sugarhitman

Critics will not accept that Zek seperates Babylon from the rest of the nations using the words HE and They. Notice in chapter 5 this saying:" ...And it shall become a spoil to the nations" then compare it to ch 29 verse 18 "...yet he (Neby) had no wages, nor HIS ARMY (not some multi-national force), for Tyrus...." Now go back to ch 26 and see what actions are done under He in verses 7-11.
1. He would destroy the daughters in the FIELD (Old Tyre is not a daughter of the island city because they are the same city see Google maps tour guides. These are the villeges and towns spread out on the mainland). Verse 8
2. He will break down the towers verse 9 (under "HE" there is no destroying the walls)
3. He would kill both civilians and soldiers verse 11

Verse 12 begans with the plundering of Tyre also notice that at this moment "HE" Becomes "THEY" which supports verse 5: "....and it shall become a spoil to the NATIONS." Is this mere coincedense? No Ezekiel knew that Nebby would not spoil Tyre. Think about it if Zek knew that Nebby did not plunder Tyre why would he allow such a very important (The prophets and their work were highly esteemed amongst the Jews,and it was a shameful and dangerous thing to be considered a false prophet.) Work with a very obvious contradiction to go unchanged? Why would his work still have Neby plundering Tyre when two chapters later in his same work say he didnt? I find this type of accusation from critics (the accusation that Zek was somehow to lazy to go back and rewrite his failed prophecy. What logic is in this stupid argument.....none)...petty and weak.

The fact is Babylon is seperated from the "many nations" and the many nations is not some Babylonian multi-national force. When Babylon conquered Jerusalem there is no mention of a multi-national force, but the army of Babylon and the Chaldeans. Nebby was a King of Kings all that means is just that...a king of kings.

And another thing we know (Bible prophecy students) that from verses 7- 14 begins and ends with the mainland city because it was the part that was LAYED in the sea scraped and made like the top of a rock, that was completely destroyed by the nations never to built again. (The freshwater springs are located to the south of the island close to the beach area. These springs were said to be close to or at the mainland city. Which shows just how close this city was on the coast. The city of Sur on the mainland to the north is not the same city as the old one. This is the part of the dual city destroyed by Nebby and the nations. It is now a site to spread nets on...the beach.) From verses 14-21 is soley of the island portion of the city. Chapter 27 which is completly of the island city agrees with verses 19-20 of ch. 26 which says that the island portion of the city would fall deep under the sea.....and everything in it. It all make sense if interpreted correctly. Two portions of the same city, two very different Judgements......and two words to seperate Nebby from the many nations..."He" and "They"

Jack the Bodiless

Still blundering onward?

The whole "future tense" issue is a red herring. Till was merely pointing out that we cannot infer that Ezekiel was writing BEFORE the siege began: he could have been referring to an event IN PROGRESS. But even if you prefer to imagine that the use of the future tense in translations WAS justified, THIS MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

The prophecy failed, in every detail... except for the brief reference to the taking of the mainland settlements prior to the assault on Tyre itself, which may or may not have been written before this happened.
Once again: Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.

I'll just repeat that, because it's still not getting through.

Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.

Maybe bold and caps?

ALEXANDER THE GREAT DID NOT DESTROY TYRE.

And just in case you missed it:

ALEXANDER THE GREAT DID NOT DESTROY TYRE.
Yep. it's another source which says that you are wrong. Why do you keep posting those, but blatantly ignoring what they actually say?
Does this mean that you have surrendered?

Jack the Bodiless

Sugarhitman: again, merely repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true. In particular, "he" and "they" have already been explained (and I notice you're still ignoring the fact that in the LXX, which is OLDER than the Masoretic text that modern Bibles are derived from, "he" is used throughout).

And you're still pretending that Tyre was a "dual city" but blatantly ignoring the fact that ALL the streets of this "dual city" HAS TO INCLUDE those on the ISLAND.
...A phrase which means a king over many nations. So what you're saying is "Nebby wasn't a king over many nations, he was just a king over many nations".
Nope. Ezekiel was referring to the island, but he was a false prophet. And the mainland was indeed rebuilt. Ushu was a "line of suburbs", spread out along the coast: it wasn't just "where the springs were".

arnoldo

I guess I can agree that the prophecy failed IF we assume the following.

A. All prophecy was meant to be fullfilled at a single point in time. There can be no fullfilment of prophecy across multiple points of time in the future. For example Yeshua could not have fullfilled some bible prophecy 2000 years ago and left the remainder of the prophecy to be fulfilled at a so called "Second Coming."

B. There is no future tense in Hebrew, thus Zekey 26 meant that Tyre was going to be destroyed in a single event,not multiple events in the future.

C. Many Nations= Babylon. Many nations does not mean that Alexander the Great would come at a later time and destroy Tyre.

These assumptions was made by a <edit> and so far everyone is merely parroting his lame arguments.

makerowner

Not quite. Try this: "A. When a prophecy says that a certain person will do something, said prophecy is only fulfilled when said person does said thing."

Whether or not Hebrew has a future tense doesn't matter. You could try this instead: "B. When Ezekiel 26 says Nebuchadrezzar is going to do something, the prophecy can only be fulfilled by Nebuchadrezzar."

Yep, you got that one right. Remember that Nebuchadrezzar is "king of kings", eg. the nation of which he is king has power over other nations and their kings.

And why do you think he's a <edit>? Because of your knowledge of Hebrew grammar and ancient Middle-Eastern history? Or because his arguments are inconvenient for you? You'll have to forgive me for not trusting your evaluation of sources, because almost every time you give one to try to back you up, it turns out to actually work against your point.

Jack the Bodiless

That's just the usual excuse for prophecy-failure. It doesn't work here because (among other reasons) a named person, Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, failed to perform various tasks HE was prophesied to perform.
Nope, that WAS NOT Till's argument.

I'll say that again:

Nope, that WAS NOT Till's argument.

You have NO EXCUSE for repeating this blunder over and over again.

Till was merely pointing out that the text does not distinguish between armies yet to come, and armies that were already on the scene. EVEN IF you imagine that Nebby's armies had yet to arrive, the "prophecy" STILL fails.
...Except that Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.

Did I not repeat that often enough to sink in?

Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
Alexander the Great DID NOT destroy Tyre.
You have lost, arnoldo. Hurling insults (at a registered IIDB member, incidentally) will not change that fact.

It's time to give up, arnoldo.

Sheshonq

You want evidence that ancient Near Eastern countries used horses in their military?
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

I already addressed this. Your complaint about Till is misplaced. Hebrew has no future tense. That does not mean it cannot express the future. The past tense is used in this prophecy. Till's point is that Hogan has a twisted interpretation that is rooted in that linguistic anomaly.

It does mean "many nations". It just doesn't mean many nations over a series of centuries. It means "many nations" as they were represented by Babylon's army. This has been explained twice now in this thread; several times in other threads.

Can someone be deaf over the internet? I think you're pushing the bounds of that question.

arnoldo

I forgot the other assumption one needs to make to determine the Tyre prophecy failed. The Tyre prophecy was mainly against the walls and streets of the city of Tyre, since Tyre exists today, prophecy failed. Nevermind that Zeke was against the political/economic/religious system that was in place in Tyre and Nebby took the princes into exile into Babylon and set up HIS own rulers in Tyre.

Sheshonq

1. I don't have to produce any such evidence. You (and sugarhitman) are the ones claiming that he had no ships. That's your claim; your burden of proof.

2. Why do you think a mole was required to conduct a siege? What a strange comment; it only shows that you don't know the definition of hte word "siege".

3. Your own argument works against you: if you believe that Nebuchadnezzar had no navy and no mole, then that would explain why the siege lasted 13 years. Nebuchadnezzar wasn't able to gain a decisive military advantage against the island without a navy. And the Tyrians weren't able to kick him off the mainland, because Babylon's land army was superb. So the two sides sat in a stalemate for 13 years, neither one being able to achieve a decisive victory.

You've already been given the citations. Tyre did not fall, yet its princes were deported to Babylon. Your own bible says that Nebuchadnezzar failed to plunder Tyre. If he had conquered it, then he would have plundered it. Therefore the evidence is that he failed to conquer it.

What a load of bullshit. These recurring threads have been filled with historial and archaeological facts - you just haven't been interested in reading them. Intellectual cowardice is the root cause; not a lack of evidence.

Sheshonq

Wrong. That is not an assumption required to prove its failure.

The skeptic emphasis on walls and streets is to respond to fundies like yourself who think that there is some difference between walls, streets, island and mainland.