DrewDiggler

Yes, we are all aware that OT God says one thing as does another (or rather does it by proxy). His hypocrisy and lack of righteousness is well noted throughout this forum.
I wonder how much drool the fundies would produce if they were rounded up and placed in Tyre ?

Sheshonq

That is what Ezekiel says.

Don't like it?Take it up with Ezekiel, not us.

All we're doing is repeating his words back to you. If you find them uncomfortable, that's hardly our fault.

arnoldo

Hardly, Zekey says that MANY NATIONS will attack tyre. As usual you resort to a lame argument from semantics & performing Orwellian gymnastics on Zekey 26

Some lame arguments on this thread is that Zekey is not saying " I will bring many nations (future tense)" but I have brought many nations ( against Tyre/past tense), thus there is no possible interpretation that Zekey had in mind Alexander the Great to play a part in the destruction of Tyre (this is dismissed a prior by those who suffer from MES)

When zekey writes many nations it doesn't mean many nations. Many nations means Babylon (single nation). Typically you'll get a lame analogy about D-day and how the allies were a single nation.
"They" here only refers to Nebby, and not Nebby and future rulers who continued to attack Tyre like a waves of the ocean crashing against Tyre. Here you usually get some ridiculous arguments about pronouns.


.
Again spoil for the nationS (this means one nation, not plural nations) doesn't mean many nations will spoil Tyre. It means only Nebby would spoil tyre. (If you believe that then 2+2=5)
Here the "daughters on the mainland is irrelevant". Oh, this "prophecy" was written before the fact, ie, sometime before 573 BC. On the other hand if any prophecy in the bible is 100% accurate it is written after the fact. It's the classic "heads I win" "tails you lose" strategy to prove the entire bible has zero accurate prophecies.

Minimalist

You still sound like some shyster-lawyer trying to get god off on a technicality, Arnoldo.

Admit it. He fucked up the prophecy. Tyre is still there. Time to move on.


Perhaps global warming will save your butt?

Jack the Bodiless

...And, as usual, you try to change the subject.

Ezekiel wanted Tyre wiped off the map. So what has your "he/they" confusion got to do with that? He wanted Tyre wiped off the map by somebody, yes?

The rest of your post is merely more of the same garbage that has already been addressed. You have clearly demonstrated that you have no explanation for Nebby's failure to perform the various tasks specifically allocated to "HE" (not "THEY"), so you're still stuck. Plus, of course, the ongoing failure of anyone else to actually complete Nebby's mission. No amount of frantic changing-the-subject will save you.

WVIncagold

arnaldo So what about god coming down scraping away the debris an making it a bare rock? You pick on the "They" but ignored the rest of the sentence.

Regardless of who "They" were Tyre has been inhabited for 2500 years and is not a bare rock.
26:19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;

And its definitely not an under water city.

arnoldo

Global Warming will soon take care of that

WVIncagold

:rolling:

arnoldo

Point of fact, Alexander the Great threw mainland Tyre into the ocean to build the mole to attack the Island. Skeppies typical give a lame excuse about semantics to state there was no mainland city. Even Alexander the Great recognized this was impossible since he had no navy to attack Tyre just like Nebby didn't have any navy or ships. Instead Alexander the Great built a landbridge. Where did Alexander the Great get the material to build the landbridge? Note Ekekiel 26
This is a historical fact which you will probably find as amusing as my global warming reference

Sheshonq

Which happened because the army of Babylon was composed of many nations. It's that whole pesky "conquer" part that Ezekiel got wrong.

As I told you before, the "nations" concept is not a referral to countries; it is a referral to people, ethnic groups. Your idea of "nations" is wrong anyhow. From my paper on the topic:

Modern readers of this text are somewhat handicapped by the understanding of the word “nation”. We have grown up with the concept of a nation as a political entity with defined borders, a flag, an embassy and a national anthem, etc. But the nation (or nation-state) as a political entity is not what Ezekiel or Daniel were referring to. In ancient times, a nation referred to a distinct ethnic group, a people bonded together with a common sense of affiliation and a shared language.


There's another reason why you're wrong about this:

Moving along. The point was made earlier that many surrounding nations had been made vassals of Babylon, either through subjugation or treaty. Part of the tribute that such states paid to Babylon was in the form of soldiers, charioteers, etc. provided for her military campaigns. As a result, the empire’s armies were composed of individuals from many different peoples. But all these soldiers served Nebuchadnezzar, the king of kings. The stronger argument here is that Ezekiel was equating "many nations" to Nebuchadnezzar's broad empire, and (by extension) its massive army, composed of many nationalities drawn from all over the empire. Thus, the phrase "many nations" was Ezekiel's apt description of Nebuchadnezzar's huge army--all of whom were to share in the spoils when they cracked open the city of Tyre, the ancient Alcatraz.

An additional historical item that sheds light on the “spoil to the nations” phrase in v.5 is to note the scavenging entourage that accompanied the large armies of the ancient Near East. Whenever a conquering army rolled through an area, it was followed by a contingent of slave traders, professional thieves, and various other unsavory types. The members of this itinerant band of scavengers came from all parts of the ancient world, but had no permanent home themselves. Instead, they existed as vagabonds, camping near their host army and moving with it, as it progressed from conquest to conquest. They followed behind the army almost like vultures following lions, hoping to turn a profit from the destruction. After the conquering army and its generals had taken as much booty and human slaves as they wanted, these scavengers would clean up the rest. In light of this fact, when Ezekiel says that Tyre would become “the spoil of nations”, this is more appropriately interpreted as a historical reference to the destruction first by the conquering army, and then by the rag-tag bands of looters that followed armies around.


No, what I do is point out the most straightforward reading fails miserably, because Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre. At which point, you're unable to tolerate a failure in the bible so you try to create an interpretation that violates the obvious meaning of the text.

The simple fact is that Ezekiel identifies all this destruction with Nebuchadnezzar and the armies of Babylon. And he makes that connection multiple times. You cannot get around this, no matter how hard you try.

If Ezekiel had Alexander in mind, why didn't he just say so? Ezekiel is familar with prophetic language and imagery; yet he failed to use any here. This was concrete, real-world description of the battle.

Not that it matters, since not even Alexander destroyed Tyre. You're trying to pin your hopes on Alexander, but as usual you haven't done your homework, or else you would know that he also failed to destroy Tyre.

Sure it does. But those "nations" were all part of the Babylonian empire.

1. It isn't lame - it addresses exactly why your strained, hopeless re-interpretation fails.

2. It was a combined force under the unified command of a single general. But it was a force of many "nations".

No, "they" refers to the elements of the Babylonian empire.

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

Yet, a few verses later in the reiteration found in v.9, we find that Nebuchadnezzar is specifically mentioned as the one who will:
(3) destroy the walls and
(4) break down the towers of Tyre.

So we have both “many nations” and “Nebuchadnezzar” doing the same actions here. By assigning the same destructive actions to both "many nations" (in v.3) and also to Nebuchadnezzar (in v.9), Ezekiel thus does not differentiate between the two terms at all. They are one and the same thing to Ezekiel.

You've been told this at least three times, yet you seem to think we've forgotten that you failed to address it.


Nonsense. It shows that Tyre had colonies on the mainland. But conquering the colonies doesn't count as conquering Tyre itself.

Result? PROPHECY FAILS!
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: