Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 12-15-2007, 07:10 PM

to makeowner: I will explain this one more time the mainland city is the mother city whether it was more important or not does not matter, it is the mother city. Both the island and the daughters in the field are the daughters of Old Tyre. Think about it how can old tyre be a daughter city as it is more ancient. Zek predicted an attack on mainland Tyre and its daughters in the field....not the island.

makerowner · 12-15-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

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.

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

I can, but I'm not in this instance. Why would the prophecy suddenly change between v. 11 and 12 from Nebuchadrezzar to some entirely different group who is never named? If the prophecy was for Nebuchadrezzar to destroy the mainland, and then for another army hundreds of years later to destroy the city, why wouldn't it say that?

makerowner · 12-15-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

to makeowner: I will explain this one more time the mainland city is the mother city whether it was more important or not does not matter, it is the mother city. Both the island and the daughters in the field are the daughters of Old Tyre. Think about it how can old tyre be a daughter city as it is more ancient. Zek predicted an attack on mainland Tyre and its daughters in the field....not the island.

How do you know that Old Tyre is the mother city? This is what Wikipedia has to say:

Quote:

"The location of the city of Tyre is not in doubt, for it exists to this day on the same spot and is known as Sur." (Katzenstein, H.J., The History of Tyre, 1973, p9) Tyre originally consisted of two distinct urban centers, one on an island and the other on the adjacent coast (approximately 30 stadia apart or 3.5 miles according to Strabo in his Geography xvi, 2), before Alexander the Great connected the island to the coast during his siege of the city. One was a heavily fortified island city amidst the sea (with defensive walls 150 feet high) and the latter, originally called Ushu (later, Palaetyrus, by the Greeks) was actually more like a line of suburbs than any one city and was used primarily as a source of water and timber for the main island city. [3] Josephus even records them fighting against each other [4], although most of the time they supported one another due to the island city’s wealth from maritime trade and the mainland area’s source of timber, water and burial grounds.

Can you find a source, with a link or a book title, that explains how the mainland was "the mother city"? (And no creationist or Bible studies pages, sorry; try history or archeology pages)

And besides all that, how do you account for this passage:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJV

[17] And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it!

(emphasis added)

The meaning is clearer if you use a modern translation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSV

[17]And they will raise a lamentation over you, and say to you, `How you have vanished from the seas,
O city renowned,
that was mighty on the sea,
you and your inhabitants,
who imposed your terror
on all the mainland!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NIV

Then they will take up a lament concerning you and say to you:
" 'How you are destroyed, O city of renown,
peopled by men of the sea!
You were a power on the seas,
you and your citizens;
you put your terror
on all who lived there.

Ez. 26:17 clearly says that Tyre is in the sea, ie. an island. Nebuchadrezzar did not destroy the island city; therefore the prophecy failed.

Leptin Resistant · 12-15-2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

You can see a good aerial view of Tyre here:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=3...&t=h&z=15&om=1

I suppose it all depends on how you interpret "you shall be built no more".

Gee I can’t see the “mainland a place for fishing which to this day has not been rebuilt” with all those office buildings and apartment houses in the way. Is that water park in the lower right where it hasn’t been rebuilt?

LOL
I've only made it through page 2, but the bolded quote above is great.

Jim Lazarus · 12-15-2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

At http://www.tektonics.org/uz/zeketyre.html, James Holding says:

Johnny, how long have you been trying to challenge and argue Holding into the ground about biblical prophecies? Wayyy too long, homie. You've been wasting your time, man. It's always been a waste of time talking to Holding about anything he wants to be right about.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-15-2007, 08:55 PM

Well, I have made the following post several times, and sugarhitman continues to refuse to reply to it. Maybe he will reply to it this time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

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.

If a God exists, and is able to predict the future, it is a given that he could easily have proven that to almost everyone's satisfaction long ago if that was actually his intention. Refusing to do that could not possibly benefit him or anyone else. The best conclusion if that if a God exists, he is not the God of the Bible.

spin · 12-15-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

to makeowner: I will explain this one more time the mainland city is the mother city whether it was more important or not does not matter, it is the mother city. Both the island and the daughters in the field are the daughters of Old Tyre. Think about it how can old tyre be a daughter city as it is more ancient. Zek predicted an attack on mainland Tyre and its daughters in the field....not the island.

I'll explain this one more time. This falsification of information of yours is derived from some misunderstanding of how one deals with text. You are performing eisegesis, so your conclusions are not derived from the text. Ezekiel tells you several times that Tyre is the island. You don't believe the text. You don't read the text for what it says. You don't accept Ezekiel when it makes the separation between Tyre and the daughters on the land. You fabricate "Old Tyre". You don't check scholarship. You avoid the biblical text. You have no answers to what I've said to you. If you are witnessing you are doing an appalling job. If you are interested in the text, you should try to deal with what has been said about it. Changing the subject is no response.

spin

sugarhitman · 12-15-2007, 10:12 PM

To spin and makerowner: "Old Tyre was built on the continent by the Sidonians, 1252. It was besieged by Salmaneaser 719 B.C.; and by Nebuchadnezzar, 572 B.C. It was taken by the latter after a siege of 13 years; but the greater part of the inhabitants had previously fled with their effects to a neighboring island, and founded the present city."-- Patrick Begbie, Esquire.

makerowner · 12-15-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

To spin and makerowner: "Old Tyre was built on the continent by the Sidonians, 1252. It was besieged by Salmaneaser 719 B.C.; and by Nebuchadnezzar, 572 B.C. It was taken by the latter after a siege of 13 years; but the greater part of the inhabitants had previously fled with their effects to a neighboring island, and founded the present city."-- Patrick Begbie, Esquire.

Who is Patrick Begbie? Link please?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herodotus

I asked them how long time it
was since their temple had been set up: and these also I found to be
at variance with the Hellenes, for they said that at the same time
when Tyre was founded, the temple of the god also had been set up, and
that it was a period of two thousand three hundred years since their
people began to dwell at Tyre.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-15-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The critics keep saying that the prophecy of Tyre is a failure.

What evidence do you have that the prophecy was made before the events? You ought to know that the very first step regarding debating a prophecy must be reasonably proving that the prophecy was made before the events.

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

12-15-2007, 07:10 PM	#161
sugarhitman Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: georgia Posts: 2,726	to makeowner: I will explain this one more time the mainland city is the mother city whether it was more important or not does not matter, it is the mother city. Both the island and the daughters in the field are the daughters of Old Tyre. Think about it how can old tyre be a daughter city as it is more ancient. Zek predicted an attack on mainland Tyre and its daughters in the field....not the island.

12-15-2007, 10:12 PM	#168
sugarhitman Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: georgia Posts: 2,726	To spin and makerowner: "Old Tyre was built on the continent by the Sidonians, 1252. It was besieged by Salmaneaser 719 B.C.; and by Nebuchadnezzar, 572 B.C. It was taken by the latter after a siege of 13 years; but the greater part of the inhabitants had previously fled with their effects to a neighboring island, and founded the present city."-- Patrick Begbie, Esquire.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.