Johnny Skeptic

The Tyre prophecy cannot be accurately dated. Therefore, the prophecy is not valid even if all of its predictions came true. Game, set, and match to the skeptics.

Sauron

Well to be fair - if the prophecy cannot be dated, then it cannot be used as affirmative evidence of fulfilled prophecy. So in that respect, it fails to achieve the goal that literalists try to use it for.

That one aspect is not an invalidation of the Tyre prophecy; it merely disqualifies it from being on anyone's list of "evidences that demand a verdict."

What actually disqualifies the Tyre prophecy are all the other mistakes; i.e., where the events of history failed to match the predictions of the prophecy, regardless of when the prophecy was first written down. I.e., Nebuchadnezzar did not conquer and flatten the city of Tyre - contrary to prophecy.

Same story with Babylon - and another reason why lee_merrill's challenge is so bogus: the Babylon prophecy is like rotted styrofoam; it has so many mistakes and errors that any puff of wind could knock it over.

Julian

It seems to me that the simplest way to do this is to merely note that the prophecy is wrong. How do we know this? Because Tyre is still there with lots of people living in it.

The prophecy must have been written before the event because it is wrong.

The guy who owns my local beer store is Palestinian. He came back from vacation there not long ago. I asked him if he went to Tyre. He said that he did. "How was it?" I asked. "Lovely," he replied, easily defying Ezekiel's words.

I don't understand how someone can insist that Tyre was reduced to nothing when it is quite clearly there and has been there since before Ezekiel.

Ah, well...

Julian

Johnny Skeptic

I know where you guys are coming from, and your arguments are valid, but as you know, a sizeable percentage of fundamentalists Christians are not in the least bit deterred by such arguments. However, they “are “deterred regarding the issue of dating the Tyre prophecy. As you saw in another thread, Lee Merrill was quite reluctant to address the issue of dating, even though he was still willing to discuss some other aspects of the prophecy. Bfniii tried to date the prophecy in the thread on Biblical errors, but he has not replied to my most recent arguments regarding dating the Tyre prophecy. As I showed, he embarrassed himself with his reference to a Wikipedia article.

So, I prefer to use arguments that Christians are reluctant to address. This shows the undecided crowd and the nominal Christian crowd that the Tyre prophecy cannot be logically defended because it cannot be accurately dated. Why waste time on extended debates with Christians that go on for months when you can defeat them quickly with one simple argument?

Sauron

Yes. He was reluctant to discuss it, but tried to claim that his interpretation fit in with the dating of "other scholars".

But when pressed on who those "other scholars" were and asked to cite them, he failed to produce any.

What was he saying about uncorroborated claims?

Johnny Skeptic

He was saying that the more uncorroborated claims the better. (chuckle)

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding antiquity in general, and the Tyre prophecy in particular, the issues of which events occurred and when they were recorded are two completely separate and unrelated issues. The former is usually much easier to establish than the latter. No historian disputes that there was once a city named Tyre that consisted of a mainland settlement and an island settlement. In addition, most or all historians believe that there was a King named Nebuchadnezzar and a King named Jehioakim. However, I am quite certain that it would not be difficult for me to contact a historian at a leading university and get him to agree with me that it is not possible to accurately date the Tyre prophecy to within +/- 100 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Tyre. What indicates that the Tyre prophecy was not recorded until at least 100 after Ezekiel’s death? The correct answer is, nothing at all. What indicates that the prophecy was not altered well after it was first recorded? The correct answer is, nothing at all.

Actually, I can concede that the prophecy was written just before Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Tyre and still successfully question that it was divinely inspired. What about the prophecy indicates divine inspiration? The correct answer is, nothing at all. It is entirely possible that Ezekiel might have learned about Nebuchadnezzar’s plans to invade Tyre months in advance through a spy. The invasion would have taken months to plan, and hundreds, if not thousands of people would have known about it.

The “many nations� part of the prophecy might have been added after Nebuchadnezzar’s unsuccessful 13 siege of the mainland settlement, and of course of the island settlement. Considering Ezekiel 26:7-11, that is probably what happened. In the NIV, verse 11 says “The hoofs of his (Nebuchadnezzar’s) horses will trample all your streets………� There is not any credible historical evidence that Nebuchadnezzar’s horses trampled all of the mainland settlement’s streets.

Regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s use of chariots in verse 7, ancient historian Richard Carrier says that Nebuchadnezzar did not use chariots in warfare.

offa

A little bit of Josephus and exactly what the location of Tyre was.
In his Antiquities he mentions the location of Tyre. This Tyre is
not the island on the Mediterranean.



Ant 12-233 Moreover, he built courts of greater magnitude than
ordinary, which he adorned with vastly huge gardens. And
when he brought the place to this state, he named it
Tyre. This place is between Arabia and Judea, beyond the
Jordan, not far from the country of Heshbon.


Now, Josephus previously mentions "Tyre"

Ant 08-055 The copies of these epistles remain at this day, and
are preserved not only in our books, but among the
Tyrians also; insomuch that if anyone would know the
certainty about them, he may desire of the keepers of
public records of Tyre to show him, and he will find what
is there set down to agree with what we have said.



Now,which "Tyre" is he talking about? If he his talking about the
"Tyre" in about the same Tyre in both stories then he cannot be called
a liar in in Ant 08-55. In the arguments in this Criticism
& Archaeology thread the advocates fail to realize that they are
debating "apples and oranges", that is, to say, please identify Tyre.

Now, if there are dual names for "Tyre" then the game is open. What I mean is
this, if there is more than one "Tyre then there is more than one Hiram".

Now, if you ever watched "Dumb and Dumber" I fit the smart character.
By coincidence to my analogies of Scriptures I was the dumbass that
believed what I read, only, I read Josephus backwards. I read, first
of all, Book the first three books of "The War", becoming very
interested in king Herod the Great and not wanting to read Genesis,
I began reading the "Antiquities" from book 20 to book 1 in that
order.
Do you know who Patrick Fitzgerold is (www.afterdowningstreet.org)?
This prosecutor is interviewing high level officials and questioning
them "under oath" questions he already knows the answer to. So, if
they lie, he's got them "cold turkey", only, he does not tell them!
He just records what they say and will let them try to lie their way
out on cross-examination.

When I read Josephus backwards I discovered his sleuth in lying.
My point is this, the Bible is a fairy-tale. For a quickie
on knowledge, just read Aesop (briar-rabbit) backwards and it becomes
funnier yet.




P.S.

if Tyre has more than one name (location) then likewise, so does
Hiram and Solomon, and David. If locations change and identifies change,
the so does time frames. Josephus swears by the truth, and what he
says is the truth by his standards.

Sauron

Well, Tyre *is* the Mediterranean island.
The only question is whether Josephus got it correct or not.

You need to read the entire section, not just an excerpt.

From this we gather:

1. this was not Josephus' testimony; he was reporting the contents of a letter allegedly received from the king of the Lacedemonians. Thus it is not Josephus asserting this; he is merely relaying the text of the letter. So offa's claim that Josephus was giving a location for Tyre is not correct.

2. This appears to be another myth story of origins, as it ascribes to the patriarch Joseph several series of events that are not reported in the OT. Not that I believe the OT is actual history; but apparently someone has decided to use already-existing historical figures to weave their own myth story of origin. If this letter from the king of the Lacedemonians is a real item, then apparently there was an established folklore about Joseph that allowed them to "borrow" him into their national story.

3. However, Lacedemon is the name of the founder of Sparta, and the Lacedemonians would appear to be *Greek*, not from the Levant. Which is reasonable that Josephus would encounter such a story, during the Hellenization period of the Jews.

4. Now from the description of this palace, it appears to be describing the rock city of Petra. Apparently having borrowed Joseph from Hebrew mythology, this letter is now going to borrow an existing location and claim credit for it as well. Evidence?

a. " a strong castle, and built it entirely of white stone to the very roof," as in this image

b. "a great and deep canal of water" - we know that one of the strengths of Petra was its private and dedicated water supply;
c. "caves of many furlongs in length, by hollowing a rock that was over against him; and then he made large rooms in it, some for feasting, and some for sleeping and living in" - found at Petra;
d. "the entrances at the mouth of the caves so narrow, that no more than one person could enter by them at once" - as in this image

e. "between Arabia and Judea, beyond Jordan, not far from the country of Heshbon" - this puts the location roughly where Petra is today.

But Greeks did not build Petra, any more than Lacedemonians had roots in the trans-Jordanian area.

No. The fact that a rock city (Petra) is called "Rock" (Sur) in Hebrew is not remarkable. In spite of that, Josephus did not call Petra "Tyre" - he reported the contents of a letter, nothing more.

bfniii

funny. you come over here to another thread and make it out like i'm ducking you or something. what you fail to mention is that the other thread is now over 400 posts long and i haven't failed to respond to any posts or points that i know of, including yours.

you showed no such thing. all you did was misrepresent the article and introduce another viewpoint.

your argument is fundamentally flawed and i showed that in the other thread.