Sheshonq

My source is only repeating Ezekiel in preparation for setting up his argument that all these things apply to Nebuchadnezzar *only*, and not to any other conqueror. You didn't help your argument by quoting someone who was quoting Ezekiel, especially when my source contradicts your position later in his own argument. :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:


No, he didn't. If he had done so, no truce would have been needed and the city would not have retained its independence. Even Ezekiel realized that Nebuchadnezzar failed to take Tyre; which is why later in the same book says:

EZE 29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:

EZE 29:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.

EZE 29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

If Nebuchadnezzar had conquered all of Tyre, then he would have gotten "wages for his army"; the wealth was on the island, and Nebuchadnezzar would have taken its wealth as the spoils of war. But since he failed to take the island, he went away without a paycheck. Ezekiel knew this, and tried to fix his earlier unfulfilled prophecy with this new one about Egypt. Of course, Ezekiel got that wrong, too. Nebuchadnezzar never invaded Egypt after the failed siege at Tyre.

Wrong - he took the rubble from the mainland colonies to create a landbridge.

So now you're claiming that Nebuchadnezzar DID destroy all of Tyre? The mainland colonies as well as the island? Is that really your new position?

That's your claim; you can dig up the proof for it. You might want to first ask yourself, though: if Tyre was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, then why was Alexander bothering to attack it? If there was nothing on the island, then why was Alexander going to the trouble to build a landbridge to reach it?

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

arnoldo

Tyre used the rubble of old tyre, threw it into the sea, and attacked the island. Are you saying Alexander never built a landbridge to attack the island? Where did Alexander the Great get the material to build the land bridge? Home Depot?

arnoldo

So Nebby did attack the Island with his Sea Horses and caused a truce? :Cheeky:

Toto

This thread is like watching Mike Tyson spar with Goldilocks. Can anyone give me a reason not to close it?

I'll check back in an hour or so.

spin

You are not making sense: "Tyre used the rubble of old tyre,... and attacked the island"?? Umm, not Tyre but Alexander?

Why would you ever think that of your correspondent? No-one, knowing the evidence, says that Alexander didn't build the mole.

Where did Tyre get the stone for its 150 ft walls??? Obviously not from Ushu, so where? And if they got the stone from a quarry, why not Alexander? You cannot base your argument on a guess.

And why do you persist in trying to make Ushu (later called Palai-Tyre by Greeks) the center of your ramblings, when Tyre was always the island and Ezekiel talks of Tyre, not Ushu (Hosah)?


spin

Sheshonq

You said Nebuchadnezzar conquered Tyre and destroyed it.

If so, then why was Alexander trying to conquer a city that was destroyed and in rubble?

From the mainland colonies.

The bigger question is: if Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre two centuries earlier, then (according to you) why was Alexander trying to conquer a pile of rubble?

Sheshonq

You've been asked about a dozen time to prove your claim that Nebuchadnezzar had no means to attack the island. For someone who runs like a coward every time that challenge comes up, you're in a poor position to be telling other people what history does or doesn't say.

spin

The obvious conclusion is that after 13 years of siege, the Tyrians, unable to continue, came to an agreement with Babylon and functionally surrendered. (The island itself was never directly attacked by Nebuchadnezzar. He merely maintained forces to prevent Tyre from getting any resources from Babylonian held territories.) The Babylonian then removed the position of king and installed a member of the royal line as an administrator.


spin

arnoldo

Wrong, Nebby destroyed the city. Alexander the Great then fulfilled prophecy by throwing the city into the sea to create a landbridge. Are you now going to argue that Alexander the Great never created a landbridge?

arnoldo

Apparently there was a truce after Nebby attacked an Island after 13 years.