Camanintx
I have reviewed our coversations and have found some things I need to mention.
First: I have pointed out that "bare" rock is a translation not the original words even though bare would be a suitable description if it was indeed the original word used. I claimed that bare was not even the translation in verse 4 however I believe it is in verse 14. This makes no actual difference in anything but I wanted to point out my claims about the translation about verse 4 are not true concerning verse 14. That is not to say that "bare" is the correct translation of even verse 14.
Here is the translation I have:
And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be [a place] to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken [it], saith the Lord GOD.
The original word once again is Cela and it means:
a) crag, cliff.
It basically says that the stroghold would be turned into a rocky mess that would only be fit for drying nets (which is exactly what happened). Your hyper literal understanding of a word that isn't original anyway is incorrect but common for people who just can't let this prohecy stand, for reasons that have nothing to do with it's accuracy.
Second: I found another site that was more detailed about the use of they and he as well as your other typical issues and wanted to include it as a last attempt so to speak to point out the flaws in your reasoning.
A: Why many people make mistakes concerning prophecy:
Any proper exegesis of Ezekiel 26
must be made from the understanding of Biblical Hebrew prophecy -- what is the prophet doing when he speaks for Yahweh? What kind of event is he relating, and to whom, and for when? These kinds of questions are rarely asked, and if they are asked they are usually not answered in any way which is coherent with the cultural, theological, and historical setting of the prophet.
Anatomy of a Biblical Prophecy
It must be understood that Ezekiel was recording visions in his own words not giving a historical blow by blow description of events.
B: Notes concerning the "they or nations and he" confusion.
vs. 3 "Therefore, thus says the Lord Yahweh: Behold, I [am] against you Tyre and I will bring up against you nations many as brings up the sea its waves."
Note, the waves of the sea covering the city is metaphorical, NOT literal ... God will bring the nations against Tyre in such vast numbers, and with such might, that it will be like the waves of a sea overcoming the beach. This is a certain interpretation because the Hebrew prefix used here for "as" is used in *every* known instance to draw a similar relationship between two different things or ideas. Hence,
the nations will be LIKE the waves of the sea in their numbers and power.
Anatomy of a Biblical Prophecy
This makes it clear that like waves nations will flow and ebb over time against Tyre, not in one single flood.
The Hebrew pronoun for "they" is a suffix attached to the verb "shall destroy," thus indicating a relationship with "nations." The nations shall do this.
The phrase then immediately shifts pronoun referents to the first person singular in the suffix attached to the Perfect Common Piel verb "shall destroy," indicating that while it is the nations who are the agencies for this activity, we are again reminded that it is the Lord Yahweh ("Adoni Yahweh") who is doing this. The imagery used here is fully consistent with similar examples of Semitic hyperbole found elsewhere in the Old Testament and in extra-biblical Hebraic sources, and thus should
not be understood in simply a literal fashion. This is especially true since the imagery is of the Lord Yahweh Himself doing this. And, it should also be noted that there is a definite play on words present in the Hebrew: The Hebrew name for Tyre is "Tsor," which is formed from the same root as is the Hebrew word for rock ... a metaphor too strong for the prophet to pass up (in essence, "The City of Rock will be scraped bare of the city, leaving only the Rock."). Be the agency of destruction a human army or the hand of the Divine, the metaphor is one of utter and complete destruction. A handful of sand -- or dunes full, for that matter -- left on the rocks does NOT constitute a failure of the intended action because
the object of the prophecy is NOT the inanimate substance of Tyre but, rather, the people -- the Phoenicians -- and their environs.
Anatomy of a Biblical Prophecy
C: The rebuilding of the city but not by the Phonecians
:
What is being said here, and to whom is it being said? Yahweh is telling Tyre that
it will not be rebuilt, that
it will be utterly destroyed. Utilizing the same Semitic hyperbole found in the Prophetic Abstract at the beginning of the periocope, Divinely sanctioned destruction is being proclaimed to the people of the city of Tyre. It was the
Phoenicians at Tyre that were guilty of the sins outlined in verse 1, and it is they who are destroyed ... they and their buildings are laid waste. If people now live at the site, an issue I understand is open for debate in many circles, this would in
no way conflict with the proclamation of the Lord Yahweh against Tyre that he would destroy
them. He did. Indeed,
the Phoenicians themselves are no more. Those people who live on or near the site of Ancient Tyre are not Phoenicians, and hence their presence on or near the site doesn't constitute a problem for the validity of this prophecy. Such people do not share the Phoenician culture, they do not share the Phoenician language, they do not sing Phoenician songs or play Phoenician music, and their ancestry is such a mixed bag of peoples that, while there may be a percentage of Phoenician blood in them, such is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that the Phoenicians themselves -- as a distinct people with a distinct culture and language -- are gone. A simple look at the region, and its history, is all one needs to do to support the position that the Phoenicians are no longer in existence. There is no "Phoenicia" in the UN, no team at the Olympic games, no language currently being spoken (though echoes of its written form can be seen in Greek and Latin and, hence, English), no embassy in Washington, no cultural trade mission, no military,
no nothing. The Lebanese are
not Phoenicians, even though they live on the property. To say that they are Phoenicians would be similar to making the claim that Chile is really the Inca Empire! Nevertheless,
some Atheists will try to claim that, since Lebanese live on or near the site of Ancient Tyre, the prophecy failed. Their claim is absurd, This is a prophecy not to a piece of land -- not to a bunch of rocks -- but to a people. Arguments to the contrary are groundless at best or, at worst, compelled by an over-riding desire to find fault with the Bible and with this prophecy in particular.
Anatomy of a Biblical Prophecy
I can't make it any clearer and so will not attempt it. Facts have no power over something someone wishes to believe and so at some point the diminishing rate of return renders the effort meaningless. We are very close to that point but I wanted to post one more shot at it.
