spin

If you knew the history, you'd know that the Greeks were two kingdoms for a few hundred years after Alexander, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. At the time Daniel was written the Ptolemies were rather weak, hence the foot of clay against the Seleucid foot of iron.

What you don't realize is that most of the latter part of Daniel deals with the same material. Chapter 7 has the Babylonian lion, the Median bear, the Persian leopard and the Greek elephant. Not strangely, the Seleucid Greeks had been using these elephants against Judea as can be seen in the Maccabees books. The ram with two horns in chapter 8 is the Iranian forces the Medes which were the first horn, then the Persians which were the second horn. Along came Alexander the goat with the horn between his eyes. He was unstoppable until his horn broke and he was replaced by four horns, the Diadoche, the four kingdoms after Alexander, the principal two of which were the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. Chapter 11 should make it simple for you when it talks about the king of the north (Seleucid) and of the south (Ptolemy). You can follow the history as told in the chapter with Polybius. And three times it has the same event of the temple sacrifice being stopped (by Antiochus IV), 8:12, 9:27 and 11:31.

All you have to do is read the book with history in mind. But I know this won't convince you because you think history is your enemy.


spin

spin

And you should notice that it is one "like a son of man". As it is you are falsifying the word of the bible. This means you don't understand it. Remember that the first beast was like a lion, the second like a bear, the third like a panther and the fourth like nothing the writer could name (but it was gigantic with long teeth (tusks), ie an elephant) and the one representing Judea was naturally like a son of man.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sugarhitman: Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander? Wouldn't that have been helpful?

If a God exists, and is able to predict the future, it is reasonable to conclude that he does not wish to convince people to believe that he can predict the future. If he did, it would be a simple matter for him to predict when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month, day, and years.

makerowner

Sugarhitman, you didn't respond to the evidence for Daniel being a 2nd century work. Do you know how Antiochus really died? Here's a hint, it happened after 164 BC, so Daniel got it wrong. What about the temple? Did the world end after "a time, two times, and half a time"? No, it didn't. The sanctuary was rededicated and temple worship continued for two hundred years. Did God/Michael destroy all the earthly empires and make Israel the ruler of the world? No. Every prediction that was to be fulfilled after 164 failed, besides the general one that Antiochus would die (which was guaranteed to be true eventually).
And besides, we weren't talking about Daniel, we were talking about Ezekiel:

(emphasis added)

Please note the bolded portions. Only one of these addresses the mainland city ("thy daughters in the field"); everything else is directed at Tyre itself, the island city. You've already admitted that the island city was not destroyed; therefore the prophecy failed.

sugarhitman

More qoutes of anceint Tyre. "Before Alexander the great 333 B.C. the city was built on an rocky islet 600m from the continent. The prophet said it 'arose in the heart of the seas'....opposing Insular Tyre, the continental city WAS BIGGER AND MORE ANCIENT."---Dr. Elias Kattar "King Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre to capture its trading rescources. His siege would last 13 years and would prove unsuccessful-although it was probaly around this time that residents of Tyre began to abandon the mainland part of the city in favor of the island city---www.atheism.about.com "The king of Babylon tried to conquer. He tried for 13 years but Tyre stood up to his attempts. It is unknown if the MAINLAND CITY was conquered with the residents taking refuge on the island or not."---www.mnsu.edu-Tyre. So the mainland was a city, Nebuchadnezzar may have applied an blockade against the island but he did defeat the mother city and subjugated the island. Ezekeil predicted that Nebu would destroy the mainland city. Spin keeps saying that Nebu failed to take island Tyre. That is because Nebu is predicted as attacking mainland Tyre because the weapons that are said to be used against Tyre were land-based weapons which would do no good against an island fortress like Tyre. Indeed it would be both silly and ignorant of zek to predict such an unlikely unrealistic attempt to defeat an island fortress with wheels, chariots and horses, no ships and no causeway. And it doesnt matter which part of the city was more important this is irrevelent to our debate. Which is Does Zek predicts Nebu as attacking the island or the mainland? Evidence prooves the latter. Whichever was more powerful or important really doesn't matter....because at the end of his siege Tyre was greatly diminished forever without that part which gave its birth.

makerowner

Sugarhitman, are you even reading anyone else's posts? I've explained at least three times how the prophecy refers to the destruction of both the mainland and island cities. You can find as many (unsourced) quotes as you want to try to confirm your opinion that the mainland city was more important or older or whatever, but the fact remains that the island city was not conquered (as you have admitted). Therefore the prophecy failed.

Please note the bolded portion.

That still means that the island city is part of Tyre; so if Nebuchadrezzar was supposed to tread down all the streets of the city, he failed.

Please note the bolded portion.

I agree. Fortunately though, you have no knowledge of what armaments or equipment Nebuchadrezzar did bring with him. And arguing that the prophecy is ridiculous is probably not your best bet if you're trying to convince us that it came true.
Nice try though. Please come back, this is fun.

sugarhitman

to makerowner: You are still confusing Nebu with many nations they are separate. Okay Nebu is commander of a multi-national force but his exploits predicted by Zek is credited to He. "HE will slay with the sword" "He will heap up a siege mound" "He will direct HIS battering rams" "He will braek down your towers with HIS axes" "His horses" "When He enters your gates" (which strangely enough is still standing after he supposedly destroys the walls, critics has confused walls with towers) "He will slay your people" And then He becomes They: "They will plunder your riches" "They will break down your walls" "They will lay your timber your stones and your dust in the midst of the water" He is Nebu, They are the other nations. And I thought you guys were scholars or something.

makerowner

You made me have to explain it again:

Everything in vv. 7-11 refers to Nebuchadrezzar even by your dumb logic that 'they' in subsequent verses refers to some mysterious other party. I would like to call your attention to the phrase "he shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field". We both agree that this refers to the mainland city. Next we have "and he shall make a fort against thee". How could "thy daughters" and "thee" both refer to the mainland city in the same sentence? It's astoundingly obvious that everything in vv. 8-11 is referring to the island city, as opposed to its "daughters in the field" the mainland settlements.
I thought you were supposed to be a literalist or something.

spin

I'm not allowed to say that the sort of position as sugarhitman's resolute refusal to deal with any of the facts about Tyre despite his having been pointed towards the evidence several times is underhanded. I guess it is not: it's just a willful disregard for anything that conflicts with his a priori assumptions.

Instead sugarhitman he tries to fathom stuff from the web (without even citing the page he got the stuff from).
The source writer doesn't know if the mainland city was conquered. (That mainland city, originally called Ushu, known from the Amarna texts was once requested from the pharaoh by the king of Tyre (EA 148) -- that's in a book, like Wm Moran's "The Amarna Letters", Baltimore, 1992.) It doesn't indicate that Tyre was not the island.

But who rejects that the daughters on land were a city?

Umm, "mother city"? Once again you are inventing. Faking. Falsifying evidence.

Umm, you are not reading the text. I even pointed out how you were not reading the text in a previous post which mentioned the grammar of 26:7.

Still refusing to deal with the text. Who was going to do god's work to reduce the island to a rock? It's explained in 26:7, "for thus says Adonai Yahweh, I will bring against Tyre... Nebuchadrezzar..."

This ridiculous claim of yours comes from the fact that you don't understand Jewish prophecy, which is not in itself about predicting the future but but to vent anger about present situations.

Evidence?? What evidence? You are denying evidence. Archaeological evidence, literary evidence, biblical evidence. All because you want Ezekiel 26 to be a prediction rather than a political rant.

Ezekiel has prophecies which deal with both the island of Tyre and the daughters on the mainland.

Now you are doing a little ass covering, clouding the issue, because whatever the reality, the prediction in your eyes must have come true.

Here's something else for you not to deal with. You've been shown the island of Tyre: where exactly was your fictive mainland Tyre? The real Tyre supported a fleet, as per 1 Kgs 10:11, so where were the ports for that fleet on the mainland?


spin

renassault

The "they" would not be there if this were a "dumb" reading. You simply can't be wrong!