Jack the Bodiless

Backtracking somewhat:
This is merely one of several cases where you have asserted that your personal fantasy "is still true" and asked us "why we think otherwise".

Why should we NOT think otherwise?

With regard to the "prophecy": it is a fantasy that Ezekiel was referring to the daughter villages in 26:8-12 (other than the passing reference at the beginning of 26:8). It is a fantasy that 26:14 (and various subsequent verses) doesn't refer to physical destruction. It is a fantasy that Ezekiel foresaw Alexander (or indeed any other conqueror besides Nebuchadrezzar and his army of "many nations").

With regard to "history": it is a fantasy that the "daughter villages" had defensive walls and towers etc. It is a fantasy that Nebby breached the walls of the island citadel and gained access to ALL Tyre's streets (or indeed ANY of Tyre's streets). It is a fantasy that Nebby went on to plunder and depopulate Egypt as "prophesied". It is a fantasy that Alexander later waged war against an "independent kingdom of Tyre". It is a fantasy that Alexander destroyed the city. It is a fantasy that Alexander exterminated the Tyrians. It is a fantasy that the population was replaced by Greek colonists. It is a fantasy that the "independent kingdom of Tyre" never arose again.

In general: it is a fantasy that what Ezekiel envisaged as "Tyre" no longer exists, and it is a fantasy that Ezekiel was an actual "prophet".

Now, each of these individual fantasies is at best entirely unsupported: and, in most cases, they are demostrably false (and such demonstrations have been provided many times). So, why should you expect us to be impressed by any correlation between your personal non-Biblical "prophecy" fantasy and your personal non-historical "historical" fantasy? (...even if they were consistent: but you can't even manage THAT much, as your "the island is part of tyre / no, it didn't have to include the island" contradiction, from posts #621 and #600, demonstrates).

I can see that you have an ideological committment to denying inconvenient facts (though you have never explained why): but why are you so surprised that we don't share it?

dongiovanni1976x

Tell me what “seeds” were sown by Nebuchadnezzar? Tyre wealth was intact, its religious and administrative centers were untouched and it continued to flourished for centuries. It’s downfall was abrupt and devastating and completely brought about by Alexander. But even Alexander did not completely destroy the city as it flourished for over 1500 years until 1291 CE.
Rome by contrast had a very lengthy “fall” if it is acceptable to call it such. Hadrian limiting the empire to fix boundaries limited the impetus for glory and conquest but was seen as necessary to combat the overextension of empire, Caracalla’s extension of the citizenship brought in quick tax revenue but added to the flood of uneducated, unskilled large groups who put pressure on Rome for land on the western and southern side of the Rhine and Danube. The barrack emperors who succeeded him drained the economy and Diocletian’s economic reforms only exacerbated the problem by price fixing which caused increased trade that went unregulated- further diminishing the tax base with which to defend the over extended empire. After the disaster of Adrianople recruiting soldiers to defend the borders became increasingly difficult as some “Romans” found allying with the Visigoths or Ostrogoths more beneficial than living under the oppressive taxation and conscriptions of the Roman empire. But after Adrianople the sacking of Roma in 410 had a profound affect on the psychology of the Romans. The Eternal City, had never been taken in almost 1000 years. This event was more symbolic than anything else and yes, Rome had many “problems” before this event, but in the mind of Roman and barbarian alike, this event shattered the concept of the invincible Roman empire. For this reason I used it analogously.

Either Alexander was specified or he was not. He was not therefore by definition this prophecy is unspecific with regards to who would putatively fulfill the prophecy.

By this logic so could Farvaix III, commander of the the Aguinor Union from Alpha Centauri. IT is so utterly vague ANYONE could be. WOW! How specific!
And the “details” you are referring to “horses trampling on streets,” “plundering riches,” “destroying houses,” “breaking down walls,” are completely common to cities being sacked.
The only significant aspects are that the city would be so utterly destroyed that its timber would be cast into the sea, though this would not seem unlikely to an enraged army that has put up with harassment from the defenders for so long and also as a way of humbling the proud city much like Virgil poetically called the Romans to do to others. (parcere subiectis et debellare superbos) And the most significant, unlike the symbolic rubbing of salt into Carthage, being that Tyre would NEVER be rebuilt- you want to exclude altogether (for obvious reasons I may add).
What aspects were NOT common place in your interpretation. You have removed all the significance.

The prophecy NEVER said that the NATION of TYRE would never be rebuilt, it said Tyre would never be rebuilt. It said “O city renown,” “when I[God] make you a city laid waste, like cities that are uninhabited” etc etc…Your arbitrary back and forth case for the “nation” of Tyre here and the city of Tyre there and the culture of Tyre there and the mainland here and the island there has already been Tried and has been found to be Old and Tyred.
Perhaps in your mind alone.


First of all they were Ptolemy’s people by your logic but they were every much Tyrian’s as citizens of Athens were Athenians while being ruled by Casander.

Nation comes from the Latin for “birth” (i.e nasci, where we get neo-NATAL from). An illegal immigrant from Mexico can have a child born in American and they are recognized as being American citizens. The idea of a Polis is of Greek origin but was used in many other places as well as the origin of the individual (tied to their place of birth). A Child born after 332 BC in Tyre was called a Tyrian and it wasn’t just out of convenience. We have many examples that are post-Alexander, (i.e. like William of Tyre etc)

dongiovanni1976x

Welcome.

The best scenario historians can reconstruct is summed up by Dr. Katzenstein in his book on Tyre, The reason Tyre formally surrendered was likely due to the constraints on their water supply. For example, we are told that during the reign of Tyrian king Eloulaios (aka, Eluleus/Luli, c. 729-694 BCE), the King of Assyria, Selampsas (Shalmaneser V, c. 726-722 BCE), invade Phoenicia. (Josephus, Ant. IX, 284) That Sidon, Arke and Ushu allied with Shalmaneser V against Tyre, but King Luli held out.(ibid, 285) Shalmaneser V “placed guards at the river (Litani) and the aqueducts to prevent the Tyrians from drawing water, and this they endured for five years, and drank from wells which they had dug.” (ibid, 287)

The lack of fresh water and the over crowding from the refugees from the mainland (Ushu) likely increased disease and put a strain on King Luli's reign- forcing his hand to the negotiation table as the residents of Tyre, being used to luxury, likely got fed up with the conditions they were living under.

Therefore though Tyre was never taken, the king did submit to Babylonian authority. So Tyre lost the war but saved it's precious city. Hence the footnotes found in the Oxford Study Bible:

Sauron

It's worse than that. The records indicate that during the siege of Alexander, 15,000 Tyrians were rescued by Sidonians and later returned to rebuild their city. So original Tyrians were evacuated, and original Tyrians returned.

bfniii's only response to this is to claim there is no reason to trust the story - but in reality, there is no reason whatsoever to discount it; certainly no reason that he has been able to give. He merely needs to discount it - and badly. He has no response for it, and he knows that this particular detail destroys his claim that the original Tyrians were all destroyed.

manwithdream

I know you all are in middle of a complicated debate, but I would like to interrupt and make a little point if it is ok . When Jonah went to Nineveh, he said they had a certain amount of time and then they would be destroyed. The people repented and they were not destroyed. It does not say that Jonah told them repent and you won't be destroyed, but it happened anyway(according to the Torah at least).
Maybe a similar thing happened to Tyre. Jeremiah 27:3 and 11 said to submit to Babylon and they won't be destroyed . Ezekiel 26 said they would be destroyed, but he did not mention a way to survive by surrendering. Maybe when they were under siege and forced to surrender , G-d cancelled Ezekiel's prophecy and let them survive like Jeremiah said they could if they served Babylon.
Maybe Ezekiel's prophecy did not happen because the situation changed and not because it was a false prophecy. Maybe some "false prophecies" are really things that G-d cancelled or changed in some way because the situation changed.

Johnny Skeptic

And maybe prophecies are actually false, right? How do you suggest that we tell the difference one way or the other?

manwithdream

I think every prophecy has to be looked at individually to see if it came true or not. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation that has not been considered. Anyway, I would like to hear your opinion on what I said about Tyre obeying G-d after they were under siege and how that cancelled Ezekiel's prophecy against them.

Doug Shaver

Right. All it says is that Jonah said, "You will be destroyed." The city's destruction is what he said -- without any qualifications, disclaimers, stipulations, reservations, ifs, ands, or buts -- was going to happen, and it did not happen.

What was prophesied did not happen. That makes it a false prophecy. I don't care why it did not happen. I don't care how much better the actual outcome was than the predicted outcome would have been. If a prophet says X will happen and X does not happen, then the prophet is wrong.

Johnny Skeptic

Of course, but try to tell that to an inerrantist like Lee Merrill. His only real evidence for most anything is "the Bible says so."

And maybe there is a reasonable explanation why God makes people blind, deaf and dumb, right? Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?"

Assuming that your speculation is true, how would that help to prove that the Tyre prophecy was inspired by God?

manwithdream

I don't think it is humanly possible to show that a prophecy was inspired by G-d. I am only trying to show that the prophecy was not false based on the information in the Torah. I think that my explanation just shows why Ezekiel 26 did not happen . I think that G-d can do whatever He wants to. If He wants a prophet to say something will happen and then the situation changes, then G-d can change what He will do. I really don't think I can speak for G-d. I am only trying to give a possible explanation for Ezekiel 26 not happening. If you believe that G-d is like a computer that cannot react to changes and must carry out His prophecy, then you have a very strict understanding of prophecy. I don't think this is how the Torah describes how G-d acts.