1robin said:
This has nothing to do with the accuracy of the prophecy but only the accuracy of what I stated.
Are you saying that many of the arguments that you made in the thread on the Tyre prophecy were irrelevant to whether or not God inspired it? Many of your arguments were false, such as your claim that Carthaginians founded Tyre when it was Tyrians who founded Carthage, and your claim that the only reason that Alexander attacked Tyre was because the Tyrians hung his messengers, but Arrian says that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers, which means that it is plausible if not probable that he would have attacked the fortress even if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers. That makes sense since Arrian quotes Alexander as telling his generals that he had some strategic reasons for attacking Tyre, and those reasons agree with some modern historians who know that the fortress had significant military, and strategic value. Alexander did want to conquer Egypt, and the Persians, but he did that the very next year, and wanted to first conquer the island fortress since, as Arrian said, he had strategic reasons for conquering it.
You often attempt to gain a small advantage, and when your attempts do not work, and you are proven wrong, you do not want to admit that you are wrong, and you claim that what you discussed was not important. If you are actually as busy as you claim you are, why do you waste so much of your time discussing irrelevant issues? Since you judgment is so poor regarding many irrelevant issues, why would it be good regarding relevant issues?
Regarding the parts of the prophecy that came true, all that Ezekiel did was to state the obvious, or to make easy guesses that many other people also believed would happen.
The building of the causeway was not a fulfillment of prophecy since verse 12, which mentions the rubble, refers only to the island fortress, not to the mainland settlement. Surely Ezekiel, and his contemporary audience had no idea that a causeway would be built from the mainland to the island, and believed that the walls of the fortress would be cast into the sea, not rubble from the mainland settlement. That makes sense for a number of reasons that I have discussed in detail in the thread on the Tyre prophecy.
Ezekiel said that island would become covered with water, but that did not happen since contrary to what you claimed, most of it is not underwater, and is covered by modern buildings. In addition, Ezekiel said that the island would become uninhabited, but that has never happened.
1robin said:
He destroyed a fortress built upon a bare rock, this would naturally produce the effect of making a bare rock. Unless taken in an unjustifiable and unknowable literal way your argument is arbitrary and meaningless.
That is completely false. Arrian, and even some Christian sources, including the distinguished scholar Dr. John A. Bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is a colleague of William Lane Craig at Biola University, said that Alexander did not level the fortress, and that it was rebuilt, and was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D. Even one of your own sources in your first post in the thread on the Tyre prophecy says that the prophecy was not completely fulfilled until the 12th century A.D., although it was actually the 13th century A.D. The KJV says "like the top of a rock." The NIV says "like a bare rock." The ASV says "a bare rock." No credible ancient, or modern sources says that Alexander made the fortress look anywhere near like the top of a rock, or like a bare rock, leveled it, or mostly destroyed it. Those terms definitely imply "mostly destroyed," and that did not happen. One source that I read correctly said that it would have been foolish for Alexander to level the fortress since it would have had significant strategic value to him, which it did for a number of parties, including some Christians when it was finally completely destroyed in 1291 A.D. Arrian's detailed detail descriptions of the battle at
Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre do not indicate that the walls of the walls of the fortress were extensively destroyed. No impartial, fair minded reader would conclude from Arrian's descriptions of the battle that Alexander anywhere near mostly destroyed, or leveled the fortress.
1robin said:
It was meant to indicate that what the Tyrian's took pride in would be destroyed utterly and that is what occurred.
That is ridiculous. By the time that Alexander defeated the island fortress, the Tyrians against whom the prophecy has been made were long dead.
Contrary to what you claimed, Ezekiel did not limit the time frame of the prophecy to when Tyrians did not have anything more to do with the fortress, which would have been just after Alexander defeated it. Even some Christian experts do not use that argument, and would reject it. If Ezekiel did limit the time frame to just after Alexander defeated the fortress, the prophecy definitely failed since at that time, most of the island was not covered by water, it was not uninhabited, and Alexander did not make the island look anywhere near like the top of a rock, or like a bare rock.
What credible historical sources say that Alexander mostly destroyed, or leveled the fortress?
Ezekiel 26:5 says:
"It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God: and it shall become a spoil to the nations."
That verse is misunderstood by many conservative Christians, and even just plain old common sense indicates that the verse is not an example of a fulfilled prophecy, and both verses imply mostly destroyed, which Alexander did not do. Since nets had already been spread on the island before Ezekiel wrote the Tyre prophecy, Ezekiel must have meant, as a Christian whom I quoted said, that the island would become a place that was useful only for the spreading of fishing nets, but that has never happened.
Surely 1) like a bare rock, 2) a place for the spreading of nets, 3) covered with water, and 4) uninhabited all indicate nearly complete destruction, or complete destruction. Alexander did not accomplish that, and you would never say that he did if some other religious book made those claims.
