Farrell Till

Was this picture taken where modern Tyre sits on the site of ancient Tyre? If so, then Ezekiel's prophecy failed, because he said that Tyre would become desolate and uninhabited forever.

Farrell Till

Everyone can see that Richbee is trying to save face, but if this is a picture of a market in modern Tyre, which sits on the location of ancient Tyre, it is evidence that Ezekiel's prophecy failed. Or does Richbee still not understand the meanings of desolate, not inhabited, and forever?

Farrell Till

What does this mean? Richbee can't even answer a simple question.

Where did Ezekiel prophesy that Tyre would linger on but without a king to rule over a kingdom? For the umpteenth time, the prophecy was that Tyre would be made desolate and unpopulated forever. Here is how the relevant part of the prophecy reads.

Here is how Richbee wishes it read.

This is what Richbee must find in order to sustain his position, but he knows that he can find it, so he tries to save face by posting hahahahahaha!

Richbee is so unobservant that he still hasn't seen how my name is spelled, yet he expects us to think that he can "see" meanings in Ezekiel's prophecy that aren't specifically stated.

As for whether the citizens were all led away into slavery, Nebuchadnezzar certainly didn't lead them away. He made a treaty with Tyre and withdrew after a 13-year siege. My, how humiliating that must have been to the Tyrians. The treaty required Tyre to pay tribute to Babylon, but if everyone was led away into slavery, there would have been no one left to pay the tribute.

Richbee will say, of course, that Alexander the Great led everyone at Tyre into slavery, but that isn't so. We have quoted a reputable history of Tyre, which pointed out that those whom Alexander left behind were able to recover quickly and restore Tyre to a place of prominence.

Notice that Fleming said that Alexander had "almost depopulated" the city, so does Richbee understand that almost would not include everyone? This is only one of many historical references that could be quoted to show that Alexander did not destroy the city and take its entire population into slavery. Fleming, in fact, noted that the city was able to rise to a position of wealth and leadership again. Hence, Richbee cannot claim that Alexander fulfilled the prophecy, because not even he totally destroyed it. He didn't even destroy forever its glory and wealth.

Even if Alexander had completely destroyed Tyre and its population, that would not make the prophecy a success, because we have shown and shown and shown that Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would be the instrument of Tyre's complete destruction.

Well, let Richbee show us that he knows more about this than Fleming and other historians, who all agree that Alexander didn't destroy the city and its population entirely. Richbee has talked about "fishermen" who now live in Tyre, so by his own admission the prophecy failed, because if it had succeeded, the site would be uninhabited today.

Or does forever not mean forever?

Do you suppose that Richbee will ever show us where Ezekiel prophesied that the glory, wealth, grandeur, etc. of Tyre would be destroyed forever but that the city itself would remain?

This didn't happen in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and Ezekiel prophesied that he would be the instrument of Tyre's destruction. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the splendor and greatness of Tyre were dashed to earth, so what? The prophecy was that the city would be made desolate and uninhabited forever. When did that happen?

It didn't.

Farrell Till

I can't remember who posted what, but I can certainly remember that I have posted very detailed, specific arguments and rebuttals that you have completely ignored. You will find them in posts #134-136, 140, and 142-143, as well as in the summations of them that I have posted today.

When will you be answering them?

The fact that modern Tyre exists is proof that the prophecy failed, or do desolate, not inhabited, and forever no longer mean what they once did?

Farrell Till

Because it sits on a site that Ezekiel prophesied would become a bare rock and would be built upon no more (26:14)? Could that be the what?

That destruction was supposed to last forever.

Richbee's quibble seems to be centered on a belief that Ezekiel had prophesied only that the glory, splendor, and greatness of Tyre would be destroyed forever but that the city itself would continue to exist indefinitely. Where does he get this? Let him cite the part of the prophecy that says only the glory and greatness of Tyre would be destroyed forever but not the city proper.

He can't do it, of course.

I don't know if dongiovanni1976x will "keep dreaming," but I am very sure that Richbee will keep evading arguments and rebuttals.

David B

Alternative hypothesis.

He will slink away, and not address your points at all, even by evasion.

David B (finds the words 'conspicuous by his absense' springing to mind)

King of Men

Ye gods, why waste umpteen long posts on a guy who is plainly not going to answer with anything more than five lines? If I may make a suggestion, perhaps you could make just one point - just one, mind you - and see if comrade Rich responds. If not, stop wasting your time. I must say that I have a certain amount of sympathy for him, I don't think I would care to read all you posted in any detail, either. It's a message board, not a scholarly journal.

Farrell Till

Well, let's just assume that this is so and that old Tyre is located either under the rubble of Greeks and Romans or under water. If so, the prophecy failed, because Ezekiel had prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would make Tyre like a "bare rock" and that it would be "built no more" (26:14). If, however, it now sits under Grecian and Roman rubble, the prophecy failed, because those Grecian and Roman ruins would have been built after Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre would be made a "bare rock." Furthermore, if it is under water, it wouldn't be a bare rock or a "place for spreading of net."

Either way you lose, Richbee, but the fact is, as shown by numerous photographs that have been published here, including some of your own, the site of ancient Tyre is now occupied by a sprawling city. There is a section in a travel article about Lebanon http://www.anytravels.com/middle_east/lebanon, which disputes everything that Richbee has been saying about modern Tyre's position in Lebanese society.

But Richbee, of course, knows more about modern Tyre than people in a Lebanese travel agency would know.

I wonder if Richbee will ever learn anything.

Again, Richbee's own picture testifies to the failure of Ezekiel's prophecy. If the prophecy had been fulfilled, these buildings would not be there. How could a bare rock have ruins and structures like these on them?

<edit>

Derec

And about 100% of Mediterranean towns and cities have fish markets. Duh! :banghead:

Farrell Till

My posts yesterday were basically summations of rebuttal points I have made before that Richbee hasn't answered. If he could answer them, he would have done so by now, so I have in no way overwhelmed him.

If someone like him is not answered, there will always be someone in the forum who will think that he can't be answered. I am squashing that claim before it gets off the ground.