Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshonq · 01-30-2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Historical fact. Nebby attack mainland tyre 13 years. Check Josephus.

Selectively editing sources again?

Josephus does not say anything about Nebuchadnezzar attacking "mainland" Tyre for 13 years.

It's becoming quite the task to keep track of all the sources you have tried to edit in this thread, arnoldo.

Of course, if you think Josephus does say any such thing, then by all means -- you're welcome to present the citation from Josephus. But we all know that isn't going to happen. :rolling:

Sheshonq · 01-30-2008, 09:41 AM

Here is a really interesting analysis of the unfulfilled prophecy about Tyre in Ezekiel. It's written by a Nazarene minister who is obviously struggling to reconcile the lack of fulfillment with his faith. Unlike arnoldo and sugarhitman, he deals head-on with the history and archaeology in a straightforward manner, and simply admits that it's a problem.

Some interesting excerpts below. This is what an honest christian analysis looks like. It's probably a totally foreign concept to arnoldo and sugarhitman:

Quote:

If, however, the island stronghold was taken with anything approximating the fierceness and finality Ezekiel predicted, the classical sources are strangely silent concerning the unprecedented feat. The continuation of Tyre's royal line resident in the city as well as Nebuchadnezzar's known response to stubbornly rebellious cities elsewhere (e.g., Jerusalem) argue for a negotiated surrender under terms and for the survival of the island city as a "semi-independent state.""
[...]
In this writer's opinion, the subsequent history of Tyre and affirmations one might wish to make concerning the necessity or dependability of biblical prophecy are secondary considerations. They are subordinate to information from the passage itself and its context regarding the question as to whether or not Nebuchadnezzar alone or Alexander the Great and others are in view in the destruction of Tyre. Several features of the passage and its textual transmission lead, in my judgment, to the conclusion that Ezekiel did indeed predict that Nebuchadnezzar would utterly annihilate the arrogant island fortress of Tyre, i.e., that the whole of verses 3-14 has him in mind.

For one thing the prediction of utter destruction is not easily separated from Nebuchadnezzar. Towers and standing columns (massebot) portrayed in the highly schematized art of Assyrian reliefs of insular Tyre make it quite probable that such "towers" and "columns" were distinctive features of the island city. 32 Their appearance in verses 4, 9, and 11 make it difficult to separate the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege from the opening general prediction of Tyre's complete destruction. This overlap between the opening announcement of Tyre's destruction and the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege in reference to an apparently distinctive feature of island Tyre make it further probable that Nebuchadnezzar's siege here is seen by Ezekiel as at very least including a thoroughly destructive conquest of the island, not just mainland Tyre.

The separation of Nebuchadnezzar from Tyre's utter destruction requires success at two points. One must clearly distinguish between the conquest of Old Tyre on the mainland and the sack of island Tyre. One must also show that Nebuchadnezzar was seen as related only or mainly to the conquest of the mainland. That is precisely where the effort leads J. Barton Payne. For him, verse 4 must be divided, one half referring to Nebuchadnezzar's thirteen-year siege (4a) and the other half referring with verse 5 to a later destruction. In the text itself in my view, there is no clue to such a division. The division rests rather on a historical observation, that Nebuchadnezzar does not appear to have accomplished the feats cited in 4b-5: sweeping Tyre's dust into the sea, making her a bare rock, a place for spreading of nets. Similarly with verses 12ff. and their separation from 7-11.

Such a treatment requires a fragmentation of the text and an overly technical reading of it which Ezekiel's first hearers / readers would likely not have understood or perhaps even thought of. Indeed it appears to be a reading of the material not widely encountered, if at all, prior to the Renaissance and rationalistic attacks upon the Scripture. Beegle's criticism of such interpretations at this point is justified. 33
[...]
These considerations taken together: (1) the difficulty of separating the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege from the utter destruction of island Tyre in view of the overlap of terminology apparently distinctive to that fortress, (2) the rather artificial and fragmentary reading of the text necessitated by the introduction of referents beyond Nebuchadnezzar, and (3) the LXX's witness either to the text or the interpretive tradition which excludes later actors-these considerations lead, it would seem, to the conclusion that Ezekiel envisioned the complete destruction of Tyre at the hands of the Babylonian "King of kings," not at the hands of other invaders such as Alexander the Great.

Amaleq13 · 01-30-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

See post #349

That post establishes that Tyre continues to exist and that the original name for the mainland part of modern Tyre was "Ushu".

In short, your references refutes your position in two different ways.

arnoldo · 01-30-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

See post #349

That post establishes that Tyre continues to exist and that the original name for the mainland part of modern Tyre was "Ushu".

In short, your references refutes your position in two different ways.

How so?
1. You have failed to document at all that Nebby failed to destroy Tyre.

2. You totally neglect the fact that Alexander the Great threw the old city of Tyre into the sea to create the landbridge across the sea to defeat the island.

3. Reasoning that World Empire city/state Tyre continues to exist today is the same as arguing that the Confederacy of the United States continues to exist because it's capital Richmond,Virginia continues to exist.

arnoldo · 01-30-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Here is a really interesting analysis of the unfulfilled prophecy about Tyre in Ezekiel. It's written by a Nazarene minister who is obviously struggling to reconcile the lack of fulfillment with his faith. Unlike arnoldo and sugarhitman, he deals head-on with the history and archaeology in a straightforward manner, and simply admits that it's a problem.

Some interesting excerpts below. This is what an honest christian analysis looks like. It's probably a totally foreign concept to arnoldo and sugarhitman:

Quote:

If, however, the island stronghold was taken with anything approximating the fierceness and finality Ezekiel predicted, the classical sources are strangely silent concerning the unprecedented feat. The continuation of Tyre's royal line resident in the city as well as Nebuchadnezzar's known response to stubbornly rebellious cities elsewhere (e.g., Jerusalem) argue for a negotiated surrender under terms and for the survival of the island city as a "semi-independent state.""
[...]
In this writer's opinion, the subsequent history of Tyre and affirmations one might wish to make concerning the necessity or dependability of biblical prophecy are secondary considerations. They are subordinate to information from the passage itself and its context regarding the question as to whether or not Nebuchadnezzar alone or Alexander the Great and others are in view in the destruction of Tyre. Several features of the passage and its textual transmission lead, in my judgment, to the conclusion that Ezekiel did indeed predict that Nebuchadnezzar would utterly annihilate the arrogant island fortress of Tyre, i.e., that the whole of verses 3-14 has him in mind.

For one thing the prediction of utter destruction is not easily separated from Nebuchadnezzar. Towers and standing columns (massebot) portrayed in the highly schematized art of Assyrian reliefs of insular Tyre make it quite probable that such "towers" and "columns" were distinctive features of the island city. 32 Their appearance in verses 4, 9, and 11 make it difficult to separate the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege from the opening general prediction of Tyre's complete destruction. This overlap between the opening announcement of Tyre's destruction and the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege in reference to an apparently distinctive feature of island Tyre make it further probable that Nebuchadnezzar's siege here is seen by Ezekiel as at very least including a thoroughly destructive conquest of the island, not just mainland Tyre.

The separation of Nebuchadnezzar from Tyre's utter destruction requires success at two points. One must clearly distinguish between the conquest of Old Tyre on the mainland and the sack of island Tyre. One must also show that Nebuchadnezzar was seen as related only or mainly to the conquest of the mainland. That is precisely where the effort leads J. Barton Payne. For him, verse 4 must be divided, one half referring to Nebuchadnezzar's thirteen-year siege (4a) and the other half referring with verse 5 to a later destruction. In the text itself in my view, there is no clue to such a division. The division rests rather on a historical observation, that Nebuchadnezzar does not appear to have accomplished the feats cited in 4b-5: sweeping Tyre's dust into the sea, making her a bare rock, a place for spreading of nets. Similarly with verses 12ff. and their separation from 7-11.

Such a treatment requires a fragmentation of the text and an overly technical reading of it which Ezekiel's first hearers / readers would likely not have understood or perhaps even thought of. Indeed it appears to be a reading of the material not widely encountered, if at all, prior to the Renaissance and rationalistic attacks upon the Scripture. Beegle's criticism of such interpretations at this point is justified. 33
[...]
These considerations taken together: (1) the difficulty of separating the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege from the utter destruction of island Tyre in view of the overlap of terminology apparently distinctive to that fortress, (2) the rather artificial and fragmentary reading of the text necessitated by the introduction of referents beyond Nebuchadnezzar, and (3) the LXX's witness either to the text or the interpretive tradition which excludes later actors-these considerations lead, it would seem, to the conclusion that Ezekiel envisioned the complete destruction of Tyre at the hands of the Babylonian "King of kings," not at the hands of other invaders such as Alexander the Great.

From your source.

Quote:

In the second section, verses 7-14, Ezekiel explains and supports the opening, general prediction with the specific prediction of a victorious siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar II whom Yahweh is bringing against the city which had withstood repeated assault in the preceding centuries. 7 Yahweh is bringing Nebuchadnezzar along with his cavalry, chariotry, horsemen, and a great host (v. 7). The prediction proceeds with a string of third person singular references as to what Nebuchadnezzar or his forces will do: slay the dependent cities with the sword (v.8), lay siege works against the city (v.8), assault the walls with battering rams (v. 9), tear down her towers with his weaponry (v. 9), cover her with dust raised by his cavalry (v. 10), shake her walls with the noise of his chariotry entering her gates (v. 10), trample her streets with the hooves of his horses (v. 11), and slay her people (v. 11).

Unfortunately for you Nebby did attack Tyre and destroy it. Alexander the Great took the rubble from the city of Tyre to create a landbridge. Do you have any evidence that Nebby's attack on Tyre never happened or is that just your gut feeling?

spin · 01-30-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

That post establishes that Tyre continues to exist and that the original name for the mainland part of modern Tyre was "Ushu".

In short, your references refutes your position in two different ways.

How so?
1. You have failed to document at all that Nebby failed to destroy Tyre.

Logic says you have to demonstrate that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre. The substantive case fails without support. :wave:

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

2. You totally neglect the fact that Alexander the Great threw the old city of Tyre into the sea to create the landbridge across the sea to defeat the island.

What ancient source supports your claim that Alexander used the "old city of Tyre"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

3. Reasoning that World Empire city/state Tyre continues to exist today is the same as arguing that the Confederacy of the United States continues to exist because it's capital Richmond,Virginia continues to exist.

Is there logic here? The status of Tyre has obviously changed, but so what?

spin

spin · 01-30-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

From your [Sheshonq's] source.

Quote:

In the second section, verses 7-14, Ezekiel explains and supports the opening, general prediction with the specific prediction of a victorious siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar II whom Yahweh is bringing against the city which had withstood repeated assault in the preceding centuries. 7 Yahweh is bringing Nebuchadnezzar along with his cavalry, chariotry, horsemen, and a great host (v. 7). The prediction proceeds with a string of third person singular references as to what Nebuchadnezzar or his forces will do: slay the dependent cities with the sword (v.8), lay siege works against the city (v.8), assault the walls with battering rams (v. 9), tear down her towers with his weaponry (v. 9), cover her with dust raised by his cavalry (v. 10), shake her walls with the noise of his chariotry entering her gates (v. 10), trample her streets with the hooves of his horses (v. 11), and slay her people (v. 11).

Unfortunately for you Nebby did attack Tyre and destroy it.

No evidence, no prize. (The source is only describing the prediction.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Alexander the Great took the rubble from the city of Tyre to create a landbridge.

No evidence, no cupey doll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Do you have any evidence that Nebby's attack on Tyre never happened or is that just your gut feeling?

You are trying to argue that you don't need to support your claim, but people questioning your claim have to support their questioning? Hilarious!!!

spin

arnoldo · 01-30-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Historical fact. Nebby attack mainland tyre 13 years. Check Josephus.

Selectively editing sources again?

Josephus does not say anything about Nebuchadnezzar attacking "mainland" Tyre for 13 years.

It's becoming quite the task to keep track of all the sources you have tried to edit in this thread, arnoldo.

Of course, if you think Josephus does say any such thing, then by all means -- you're welcome to present the citation from Josephus. But we all know that isn't going to happen. :rolling:

The Kings of Tyre were deported to Babylon. Why? cuz Nebby destroyed the city.
http://www.starnarcosis.net/obsidian/Lebanon.html#Tyre

Sheshonq · 01-30-2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

That post establishes that Tyre continues to exist and that the original name for the mainland part of modern Tyre was "Ushu".

In short, your references refutes your position in two different ways.

How so?
1. You have failed to document at all that Nebby failed to destroy Tyre.

Nonsense. Even you admit that Nebuchadnezzar didn't destroy all of Tyre. Are you changing your mind about that now?

Quote:

2. You totally neglect the fact that Alexander the Great threw the old city of Tyre into the sea to create the landbridge across the sea to defeat the island.

Which doesn't matter, since:

1. Ezekiel names Nebuchadnezzar, not Alexander, as the person to destroy the city;
2. Not even Alexander destroyed Tyre fully;
3. Tyre recovered in less than 20 years and was a major power again.

All of which contradict Ezekiel. Prophecy fails! :rolling:

Quote:

3. Reasoning that World Empire city/state Tyre continues to exist today is the same as arguing that the Confederacy of the United States continues to exist because it's capital Richmond,Virginia continues to exist.

No it isn't. Richmond was the capital of a country. Tyre was just a city, not a capital of a country. Besides the prophecy was against the city of Tyre.

Sheshonq · 01-30-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Selectively editing sources again?

Josephus does not say anything about Nebuchadnezzar attacking "mainland" Tyre for 13 years.

It's becoming quite the task to keep track of all the sources you have tried to edit in this thread, arnoldo.

Of course, if you think Josephus does say any such thing, then by all means -- you're welcome to present the citation from Josephus. But we all know that isn't going to happen. :rolling:

The Kings of Tyre were deported to Babylon. Why? cuz Nebby destroyed the city.
http://www.starnarcosis.net/obsidian/Lebanon.html#Tyre

1. Wrong - the king was part of the truce. Rulers were sent as hostages for the peace. Moreover, Tyre retained its royal ruler in an independent status; see the Nazarene article above; cf. "Tyre retained its royal line."

2. I know we've gotten used to it by now, but your citation link above doesn't even support or connect to your argument.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.