Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-11-2008, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Since Zekey saw that Nebby failed to destroy Tyre I guess that's when he added the MANY NATIONS part would later destroy it.

Are you deaf?

This has already been explained a dozen times - "many nations" are the various parts of Babylon's empire.

And your interpretation that many nation is the varous parts of the Babylon's empire is based on the bogus linguistic analysis of Till, how sad. Note the following.

Quote:

On the matter of the "many nations," Hogan said, "If Farrell can explain what Ezekiel meant when he wrote about the `many nations' that would come up against Tyre, then perhaps I would admit defeat." Well, I do have an explanation, which I consider far moresensible than the strained interpretation that Hogan has resorted to in an attempt to salvage this prophecy. This interpretation is based on the fact that the Hebrew language had no future tense. Thus, Ezekiel did not actually say, "I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you." Instead, he said, "I am against you, O Tyre, and have caused to come up against thee many nations" (Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible). In the absence of a future tense, which was characteristic of Semitic languages, future action was denoted by using the past tense, and in the introduction to his literal translation, Young discusses at length the controversy that this linguistic feature has generated among Bible translators ("Battle of the Hebrew Tenses," Revised Edition, Baker Book House).

Farrell Till
This bogus interpretation is based on his spinning a single bible verse from the Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, let's see what the other versions have to say.

Quote:

therefore thus says the Lord GOD, 'Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
So this is what the Almighty LORD says: I am against you, Tyre. I will bring many nations against you as the waves on the sea rise.

King James Bible
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

American Standard Version
therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold, I am against thee, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth its waves to come up.

Bible in Basic English
For this cause the Lord has said, See, I am against you, O Tyre, and will send up a number of nations against you as the sea sends up its waves.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold I come against thee, O Tyre, and I will cause many nations to come up to thee, as the waves of the sea rise up.

Darby Bible Translation
therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I am against thee, Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth its waves to come up.

English Revised Version
therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against thee, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

Jewish Publication Society Tanakh
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: behold, I am against thee, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth its waves to come up.

Webster's Bible Translation
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth its waves to come up.

World English Bible
therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh, Behold, I am against you, Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up.

Young's Literal Translation
Therefore, thus said the Lord Jehovah: Lo, I am against thee, O Tyre, And have caused to come up against thee many nations, As the sea causeth its billows to come up.

The "many nations" means exactly that, many nations would rise up and attack tyre, like the sea casting it's waves against it, one after the other. It's also laughable that Till tries to spin a half truth that hebrew has no future tense to try to indicated that zekey never intended that other nations would attack Tyre besides Nebby. Sorry, history has proven that many nations have attacked tyre, like a waves of the ocean pounding against it, from Nebby to Alexander the Great.

Sheshonq · 02-11-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Are you deaf?

This has already been explained a dozen times - "many nations" are the various parts of Babylon's empire.

And your interpretation that many nation is the varous parts of the Babylon's empire is based on the bogus linguistic analysis of Till, how sad.

No, it isn't. It's based upon actual knowledge of the subject matter.

Quote:

This bogus interpretation is based on his spinning a single bible verse from the Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, let's see what the other versions have to say.

Which doesn't help you, because the Babylonian Empire was composed of many nations. We have been through this before: the vassal states were required to send military units to Nebuchadnezzar for use in his army.

Quote:

The "many nations" means exactly that, many nations would rise up and attack tyre, like the sea casting it's waves against it, one after the other.

Nope, that is a reference to waves of attacking military units, each from the different nations that formed part of the great Babylonian army. It's just like in World War 2 invasion of Normandy - when "many nations" attacked Nazi Germany, but they were still under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, Eisenhower.

Ezekiel clearly identifies Nebuchadnezzar and his army as the agent of destruction for Tyre. There is no escaping that fact. There is also no escaping the fact that the prophecy failed. :rolling:

arnoldo · 02-11-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

And your interpretation that many nation is the varous parts of the Babylon's empire is based on the bogus linguistic analysis of Till, how sad.

No, it isn't. It's based upon actual knowledge of the subject matter.

Which doesn't help you, because the Babylonian Empire was composed of many nations. We have been through this before: the vassal states were required to send military units to Nebuchadnezzar for use in his army.

Quote:

The "many nations" means exactly that, many nations would rise up and attack tyre, like the sea casting it's waves against it, one after the other.

Nope, that is a reference to waves of attacking military units, each from the different nations that formed part of the great Babylonian army. It's just like in World War 2 invasion of Normandy - when "many nations" attacked Nazi Germany, but they were still under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, Eisenhower.

Ezekiel clearly identifies Nebuchadnezzar and his army as the agent of destruction for Tyre. There is no escaping that fact. There is also no escaping the fact that the prophecy failed. :rolling:

Do you have any historical/archaelogical evidence that these "vassal states" sent ships to felt fight against the Island of Tyre for 13 years or did they all use horses? Also please note that the bogus Till argument ignores modern translations and chooses a versions made over one hundered years ago. Yeah right, many nations doesn't mean "many nations."
What's next 2 + 2 = 5 :huh:

makerowner · 02-11-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Also please note that the bogus Till argument ignores modern translations and chooses a versions made over one hundered years ago. Yeah right, many nations doesn't mean "many nations."
What's next 2 + 2 = 5 :huh:

Young's translation says 'many nations' too, so I don't know what you're whining about.

arnoldo · 02-11-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Also please note that the bogus Till argument ignores modern translations and chooses a versions made over one hundered years ago. Yeah right, many nations doesn't mean "many nations."
What's next 2 + 2 = 5 :huh:

Young's translation says 'many nations' too, so I don't know what you're whining about.

There's no whining, just astonishment that you merely parrot Till. I'm still waiting for any archaelogical/historical evidence of the "many nations" that Nebby commanded to attack the Island Fortress of Tyre. Do you have any historical/archaelogical evidence that Nebby used ships to attack Tyre for 13 years, or any attempt to build a mole? Alexander the great only took 7 months to defeat tyre and yet Nebby along with his "many nations" spent 13 years fighting and ended up only with a truce?? Also please provide any historical/archaelogical evidence that a so called "truce" was called between Tyre and Nebby. Minimalist love to make empty claims but never back up their gibberish with any historical/archaelogical facts. Now I understand what George Orwell meant when he stated "He who controls the past, controls the future."

Gullwind · 02-11-2008, 09:22 PM

You do understand what a "siege" is, don't you?

Nebby wouldn't have to attack the island city directly. All he had to do, after taking the mainland area was to make camp and wait for the island to surrender due to lack of food. The island city held out for thirteen years because it was supplied to some degree by sea, which Nebby couldn't stop.

JayW · 02-11-2008, 11:41 PM

From my undrstanding the first army to enter Tyre was that of Alexander the Great. He built a land bridge from the mainland to the island.

spin · 02-12-2008, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

You do understand what a "siege" is, don't you?

Nebby wouldn't have to attack the island city directly. All he had to do, after taking the mainland area was to make camp and wait for the island to surrender due to lack of food. The island city held out for thirteen years because it was supplied to some degree by sea, which Nebby couldn't stop.

This has all been explained to arnoldo so many times, you get the idea he's got a reader's block.

spin

Jack the Bodiless · 02-12-2008, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Only the most deluded of fundies believe that any city on the mainland withstood Nebby for 13 years: that is completely impossible.

If you'd still like to believe otherwise: let's see if you can provide just ONE non-fundie source that says so.

Regardless...

OK, I guess that's about as close as we will get to an admission that you were wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

This bogus interpretation is based on his spinning a single bible verse from the Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, let's see what the other versions have to say.

...They all say pretty much the same thing as Young's. More diversion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Young's translation says 'many nations' too, so I don't know what you're whining about.

There's no whining, just astonishment that you merely parrot Till. I'm still waiting for any archaelogical/historical evidence of the "many nations" that Nebby commanded to attack the Island Fortress of Tyre.

You're denying that Nebby ruled over many nations?

Are you actually denying the existence of the Babylonian Empire now?

And you're saying that Ezekiel was lying when HE described Nebby as "king of kings" (i.e. an overking, a ruler over many nations)?

arnoldo · 02-12-2008, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Regardless...

OK, I guess that's about as close as we will get to an admission that you were wrong.

...They all say pretty much the same thing as Young's. More diversion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

There's no whining, just astonishment that you merely parrot Till. I'm still waiting for any archaelogical/historical evidence of the "many nations" that Nebby commanded to attack the Island Fortress of Tyre.

You're denying that Nebby ruled over many nations?

Are you actually denying the existence of the Babylonian Empire now?

And you're saying that Ezekiel was lying when HE described Nebby as "king of kings" (i.e. an overking, a ruler over many nations)?

I suppose IF you accept TILL's claim that Hebrew has no future tense and IF you accept TILL's "spin" that "the many nations" is only refering to Nebby then the prophecy has failed since Nebby didn't destroy the Island Tyre, Alexander the Great did. The following article has some interesting insights into the nature of this debate.

David Thompson: A PROBLEM OF UNFULFILLED PROPHECY IN EZEKIEL:
THE DESTRUCTION OF TYRE (EZEKIEL 26:1-14 and 29:18-20)

Quote:

Robert Carroll is much closer to suggesting a potentially fruitful path of inquiry when he says "The important task of interpretation is not demonstrating that the predictions were wrong [one might say "right or wrong"] but showing how they were treated by the later communities as ongoing possibilities for their future." 41 Carroll's own application of the theory of cognitive dissonance to problems of unfulfilled prophecy is an interesting experiment. But it is not as enlightening as his study of the interpretation of the prophetic traditions to be found within Scripture itself. 42

Carroll sees historic formulations of God's knowledge of the future as unnecessary in light of process theology. According to him:

The hermeneutical gymnastics required to give any coherence to the notion of God knowing and revealing the future in the form of predictions to the prophets does no religious community any credit. Furthermore the account of prophecy produced in such circles is banal beyond belief and on a footing with astrological charts and other such diversions of irrationalism. 43

One may well agree with Carroll's dissatisfaction with the "astrological chart" approach to prophecy-fulfillment and the "hermeneutical gymnastics" involved. But I am by no means prepared to conclude that the alternative is a scuttling of the prophetic vision of God for process theology. One wonders if it is not possible to pursue the matter of prediction and fulfillment with the creativity and candor Carroll has attempted but from entirely different theological and critical foundations. One wonders if it is not possible to move beyond the question of errancy — inerrancy which preoccupies Beegle on the one hand and Payne on the other to a more adequate appreciation of the meaning and truthfulness of prophecy — fulfillment.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Edited by George Lyons for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.

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

02-11-2008, 09:22 PM	#86
Gullwind Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,037	You do understand what a "siege" is, don't you? Nebby wouldn't have to attack the island city directly. All he had to do, after taking the mainland area was to make camp and wait for the island to surrender due to lack of food. The island city held out for thirteen years because it was supplied to some degree by sea, which Nebby couldn't stop.

02-11-2008, 11:41 PM	#87
JayW Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: dallas.texas Posts: 191	From my undrstanding the first army to enter Tyre was that of Alexander the Great. He built a land bridge from the mainland to the island.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.