Freethought & Rationalism Archive

makerowner · 12-11-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

to makerowner: Not unless there was a walled city on the mainland with villages outside those walls. Hiram did build a Temple on the mainland didnt he? I'm sure with such an important building on the mainland there must have been walls dont you think?

You still didn't address the fact that the prophecy says both would be destroyed.:

Quote:

And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers [...] And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

You've already admitted that the island city wasn't destroyed, ergo the prophecy failed.

sugarhitman · 12-11-2007, 11:21 AM

um makeowner THEY is not Nebby. Because in verse 10 HE I.E. Nebby is shown to breach the wall not destroy it. and how can you go through gates when there is no wall? A breach is far different then complete destruction of a wall. This is where critics get crossed up because they believe they is referring to some Babylonian multi-national force, but They is a reference to other nations which has no relation to Nebby what so ever that explains the contradictions of the deeds between HE and THEY.

makerowner · 12-11-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

um makeowner THEY is not Nebby. Because in verse 10 HE I.E. Nebby is shown to breach the wall not destroy it. and how can you go through gates when there is no wall? A breach is far different then complete destruction of a wall. This is where critics get crossed up because they believe they is referring to some Babylonian multi-national force, but They is a reference to other nations which has no relation to Nebby what so ever that explains the contradictions of the deeds between HE and THEY.

So your saying that the prophecy starts without identifying who will fulfill it, introduces Nebuchadnezzar in v. 7 in an unrelated prophecy that just happens to be about the destruction of the same city, then switches back to the unidentified first destroyer in mid-sentence between vv. 11 and 12? That's a pretty torturous reading. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

renassault · 12-11-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

First, I'd like to quote the text here. This is the RSV translation:

Quote:

[3]therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves.
[4] They shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers; and I will scrape her soil from her, and make her a bare rock.
[5] She shall be in the midst of the sea a place for the spreading of nets; for I have spoken, says the Lord GOD; and she shall become a spoil to the nations;
[6] and her daughters on the mainland shall be slain by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD.
[7] "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadrez'zar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers.
[8] He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a siege wall against you, and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you.

It clearly says that Tyre will be destroyed, and distinguishes the latter from "her daughters on the mainland". It also clearly states that Nebuchadrez'zar would destroy it. I don't think any amount of weaseling can make that seem true.
BTW, the "spreading of nets" is a place "in the midst of the sea": the prediction is that people would take boats out into the sea and cast their nets in the same place that Tyre used to be.

For those of you with the notions that the location and the name means that it is the same city, you must think that the Egypt today is the continuation of the ancient kingdom. It can't be simply the name and relative location. In its context, it clearly means the destruction of Tyre and its people, which did happen.

makerowner · 12-11-2007, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

First, I'd like to quote the text here. This is the RSV translation:

It clearly says that Tyre will be destroyed, and distinguishes the latter from "her daughters on the mainland". It also clearly states that Nebuchadrez'zar would destroy it. I don't think any amount of weaseling can make that seem true.
BTW, the "spreading of nets" is a place "in the midst of the sea": the prediction is that people would take boats out into the sea and cast their nets in the same place that Tyre used to be.

For those of you with the notions that the location and the name means that it is the same city, you must think that the Egypt today is the continuation of the ancient kingdom. It can't be simply the name and relative location. In its context, it clearly means the destruction of Tyre and its people, which did happen.

But not by Nebuchadnezzar's doing, as in the prophecy, and not by causing the sea to rise over it, allowing people to fish in its former location.

renassault · 12-11-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

But not by Nebuchadnezzar's doing, as in the prophecy, and not by causing the sea to rise over it, allowing people to fish in its former location.

Says who? How do you know Nebuchadnezzar did not do this?

makerowner · 12-11-2007, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

But not by Nebuchadnezzar's doing, as in the prophecy, and not by causing the sea to rise over it, allowing people to fish in its former location.

Says who? How do you know Nebuchadnezzar did not do this?

Archeology and documentary evidence. How do you know that he did? The Bible. Sorry, that's not a very reliable source. And it doesn't even confirm that the prophecy was fulfilled later on.

renassault · 12-11-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Archeology and documentary evidence. How do you know that he did? The Bible. Sorry, that's not a very reliable source. And it doesn't even confirm that the prophecy was fulfilled later on.

Well I was just being partially thoughtful so that you can examine your sources when you try to disprove us

. The prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar is only from verse 7-14, and this is clearly about the mainland (26.8).

makerowner · 12-11-2007, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

The prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar is only from verse 7 and on, and this is clearly about the mainland (26.8).

Sorry, doesn't stand:

Quote:

[7] For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.
[8] He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.

(emphasis added)

Note that "thy daughters in the field" (the mainland city) is distinguished from "thee" (the island city) and that the destruction of both is prophesied.

renassault · 12-11-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Note that "thy daughters in the field" (the mainland city) is distinguished from "thee" (the island city) and that the destruction of both is prophesied.

You're right. I thought that refered to the mainland, but the context is of the island. Nevertheless, following the Jewish expressions of ancient days, this does not mean Nebuchadnezzar himself is to do these things, but since he starts the whole ordeal (with many nations later, 3-6), he is in a sense the leader. This is clearly illustrated by the "they" in verse 12. Similar such things can be found in places such as Matthew 26.26, 28, Luke 22.19. The fact is, before 26.7 ff., the prophecy is for many nations to destroy Tyre and its mainland, and this does not mean a multinational army because it is separated by time (the consecutive flows of the waves used as a comparison). The fact that we don't find any of that in the prophecy, strongly suggests Nebuchadnezzar represents these many nations, one of which is his own empire.

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

12-11-2007, 11:21 AM	#92
sugarhitman Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: georgia Posts: 2,726	um makeowner THEY is not Nebby. Because in verse 10 HE I.E. Nebby is shown to breach the wall not destroy it. and how can you go through gates when there is no wall? A breach is far different then complete destruction of a wall. This is where critics get crossed up because they believe they is referring to some Babylonian multi-national force, but They is a reference to other nations which has no relation to Nebby what so ever that explains the contradictions of the deeds between HE and THEY.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.