Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshonq · 01-29-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Uh, wrong. If you think the people had fled the island, then (a) who was defending the mainland suburb and (b) why would Nebuchadnezzar have been assautling an empty suburb colony anyhow?

Except that Ezekiel states Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Tyre, not Alexander.

Wrong again.

No, it's quite correct. From my own paper on the topic, which addresses and refutes your rather lame citation:

Quote:

The promised punishment (of many nations) is found in verse 3. After enumerating in verses 4, 5 and 6 all the specific destructive acts that these ‘nations’ will do, we see a change of focus in verse 7. In that verse, Ezekiel tells us the “how” behind the destruction, the mechanism by which it is to come about. Note the phraseology, “For thus said the Lord GOD; Behold I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon”. After telling the audience what terrible things will take place, then Ezekiel explains how it all is going to happen. By use of the word "Behold", Ezekiel (claiming to speak for the Hebrew god) is saying "Look and see; this is how I will do all that I have previously said." And it is at this point that Ezekiel explains that Nebuchadnezzar is the divinely chosen instrument who will carry out this destruction summarized in verses 3-6. Notice carefully the following:

In v.4, Ezekiel says that the “many nations" will:
(1) destroy the walls and
(2) break down the towers of Tyre.

Yet, a few verses later in the reiteration found in v.9, we find that Nebuchadnezzar and his armies are specifically mentioned as the ones who will:
(1) destroy the walls and
(2) break down the towers of Tyre.

So by comparing these verses, we see that both “many nations” and “Nebuchadnezzar” are doing the same actions. By assigning the same destructive actions to both "many nations" (in v.4) and also to Nebuchadnezzar (in v.9), Ezekiel thus does not differentiate between the two terms at all. They are the one and the same to Ezekiel. The second verse reiterates, and amplifies the first one. It is not a different actor; it is more detail on the same actor: Nebuchadnezzar and his armies.

All well and good. But this idea of a second, more detailed pronouncement that reiterates and amplifies the first one - - is it merely my own idea, or is there some other authority for it?

Rabbi Moshe Eisemann, writing in Yechezkel: The Book of Ezekiel, indicates much the same:

7-14: These verses seem to form a separate prophecy. According to the Masorah, they are a [Hebrew word], division, by themselves. Furthermore, they address Tyre in the second person whereas verses 1-6 were in the third person. Verse 7 [first Hebrew word of v.7] and verse 14 [first Hebrew word of v.14] are introductory and concluding statements, respectively.

This explains the almost verbatim repetition of a number of phrases (v.8 parallels v.6; v. 12 parallels v.4; and v.14 parallels vs.4-5); this new prophecy, directed at Tyre, utilized many of the thoughts expressed in the earlier prophecy about Tyre.

The word [Hebrew word] for, which introduces this passage would imply that the second prophecy is an explanation and elaboration of the first.

[bolding in the original; red font added for emphasis]

arnoldo · 01-29-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Wrong again.

No, it's quite correct. From my own paper on the topic:

Quote:

The promised punishment (of many nations) is found in verse 3. After enumerating in verses 4, 5 and 6 all the specific destructive acts that these ‘nations’ will do, we see a change of focus in verse 7. In that verse, Ezekiel tells us the “how” behind the destruction, the mechanism by which it is to come about. Note the phraseology, “For thus said the Lord GOD; Behold I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon”. After telling the audience what terrible things will take place, then Ezekiel explains how it all is going to happen. By use of the word "Behold", Ezekiel (claiming to speak for the Hebrew god) is saying "Look and see; this is how I will do all that I have previously said." And it is at this point that Ezekiel explains that Nebuchadnezzar is the divinely chosen instrument who will carry out this destruction summarized in verses 3-6. Notice carefully the following:

In v.4, Ezekiel says that the “many nations" will:
(1) destroy the walls and
(2) break down the towers of Tyre.

Yet, a few verses later in the reiteration found in v.9, we find that Nebuchadnezzar and his armies are specifically mentioned as the ones who will:
(1) destroy the walls and
(2) break down the towers of Tyre.

So by comparing these verses, we see that both “many nations” and “Nebuchadnezzar” are doing the same actions. By assigning the same destructive actions to both "many nations" (in v.4) and also to Nebuchadnezzar (in v.9), Ezekiel thus does not differentiate between the two terms at all. They are the one and the same to Ezekiel. The second verse reiterates, and amplifies the first one. It is not a different actor; it is more detail on the same actor: Nebuchadnezzar and his armies.

All well and good. But this idea of a second, more detailed pronouncement that reiterates and amplifies the first one - - is it merely my own idea, or is there some other authority for it?

Rabbi Moshe Eisemann, writing in Yechezkel: The Book of Ezekiel, indicates much the same:

7-14: These verses seem to form a separate prophecy. According to the Masorah, they are a [Hebrew word], division, by themselves. Furthermore, they address Tyre in the second person whereas verses 1-6 were in the third person. Verse 7 [first Hebrew word of v.7] and verse 14 [first Hebrew word of v.14] are introductory and concluding statements, respectively.

This explains the almost verbatim repetition of a number of phrases (v.8 parallels v.6; v. 12 parallels v.4; and v.14 parallels vs.4-5); this new prophecy, directed at Tyre, utilized many of the thoughts expressed in the earlier prophecy about Tyre.

The word [Hebrew word] for, which introduces this passage would imply that the second prophecy is an explanation and elaboration of the first.

[bolding in the original; red font added for emphasis]

You do understand that Nebby conquered Tyre on the mainland and Alexander conquered Tyre of the Island right?

Sheshonq · 01-29-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

And how would you know if he was wrong or not?

Historical evidence.

But you've presented none.

Quote:

A mighty fortress island was surrounded by a pool of water?:huh:

Yep. So?

Quote:

Didn't tyre send SHIPS amongst the nations and thereby gain it's wealth?:huh:

Yep. So?

Your question is another in a series of questions showing that you don't know anything about the city. Tyre's two active ports (the Egyptian and Sidonian) were on sides of the island facing *away* from the mainland, where the water was deep enough for merchant ships.

The east side of the island, the one facing towards the mainland - where the mole was built - was much more shallow.

Sheshonq · 01-29-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

No, it's quite correct. From my own paper on the topic:

You do understand that Nebby conquered Tyre on the mainland and Alexander conquered Tyre of the Island right?

*sigh*

I understand far, far more about Tyre than you are ever likely to know in your entire lifetime, arnoldo.

And because of that, I know that neither Nebuchadnezzar nor Alexander fulfilled Ezekiel's prophecy.

deadman_932 · 01-29-2008, 03:43 PM

Still lookin for a reference here, Arnie:

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

The island of Tyre didn't need to be set upon by ships...Alexander just built a "mole" -- a causeway -- because the island was only meters from the shore (claims range from 1000 meters to a few hundred). The water on the shore side isn't even deep enough to handle a ship. Get a grip.

Wrong again.

I don't take your word for it. Cite your references. Here's one of mine:

Quote:

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?article...0&chanID=sa003
Researchers say they have figured out how the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great was able to build a nearly kilometer-long road over the sea to strike at the island of Tyre in 332 B.C. Based on geologic samples taken from the area, in what is now Lebanon, they conclude that the island and shore were linked by a stretch of sand a few meters below the water's surface—well-suited for traversing with an artificial bridge.
The island today is in fact more of a peninsula, connected to the coast by an outgrowth of sand called a tombolo.

A kilometer is about 1093 yards...and the article states it was less than a Km.

Sheshonq · 01-29-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Wrong again.

I don't take your word for it. Cite your references. Here's one of mine:

Quote:

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?article...0&chanID=sa003
Researchers say they have figured out how the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great was able to build a nearly kilometer-long road over the sea to strike at the island of Tyre in 332 B.C. Based on geologic samples taken from the area, in what is now Lebanon, they conclude that the island and shore were linked by a stretch of sand a few meters below the water's surface—well-suited for traversing with an artificial bridge.
The island today is in fact more of a peninsula, connected to the coast by an outgrowth of sand called a tombolo.

A kilometer is about 1093 yards...and the article states it was less than a Km.

Zeke the freak: 26:19 For thus says the Lord Yahweh: When I shall make you a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep on you, and the great waters shall cover you;

Just another false prophecy, as vapid as Isaiah 17:1-2
An oracle concerning Damascus. Damascus will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins. Her towns will be deserted forever...

I don't want a derail here...I'm just pointing out that there's more than one failed prophecy that literalists can't deal with except by shady empty claims and really bad apologetics suffused with fallacies and rhetorical bullshit.

Let me just add one more source. Although I hate Wikipedia - it's useful to show how easily arnoldo could have checked his claims -- had he cared about accuracy in any way, shape or form:

Quote:

Alexander began with an engineering feat that shows the true extent of his brilliance; as he could not attack the city from sea, he built a kilometer-long causeway stretching out to the island on a natural land bridge no more than two meters deep[1].

Sheshonq · 01-29-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

Gates? GATES?!?! :rolling: Where in your encyclopedia does it say that it took him 13 YEARS TO OPEN THE GATES?!?! Please...

Worst... leader... ever.

10 seconds, my friend... 10 seconds.

Indeed. I don't have my Britannica at the office with me at the moment, but in about an hour I'll be home. When I get there, I plan to check this out to see if -- as I suspect -- arnoldo has been creatively editing the Britannica entry to rescue his crippled argument.

If so, then the next step is to report him to the mods for plagiarizing and revising a copyrighted work, and see if he can be banned for it.

I'm home now.

I have looked at my copy of the Online Encyclopedia Britannica 2005, Deluxe Edition. And as I expected, there is NOTHING in Encyclopedia Britannica that even comes *close* to what arnoldo is claiming it says:

This is the ONLY sentence in the main article on Tyre:
For much of the 8th and 7th centuries BC the town was subject to Assyria, and in 585–573 it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II.

The ONLY paragraph to mention Tyre from the article Nebuchadnezzar II:
Nebuchadrezzar's further military activities are known not from extant chronicles but from other sources, particularly the Bible, which records another attack on Jerusalem and a siege of Tyre (lasting 13 years, according to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus) and hints at an invasion of Egypt. The siege of Jerusalem ended in its capture in 587/586 and in the deportation of prominent citizens, with a further deportation in 582. In this respect he followed the methods of his Assyrian predecessors.

So arnoldo is caught red-handed making stuff up and then trying to attribute it to a copyrighted source. I wish I could say that I was surprised. Why is it that christians think that lying is OK, provided it's done for God?

deadman_932 · 01-29-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

So arnoldo is caught red-handed making stuff up and then trying to attribute it to a copyrighted source. I wish I could say that I was surprised.

OOoooooo. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Darklighter · 01-29-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Indeed. I don't have my Britannica at the office with me at the moment, but in about an hour I'll be home. When I get there, I plan to check this out to see if -- as I suspect -- arnoldo has been creatively editing the Britannica entry to rescue his crippled argument.

If so, then the next step is to report him to the mods for plagiarizing and revising a copyrighted work, and see if he can be banned for it.

I'm home now.

I have looked at my copy of the Online Encyclopedia Britannica 2005, Deluxe Edition. And as I expected, there is NOTHING in Encyclopedia Britannica that even comes *close* to what arnoldo is claiming it says:

This is the ONLY sentence in the main article on Tyre:
For much of the 8th and 7th centuries BC the town was subject to Assyria, and in 585–573 it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II.

The ONLY paragraph to mention Tyre from the article Nebuchadnezzar II:
Nebuchadrezzar's further military activities are known not from extant chronicles but from other sources, particularly the Bible, which records another attack on Jerusalem and a siege of Tyre (lasting 13 years, according to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus) and hints at an invasion of Egypt. The siege of Jerusalem ended in its capture in 587/586 and in the deportation of prominent citizens, with a further deportation in 582. In this respect he followed the methods of his Assyrian predecessors.

So arnoldo is caught red-handed making stuff up and then trying to attribute it to a copyrighted source. I wish I could say that I was surprised. Why is it that christians think that lying is OK, provided it's done for God?

Wow. Thats really sumthin. The debate should end here. *sigh* but it wont.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-29-2008, 05:19 PM

Message to arnoldo: When did Ezekiel write the Tyre prophecy?

Do you have any evidence that the prophecy was not revised?

Would you like to start a new thread where dating would not be an issue?

Do you believe that God wants everyone to believe that he can predict the future?

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

01-29-2008, 05:19 PM	#510
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: When did Ezekiel write the Tyre prophecy? Do you have any evidence that the prophecy was not revised? Would you like to start a new thread where dating would not be an issue? Do you believe that God wants everyone to believe that he can predict the future?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.