arnoldo

Yup, the phoenicians are the ones that gloated over the destruction of Jerusalem and not the walls and streets. Notice the following from Ezekiel 26:2.."because Tyrus said against Jerusalem, Aha she is broken..behold I am against thee Tyrus."

deadman_932

Clure? I have a clue that you are cherry picking what part of the prophecy you want to emphasize while you ignore other relevant aspects. Ezekiel clearly predicted that Tyre would be destroyed, become "a bare rock and a place for spreading nets,' and would be built no more forever. By the way, the Phoenicians were not wiped out in 587 BC when Nebuchadrezzar attempts a siege, either. They continued to exist until Alexander comes around 250 years later. And the Phoenicians are still not wiped out, nor is Tyre sunk beneath the sea , etc. etc. Phoenicians at Tyre become self-ruling in 126 BC, for instance. The Phoenicians become the Carthaginians that don't fall to Rome until the end of the Punic Wars at 146 BC., and even then they don't vanish...so HOW the hell did Ezekiel apply to JUST the Phoenician peoples?

So what part of this did you miss, Huguenot? Should I use smaller words in case you only speak Flemish fluently?

spin

Not the Phoenicians, just some Phoenicians. It was against Tyre, which was a Phoenician city. There were of course several other Phoenician cities -- you know: Sidon, Byblos, Arwad, Beirut, etc.

And the separation of people from the city is another interesting contrivance to refloat a failed prophecy. Ooh, look Tyre still exists today. *lightbulb flash* It can't have been the city: it must have been the people... Yeah, sure. Read the text.

It seems you're having difficulties with your source materials again. Note, "she" refers to the city of Tyre, and "broken" are her gates. They'll destroy her walls and towers, "scrape her dust from her and make her like the top of a rock".

Did you read that stuff? I'm sure you did before someone put this silly idea into your head, now with the failure of the prophecy looming more apparent in your eyes, you'll clutch at any straws to try to bolster you before the inevitable grinding failure.


spin

spin

No, just bigger fonts.


npis

Sheshonq

I agree that you are in a bind, and are trying to avoid facing the reality that history and archaeology contradict your bible.

And of course, I'm not about to let you derail that point by dragging up tangents. I used to think you did it by accident. But after watching you for a week or so I think it's clear to everyone that you do it deliberately whenever you get cornered like a cockroach.

Sheshonq

It's arnoldo's attempt at a face-saving tangent. Not a very subtle attempt, though.

Sheshonq

In which case it still fails. Either way, it's a dead end for the prophecy.

Sheshonq

No, Nebuchadnezzar was THE agent of destruction.

It most certainly does. It specifically names Nebuchadnezzar and the armies of Babylon as the agent of destruction.

Empires rise and fall all the time. No big bonus points for you there. The problem is that Phoenician Tyre did not fall as a result of this prophecy, or Nebuchadnezzar. (In point of fact, it didn't "fall" anyhow; more like grew smaller). Now, however, it's a bustling small city of 100,000 people.

All that "sounds familiar" is your repetition of mistakes that have already been refuted. As I said earlier: New York City is also a fishing port; that doesn't mean that fishing is what NYC is known for. Nor does it mean that is the primary business there, either. Hopefully you can see the gaping flaw in your argument without needing it spelled out now.

Yah, you said that last time. I shot it down in flames. You failed to respond.

No it wasn't.

No, they do not. What utter hogwash.

That explaisn it. You never finished high school.

History says otherwise.

Not at all.

Also incorrect. I don't normally bother to do research to refute fundies who simply make stuff up like you have clearly done, but I'll make an exception this time to show the audience just how full of bullshit your claims are. Britannica:


So instead of the Phoenician language "dying out within a century or two" (your homemade claim), we see that Phoenician language was spoken for almost 800 years longer than that; until the 6th century AD.

That's the problem with fundamentalists: they see no problems with lying for Jesus. That's why skeptics have higher moral and ethical standards.

Except that the claims you made are contradicted by history and archaeology. Other than that, it's a fitting claim. :Cheeky:

Jack the Bodiless

Huguenot: as others have pointed out, repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true.

Incidentally, why don't you have a crack at Ezekiel's failed "Egypt prophecy", which proves conclusively that Ezekiel was a false prophet, independently of the Tyre issue (which you don't seem to be able to handle)?

Arnoldo and sugarhitman have both tried and failed. Sugarhitman even created a thread for this, 40 year Desolation of Egypt Past or Future?: but unfortunately he seems to suffer from a form of selective word-blindness which makes him unable to read the words "Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon".

knotted paragon

Hmmm, this certainly does seem reminiscent of Richbee's posts, even the same oversized text with the same repeatedly refuted assertions.

This new 'Huguenot' poster apparently has some issues with Farrell Till - and no wonder, given how completely, embarrassingly, these lame assertions were flattened in that thread.

Well 'Huguenot', Farrell Till answered this in 2006. It seems like somebody is still smarting over that shellacking.