Sauron

No, what caused you to bow out was page after page of documentation that knocked down every last one of your what-if scenarios. You tried to make claims about ancient maritime navigation, ancient civil engineering (how forts were constructed), Phoenician archaeology and archaeology in general, etc. etc. etc. You were practically an assembly line for homemade assertions, each one tossed out to buy your argument a little more time. But instead, time after time you had your ass handed to you, and you got your butt kicked for guessing when you should have been reading and researching.

Not that anyone needed to rebut your assertions, of course; you took the affirmative position, so the burden of proof was on your shoulders, and nobody else's - even though you tried several times to shift it to the skeptics. In fact, that is the same conclusion that Liviu came to, as evidenced by these comments:

Second, I am truly exhausted after reading through this whole thread, but more than anything irritated at lee merril. Any sensible human being knows that if he makes an assertion he must prove it.

Let me start by asking Sauron something. I promise you I will not waste your time like lee merill did,

Finally the embarrassment and silliness of continuing your position must have gotten to you. Anyone who has the patience to read the thread will quickly come to the conclusion that you died about page three, and simply kept trying to keep the argument going for another 9 or 10 pages.

Actually, yes it must. Nebuchadnezzar and the armies of Babylon are the only consistent interpretation here.

Because it isn't correct. I'm not in the habit of acknowledging an error as fact.

That is what the text indicates. Review the arguments.

No, you were knocked down in round 1, and never got back up again. Everything else was just your game playing.

spin

Why do you waste your time with your rearguard defense of this fortuneteller stuff, lee_merrill?

26:10 is clear that "he" (ie Neb) will enter the gates of Tyre. He never did. His horses never trampled all the streets of Tyre (26:11). This is not many nations. This is Neb and his boys. Tweren't done, matey. Bloody fortune-telling!


spin

Johnny Skeptic

My arguments do not have anything whatsoever to do with many nations. Rather, my arguments are that the dating and authorship of the prophecy have not been reasonably proven, and that even if Ezekiel did make the prophecy before Neb's invasion of Tyre, divine inspiration is not indicated. Many nations defeated the Roman Empire and other empires. So what?

Why do you limit the ability to predict the future to the God of the Bible? In the NIV, Deuteronomy 13:1-4 say "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him."

Jack the Bodiless

On this thread, bfnii has continued to argue the Tyre prophecy (for some reason, he won't come here).

He has a few excuses not yet mentioned here. One is the notion that Neb WAS successful in "breaching Tyre's walls" as prophesied, but on the mainland, not the island fortress. He has failed to demonstrate that the mainland settlement HAD defensive walls (which seems unlikely, standard procedure in such a situation is to retreat to the fortress), and has also failed to address the ambiguity that this creates in Ezekiel's prophecy: if he WASN'T referring to the great 150-foot-high walls of the island fortress, but to another inconsequential set of walls somewhere else, why didn't he say so?

Another excuse is that the "permanent destruction" refers to the old kingdom of Tyre, rather than the city. There is again an ambiguity problem here, and multiple contextual problems (verses plainly referring to physical destruction of buildings "never to be rebuilt" etc). Also, the kingdom was never "destroyed" by Neb, Alexander, or anyone else: Tyre became a republic, and was later peacefully absorbed into the Persian empire.

I think the discussion is now over, but it might flare up again.

Johnny Skeptic

Logically, the dating and authorship of the Tyre prophecy must first be established before debates can begin.

Jack the Bodiless

...Well, that depends on who has the burden of proof.

If the Tyre prophecy (or, indeed, any other prophecy) is being presented by an inerrantist as an example of a successful prophecy, they must demonstrate that the prophecy was written before the event (and hasn't been tampered with since), in addition to all the usual criteria for fulfilment.

If the Tyre prophecy is being presented by a skeptic as an example of a failed prophecy, the burden of proof lies with us. If we can't demonstrate that the prophecy was NOT written in advance, and so forth: then we must demonstrate that what it says is factually incorrect (i.e. didn't happen as described). And this certainly appears to be the case.

Johnny Skeptic

[Jack the Bodiless] Well, that depends on who has the burden of proof.[/quote]

If the Tyre prophecy (or, indeed, any other prophecy) is being presented by an inerrantist as an example of a successful prophecy, they must demonstrate that the prophecy was written before the event (and hasn't been tampered with since), in addition to all the usual criteria for fulfilment. If the Tyre prophecy is being presented by a skeptic as an example of a failed prophecy, the burden of proof lies with us. If we can't demonstrate that the prophecy was NOT written in advance, and so forth: then we must demonstrate that what it says is factually incorrect (i.e. didn't happen as described). And this certainly appears to be the case.[/quote]

My favorite approach in the case of the Tyre prophecy is not to assert anything, but to ask Christians to reasonably prove dating and authorship, especially dating. They are always at a loss to do so, so they lose hands down whether or not the prophecy came true.

Johnny Skeptic

My favorite approach in the case of the Tyre prophecy is not to assert anything, but to ask Christians to reasonably prove dating and authorship, especially dating. They are always at a loss to do so, so they lose hands down whether or not the prophecy came true.

lee_merrill

Well, yes, and they surrendered to him, after years of seige. So we may conclude he did enter the city, and presumably there was a procession. Then we may note a change to "they" in verse 12, and then again to "I" in verse 13...

And that's all I'm going to say, my bowing in again is done, bowing out again now...

Regards,
Lee

Jack the Bodiless

No, Tyre did NOT surrender to him. They negotiated a peace settlement.

The prophecy describes Neb overcoming the defenses by force: which he never did.