Tyre being a bare rock to spread fish nets UPON (not over, ON) and another to be buried under the sea with neither inhabitant nor any longer even existing (the land is not to even exist) shows that these are two different locations. Because, I repeat, you cannot spread nets on top of a rock....that is buried under the sea. Adios

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, after the fact, or after he learned about Nebuchanezzar's plans to invade Tyre from another human, not from God.

Obviously because Nebuchadnezzar was bothering them, but those events would have taken place with or without the Tyre prophecy.

You are not making any sense. 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?

Sheshonq

Wrong. Breaching the wall *IS* destroying it. Unless you believe that the battering rams failed to knock down the walls at all, then the walls would have been breached and destroyed.

Once breached, it isn't necessary to go around and knock down every square foot of the wall; all the conqueror needs is one or two big holes in the wall, and then the army comes pouring through.


Wrong. Verse 12 refers back to the Babylonian army as they pour into the city. Read it in context:

0"Because of the multitude of his (M)horses, the dust raised by them will cover you; your walls will (N)shake at the noise of cavalry and wagons and chariots when he (O)enters your gates as men enter a city that is breached.

11"With the hoofs of his (P)horses he will trample all your streets He will slay your people with the sword; and your strong pillars will (Q)come down to the ground.

12"Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your (R)merchandise, (S)break down your walls and destroy your (T)pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris (U)into the water.

Also wrong.

(Not that a contradiction ever stopped Ezekiel anyhow.)

You haven't proven no land outside yet.

Because both sides had worn themselves down and some kind of honorable truce was needed. Nebuchadnezzar couldn't take the city, but the city wasn't making any money, either and it was losing its power and influence. Nebuchadnezzar couldn't accept a defeat, so they settled on something that was in-between: nominal tribute.

Only because you're grossly ignorant and uninformed on history.

They didn't conquer it. They isolated it and wore it down.

Laughably incorrect. Alexander invented no such thing. Why do you make stuff up like that?

Sheshonq

It's the same thing. I can't believe you think that playing word tricks is going to rescue your busted argument here. Not that it matters; the literal translation doesn't use UPON or OVER or ON:

5A spreading place of nets she is in the midst of the sea, For I -- I have spoken -- an affirmation of the Lord Jehovah, And she hath been for a spoil to nations.
[...]
14And I have given thee up for a clear place of a rock, A spreading-place of nets thou art, Thou art not built up any more, For I, Jehovah, I have spoken, An affirmation of the Lord Jehovah.


If you thought you could hang your argument upon a preposition, you are seriously deluded.

That's not what the text says:

5'She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,' declares the Lord GOD, 'and she will become (G)spoil for the nations.

All that proves is that Ezekiel was using poetic imagery.

Johnny Skeptic

No, a loving, rational God would never inspire disputable prophecies when he could inspire indisputable prophecies. He would know that inspiring disputable prophecies would needlessly invite dissent instead of discouraging dissent, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander? Wouldn't that have helped to strengthen the faith of Jews and Christians?

A God would not have any trouble at all providing skeptics with the evidence that they need in order to make the best-iniformed decisions. Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Evidence like that would be very helpful today.

"O ye of little faith" contradicts the many miracles that Jesus and the disciples supposedly performed. Jesus supposedly criticized Thomas for wanting tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet Jesus was perfectly willing to perform miracles for some stubborn skeptics who were not convinced by his words alone.