the right religion

[1robin]

Considering that Ezekiel makes multiple, specific references to Nebuchadnezzar while not even attempting to identify Alexander the Great, isn't this more likely simple taunting than prophecy?

Let me illustrate this another way.

Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,” says the Lord God; “it shall become plunder for the nations. Also her daughter villages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.”

1. It uses they in connection with many nations not individuals. Babylon was one nation made up of many different cultures.
2. It also uses they in connection with what the world will conclude when this event is over. Here they is every nation not Babylon as it was in the first sentence.
3. The use of they here every single time is connected with events that required more than Nebuchadnezzar accomplished on his on. It is a combination of events that required separate attacks at different times to accomplish.
4. It also links they with I (God) who manipulates all the various events. There is no need to do any of this if Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to accomplish all of this.
5. Also note that when they is mentioned in the same section as waves that given the fact that waves are symbolic of the ebb and tide of successive invasion it becomes obvious that it means more than Nebuchadnezzar's single attack or invasion. He made no waves. He went there and then left at some point.
6. Even if Ezekiel was making this up he certainly would never have suggested Nebuchadnezzar would have taken the island. The island at this time was invulnerable. No one had the technology required to overcome it. It took hundreds of years and none less than one of histories greatest generals to finally break in. It would be like saying you believe I predicted that a trout can be used to cut down a tree.

For thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people. He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defense against you. He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. Because of the abundance of his horses, their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen, the wagons, and the chariots, when he enters your gates, as men enter a city that has been breached. With the hooves of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people by the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground.

1. Why did Ezekiel suddenly switch between plurals to singulars? There must be a reason. All of these events required only Nebuchadnezzar to accomplish. Alexander nor any other nation was needed to get what is said to happen done here.
2. When he does include the plurality of entities under Nebuchadnezzar nations is not on the list. When he mentioned nations earlier the "they" was used. When he mentions plurality here it is individuals, horses, wagons etc... not nations.

They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water. I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken,” says the Lord God....

1. Here he goes again. Another complete switch between he to I and they. Why?
Because all of these events required more than Nebuchadnezzar to fulfill.
2. Some of the very general events that they both or all did might be interchangeable but the vast bulk and all of the specific ones are not. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy the pleasant houses so the word he is not used for example.

For thus says the Lord God: “When I make you a desolate city, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you, then I will bring you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of old, and I will make you dwell in the lowest part of the earth, in places desolate from antiquity, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you may never be inhabited; and I shall establish glory in the land of the living. I will make you a terror, and you shall be no more; though you are sought for, you will never be found again,” says the Lord God (26:1-14,19-21).

Here Ezekiel has went to the "I" state alone. Since this seems to be a summary of what the total devastation will be and that had to be accomplished by more than Nebuchadnezzar then the word choice is again completely accurate. So what am I saying here? In every example where more than Nebuchadnezzar was required to perform a required event "I" (God) or "they" was used. In every event that only he was required to perform an event "he" was used. There are only two conclusions.
1. Ezekiel meant exactly what I have claimed he did from the start.
or
2. He got lucky. He used "They" everywhere his prophecy was going to fail by accident. That is so absurd that only #`1 is left as viable.
Here is the corroboration I mentioned.

In chronological order, the siege of Nebuchadnezzar took place within a few months of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Josephus, quoting “the records of the Phoenicians,” says that Nebuchadnezzar “besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king” (Against Apion, 1.21). The length of the siege was due, in part, to the unusual arrangement of the mainland city and the island city. While the mainland city would have been susceptible to ordinary siege tactics, the island city would have been easily defended against orthodox siege methods (Fleming, p. 45). The historical record suggests that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city, but the siege of the island “probably ended with the nominal submission of the city” in which Tyre surrendered “without receiving the hostile army within her walls” (p. 45). The city of Tyre was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, who did major damage to the mainland as Ezekiel predicted, but the island city remained primarily unaffected.
It is at this point in the discussion that certain skeptics view Ezekiel’s prophecy as a failed prediction. Farrell Till stated: “Nebuchadnezzar did capture the mainland suburb of Tyre, but he never succeeded in taking the island part, which was the seat of Tyrian grandeur. That being so, it could hardly be said that Nebuchadnezzar wreaked the total havoc on Tyre that Ezekiel vituperatively predicted in the passages cited” (n.d.). Till and others suggest that the prophecies about Tyre’s utter destruction refer to the work of Nebuchadnezzar.
After a closer look at the text, however, such an interpretation is misguided. Ezekiel began his prophecy by stating that “many nations” would come against Tyre (26:3). Then he proceeded to name Nebuchadnezzar, and stated that “he” would build a siege mound, “he” would slay with the sword, and “he” would do numerous other things (26:7-11). However, in 26:12, the pronoun shifts from the singular “he” to the plural “they.” It is in verse 12 and following that Ezekiel predicts that “they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters.” The shift in pronouns is of vast significance, since it shifts the subject of the action from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the many nations (they). Till and others fail to see this shift and mistakenly apply the utter destruction of Tyre to the efforts of Nebuchadnezzar. Apologetics Press - Tyre in Prophecy
Again there is not but 2 options and one is ridiculous.

Continued Below:

 

[1robin]

Another line of reasoning is that Ezekiel recorded the aftermath of Nebuchadnezzar's attack in Ezekiel 29 I believe. There is not a hint of him realizing that he had predicted something that Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to do but didn't. He did not recant or redefine anything related to this. There was no scramble to fix this drastic error. His writing sounds like what had happened was exactly what he thought and predicted was supposed to and he knew other events were still to happen later.
As far as if it is Alexander that was predicted. No he is not mentioned and we wish he was. However once again if Ezekiel predicted many of the exact acts that Alexander would later do as if Nebuchadnezzar was to do them then they happened anyway later on. That would be a miracle it’s self. The details of what Alexander did (Throwing rubble in to water to build a causeway, besieging an island fortress from the mainland, and the total destruction) were rare events. It is not like Ezekiel said one day Tyre would fall. It is like predicting that the US will fall by a massive first strike from Chinese star wars nuclear weapons we did not know they had and would kill every American that exists. That is not something that will inevitably happen. To claim Alexander did the exact things that Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to is as absurd as claiming he used they and he correctly by accident.

I will throw this in the mix because it is very well made and from secular sources.
This is only part one of six but once this one is chosen the others can easily be found. I have not finished it and make no claims about it's specific details, just thought you might enjoy it better than boring text.
Prophecy--Alexander The Great Siege of Tyre 1of6.flv - YouTube

 

[1robin]

I have no faith in numbers as an indication that the position held is correct.

Numbers are certainly not a known proof of fact but they are a well-known indicator of fact, however exceptions of course exist. I simply meant that it causes me to be extra sure and have more and better evidence which in this case is not possible for your claim.

There is no scripture that states or suggests that Heaven will be Earth. In fact the prayer on Earth as it is in Heaven suggests that the two remain distinct even if they become more like each other in some ways.

This is simply not true.

Question: "What is the New Jerusalem?"

Answer: The New Jerusalem, which has also been called the Tabernacle of God, the Holy City, the City of God, the Celestial City, and Heavenly Jerusalem, is literally heaven on earth. It is referred to in the Bible in several places (Isaiah 52:1, Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 11:10, 12:22-24, and 13:14), but it is most fully described in the 21st chapter of the book of Revelation.

But, by the time we reach the 21st chapter of Revelation, the recorded history of man is at its end. All of the ages have come and gone. Christ has gathered His church in the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17). The Tribulation and the Great Tribulation of the book of Revelation have past. The battle of Armageddon has been fought and won by our Lord Jesus Christ (Revelation 19:17-21). Satan has been chained for the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth; he was released and deceived the nations once again, causing them to rise up in rebellion against God once more, but God has defeated Satan again and Satan has received his just punishment, an eternity in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:1-10.) The Great White Throne Judgment has taken place, and mankind has been judged (Revelation 20:11-15).

Now in Revelation 21 the new heaven and the new earth have come, God the Father then brings heaven to earth in the New Jerusalem where He dwells with His own for eternity. Only God’s children will be with Him in the New Jerusalem (John 1:12). Do you belong to Him? In Ecclesiastes Solomon tells us of the futility of our pursuits in this life. Verse 3:11 tells us that since we were made for eternity nothing in time will fully and permanently satisfy us. Augustine wrote, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and we are restless until we find our rest in you.”

The New Jerusalem is where believers in Christ will spend eternity. The New Jerusalem is the ultimate fulfillment of all God’s promises. The New Jerusalem is heaven, paradise, God’s goodness made fully manifest. Have you accepted God’s invitation to the New Jerusalem? If not, or if you are not sure, please visit – http://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-life.html. If you have accepted God’s invitation to the New Jerusalem, I look forward to seeing you there!
http://www.gotquestions.org/new-jerusalem.html
Unless you are one of these people who would rather redefine the entire Bible that abandon a preferred belief the case is pretty over whelming.

Jesus does not say that He is preparing Heaven for a sojourn to earth. He specifically says "place" which by its lack of definition means that He wasn't saying Heaven. When you examine what the prediction is for the accompaniment of Jesus, you will see that it is the New Jerusalem, the Golden City in the sky that descends to Earth.

You seem to have contradicted yourself. If New Jerusalem is currently in heave and the capitol of heaven and then as you say descends to earth then therefore Heaven will be on the earth. I have no idea where you are going with this. It proves my claim.

There is no evidence that the Garden of Eden was perfect and there is no evidence that the world to come will be perfect either but there is enough evidence to suggest that there is no evil. For instance there are trees for healing sickness in the world to come so that means there may be illness.

Is there a single traditional belief derived by hundreds of scholars over thousands of years that your faith does not contradict?
Everything God created as a perfect being that was free from contamination by another imperfect being by necessity would be perfect.
Jesus was perfect.
The King cherub was perfect.
The garden was perfect.
Revelation was perfect.
Heaven will be perfect.
However it is not important so I will let it drop.

I can understand that. I think that it appears that way because controversial subjects are discussed and debated while commonly understood things are not. The truth is that my understanding now goes much deeper than a cursory view of scripture and having the Holy Spirit as my guide is a distinct advantage.

You can't claim that these conditions are unique to you nor that you even have a greater amount of them than countless others. Unless you spent years of contemplation in seclusion like many of the early saints no claim to the superiority of your understanding could be proven or possibly even know. I myself spent two years in isolation from TV or anything else unnecessary with the Bible and prayer. I read it twice at that time and studied critical parts in depth for years yet I do not claim to have a higher degree of understanding than most respected scholars, commentators, and theologians. For one thing neither of us have access to a fraction of what they do in the way of information.

This does not say that Heaven comes but that the city comes from heaven.

This is is demonstrably false. New Jerusalem is the future home of God's unique presence. He becomes the actual temple in the city. Also the tree of life is at the Earthly location. You can keep heaven if it is some pie in the sky place that is not where God's unique location is or the tree of life. I will stick with New Jerusalem. It is also where the pearly gates are and also where the mansions being constructed for our future use are. It also contains the true tabernacle (God) where the "church" body of Christ is destined. Your heaven is empty.

 

[camanintx]

1. It uses they in connection with many nations not individuals. Babylon was one nation made up of many different cultures.

Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar was an empire comprised of many nations, hence the term "king of kings".

2. It also uses they in connection with what the world will conclude when this event is over. Here they is every nation not Babylon as it was in the first sentence.

Pronouns refer to the nouns which precede them. "They" in verse 4 refers to the "many nations" in verse 3. "They" in verse 6 refers to "her daughters" at the beginning of the verse. Likewise "they" in verse 12 refers back to the "numerous people" in verse 7. "They" appears again in verses 16 and 17 referring to the "princes" at the beginning of verse 16. These are simple grammatical constructs which no amount of sophistry will change.

5. Also note that when they is mentioned in the same section as waves that given the fact that waves are symbolic of the ebb and tide of successive invasion it becomes obvious that it means more than Nebuchadnezzar's single attack or invasion. He made no waves. He went there and then left at some point.

Or it could be symbolic of the relentlessness of the ocean. Metaphors can be interpreted in many ways.

6. Even if Ezekiel was making this up he certainly would never have suggested Nebuchadnezzar would have taken the island. The island at this time was invulnerable. No one had the technology required to overcome it. It took hundreds of years and none less than one of histories greatest generals to finally break in. It would be like saying you believe I predicted that a trout can be used to cut down a tree.

Obviously Nebuchadnezzar believed he could conquer Tyre, otherwise he wouldn't have laid siege to it for 13 years.

1. Why did Ezekiel suddenly switch between plurals to singulars?

Maybe he didn't or are you deliberately ignoring the Septuagint.

Another line of reasoning is that Ezekiel recorded the aftermath of Nebuchadnezzar's attack in Ezekiel 29 I believe. There is not a hint of him realizing that he had predicted something that Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to do but didn't. He did not recant or redefine anything related to this. There was no scramble to fix this drastic error. His writing sounds like what had happened was exactly what he thought and predicted was supposed to and he knew other events were still to happen later.

Except for verse 28:18 where he states that Nebuchadnezzar's army had nothing to show for their efforts. No indication here that what he started would be finished by others.

 

[1robin]

Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar was an empire comprised of many nations, hence the term "king of kings".


Pronouns refer to the nouns which precede them. "They" in verse 4 refers to the "many nations" in verse 3. "They" in verse 6 refers to "her daughters" at the beginning of the verse. Likewise "they" in verse 12 refers back to the "numerous people" in verse 7. "They" appears again in verses 16 and 17 referring to the "princes" at the beginning of verse 16. These are simple grammatical constructs which no amount of sophistry will change.


Or it could be symbolic of the relentlessness of the ocean. Metaphors can be interpreted in many ways.


Obviously Nebuchadnezzar believed he could conquer Tyre, otherwise he wouldn't have laid siege to it for 13 years.


Maybe he didn't or are you deliberately ignoring the Septuagint.


Except for verse 28:18 where he states that Nebuchadnezzar's army had nothing to show for their efforts. No indication here that what he started would be finished by others.

I am currently thuroughly burned out by another thread. It may be tomorrow before I reply.

 

[1robin]

Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar was an empire comprised of many nations, hence the term "king of kings".

Then why is every reference to things he is supposed to do alone making use of the designation of he and every occasion where things that require additional forces to accomplish using the they designation. I agree that they could have been used for him possibly but it wasn't. There is no way Ezekiel accidently used "they" and "he" in the exact spots needed by accident. There is without doubt an intentional use of they and he in connection with certain events. Also there is no need for two separate labels (the nations and Nebuchadnezzar) if there is only one entity.

Pronouns refer to the nouns which precede them. "They" in verse 4 refers to the "many nations" in verse 3. "They" in verse 6 refers to "her daughters" at the beginning of the verse. Likewise "they" in verse 12 refers back to the "numerous people" in verse 7. "They" appears again in verses 16 and 17 referring to the "princes" at the beginning of verse 16. These are simple grammatical constructs which no amount of sophistry will change.

I am no grammar expert but where are you getting this? Are you subjecting the Hebrews from 2000 years ago to some modern English standard? Here is the Hebrew standards of grammar or a commentary on them:
Verses 4 and 5 tell us what the nations will do to Tyre:
vs 4 "They shall destroy the wall of Tyre and break down her towers and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock."
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.
At verse 12, if you note, it shifts suddenly back to "they." Pronoun shifts in Hebrew are extraordinarily important. In Hebrew, since the pronouns are almost always attached to the nouns and verbs in suffix form, when a pronoun changes it draws particular attention to itself. Hence, it is impossible to miss the actor of a particular verb or the possessor of a particular item. However, when the pronoun shifts, the identity of an item or the action verb itself changes ... and, in Hebrew literature, relative to verbs, this is *always* an indicator that the principle actors involved have changed.
Anatomy of a Biblical Prophecy

Or it could be symbolic of the relentlessness of the ocean. Metaphors can be interpreted in many ways.

That might be true if there were no way to know which one to choose. In Biblical studies consistency in internal language use is the basis for this determination. Waves are used elsewhere to indicate a successive repetition of events. It is a very common use of waves symbolically even outside the Bible. I have heard waves used as a symbol of relentlessness but far less frequently than as an indication of a repititous succession of events.

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.
http://www.revneal.org/Writings/tyreprophecy.html
As you can see by the words emphasized your contentions are not new and are commonly understood mistakes made by the biased reader. By bias I mean the bias we all have like it or not including me. However I recognize it and try my best to limit its effect.

Obviously Nebuchadnezzar believed he could conquer Tyre, otherwise he wouldn't have laid siege to it for 13 years.

Well there are two lines of thought to consider. Do you know that Nebuchadnezzar thought he could destroy the island. It is extremely doubtful because he had no Navy and did not try and get one. Without a Navy only a fool would think he could take that island. I am a student of war but have studied Alexander far more than Nebuchadnezzar, but there are indications that Nebuchadnezzar was there for punitive and economic reasons and may have never intended to conquer the place. He went to get money but the money ran and hid on the Island so he tore up some walls and towers but with no Navy moved on. It is also claimed that Tyre surrendered to him and became a vassal of the Babylonian empire without him needing to conquer the island. I do not know for a fact what he was doing or thinking but what I posted is the most likely.

Maybe he didn't or are you deliberately ignoring the Septuagint.

All modern Bibles are derived in part from the Septuagint for these books any way. If you know a site that shows the Septuagint disagrees in these passages please post it.

Except for verse 28:18 where he states that Nebuchadnezzar's army had nothing to show for their efforts. No indication here that what he started would be finished by others.

That prediction was already made and needed no further indications. This section is a commentary on the aftermath not a prophecy. I do not even think the statement about his going on to Egypt was a prediction even though I might have mistakenly said it was. I will have to check that out.

 

[camanintx]

Then why is every reference to things he is supposed to do alone making use of the designation of he and every occasion where things that require additional forces to accomplish using the they designation.

Because that's how singular and plural pronouns work. Nebuchadnezzar was king of an empire, commanding an army comprised of many nations. Why is it so hard to believe that they are all referring to the same thing?

I agree that they could have been used for him possibly but it wasn't. There is no way Ezekiel accidently used "they" and "he" in the exact spots needed by accident. There is without doubt an intentional use of they and he in connection with certain events. Also there is no need for two separate labels (the nations and Nebuchadnezzar) if there is only one entity.

So if there were no pronoun switch in Ezekiel 26, you would agree that it isn't predicting Tyre's destruction by Alexander?

All modern Bibles are derived in part from the Septuagint for these books any way. If you know a site that shows the Septuagint disagrees in these passages please post it.

I did that with Dean Ulrich's essay several posts ago. But here is a web site which shows Brenton's Septuagint along side the King James version. Look carefully and you will see there is no 'they' in verse 12.

Ezekiel 26 - Septuagint LXX Brenton Restored Names King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study

You weave a fine tale of how Ezekiel 26 might refer to Alexander the Great, but if we're going to believe such an extraordinary claim, don't you have to show that it couldn't have been about Nebuchadnezzar?

 

[1robin]

Because that's how singular and plural pronouns work. Nebuchadnezzar was king of an empire, commanding an army comprised of many nations. Why is it so hard to believe that they are all referring to the same thing?

I thought me explanation of that undeniable but you won't agree, dang it. In Gladiator Crow says he wished people knew when to quit. I think I have proven this point but I commend your tenacity. There is no way possible that Ezekiel could have possibly gotten his "they" and "he" perfectly correct by accident. He switches to he in every case that history makes necessary more than Nebuchadnezzar to accomplish the tasks with the exception of incidental occurrences like they for horses. Am I not explaining this well? It seems conclusive to me and I have since found that argument many places since I made it and they all think so as well.

So if there were no pronoun switch in Ezekiel 26, you would agree that it isn't predicting Tyre's destruction by Alexander?

I do not think Ezekiel knew Alexander was the person he was predicting at all. I think he simply saw in his vision that more than Nebuchadnezzar were involved. Some people throw in Muslims and others as well. I do not see any need for them and so do not.

I did that with Dean Ulrich's essay several posts ago. But here is a web site which shows Brenton's Septuagint along side the King James version. Look carefully and you will see there is no 'they' in verse 12.
Ezekiel 26 - Septuagint LXX Brenton Restored Names King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study

I will look into this but it appears you are claiming there is only one verse with a difference. Regardless I will check it out. I think you underestimate the extent of professionalism and depth that these sources I have provided go into. No other book has been as closely studied and this has been going on for thousands of years. Faith in the integrity of the Bible is still as strong as it ever was.

You weave a fine tale of how Ezekiel 26 might refer to Alexander the Great, but if we're going to believe such an extraordinary claim, don't you have to show that it couldn't have been about Nebuchadnezzar?

I really do not have the capacity for that level of research. What I do is read both sides and probably with a very slight bias attempt to determine who is more competent. I do not claim that Alexander is specifically predicted. I claim more than Nebuchadnezzar was indicated. I have given many lines of reasoning on this but will do so again if needed. Historical claims are not resolved to a certainty especially not historical claims that are theological. They are resolved by probability. I believe the probability that that prophecy is accurate for more certain than it being false. I have only listed maybe 1% of the total factors I personally derive this from but feel that 1% is sufficient. Covering the other 99% is not practical. Let me know if you want a little more though.

I will add that from your first post it appeared that you knew little of this verse. True or not you have shown a tenacity that has led to a competancy for this prophecy that I have not had to debate against before. You have also been as civil and sincere as could be asked. Have a good wekend.

 

[camanintx]

I have given many lines of reasoning on this but will do so again if needed.

You can repeat your previous lines of reasoning but I will continue to point out that they fail for two simple reasons.

First, you cannot show what Ezekiel actually wrote. Chapter 26 says it takes place in 570 BCE, but the earliest manuscript only dates back to 300 BCE. Since your arguments are based on later copies which don't match the earliest copy, it's my argument that these changes were made after the fact specifically to support the claim of biblical prophecy.

Second, your only argument that Chapter 26 doesn't apply to Nebuchadnezzar rests on the assumption that Chapter 26 is prophecy, which is the claim you're attempting to support with Chapter 26. This is called circular reasoning and invalidates your argument.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is not any historical evidence that the Trye prophecy was written before Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre.

 

[camanintx]

There is not any historical evidence that the Trye prophecy was written before Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre.

No one has said that it was. 1robin is claiming that the Tyre prophecy is about Alexander's attack in 322 BCE, two and a half centuries after it was written.

 

[Muffled]

Numbers are certainly not a known proof of fact but they are a well-known indicator of fact, however exceptions of course exist. I simply meant that it causes me to be extra sure and have more and better evidence which in this case is not possible for your claim.
This is simply not true.

Question: "What is the New Jerusalem?"

Answer: The New Jerusalem, which has also been called the Tabernacle of God, the Holy City, the City of God, the Celestial City, and Heavenly Jerusalem, is literally heaven on earth. It is referred to in the Bible in several places (Isaiah 52:1, Galatians 4:26,Hebrews 11:10, 12:22-24, and 13:14), but it is most fully described in the 21st chapter of the book of Revelation.

The New Jerusalem is where believers in Christ will spend eternity. The New Jerusalem is the ultimate fulfillment of all God’s promises. The New Jerusalem is heaven, paradise, God’s goodness made fully manifest. Have you accepted God’s invitation to the New Jerusalem? If not, or if you are not sure, please visit – http://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-life.html. If you have accepted God’s invitation to the New Jerusalem, I look forward to seeing you there!
http://www.gotquestions.org/new-jerusalem.html
Unless you are one of these people who would rather redefine the entire Bible that abandon a preferred belief the case is pretty over whelming.
You seem to have contradicted yourself. If New Jerusalem is currently in heave and the capitol of heaven and then as you say descends to earth then therefore Heaven will be on the earth. I have no idea where you are going with this. It proves my claim.
Is there a single traditional belief derived by hundreds of scholars over thousands of years that your faith does not contradict?
Everything God created as a perfect being that was free from contamination by another imperfect being by necessity would be perfect.
Jesus was perfect.
The King cherub was perfect.
The garden was perfect.
Revelation was perfect.
Heaven will be perfect.
However it is not important so I will let it drop.
You can't claim that these conditions are unique to you nor that you even have a greater amount of them than countless others. Unless you spent years of contemplation in seclusion like many of the early saints no claim to the superiority of your understanding could be proven or possibly even know. I myself spent two years in isolation from TV or anything else unnecessary with the Bible and prayer. I read it twice at that time and studied critical parts in depth for years yet I do not claim to have a higher degree of understanding than most respected scholars, commentators, and theologians. For one thing neither of us have access to a fraction of what they do in the way of information.
This is is demonstrably false. New Jerusalem is the future home of God's unique presence. He becomes the actual temple in the city. Also the tree of life is at the Earthly location. You can keep heaven if it is some pie in the sky place that is not where God's unique location is or the tree of life. I will stick with New Jerusalem. It is also where the pearly gates are and also where the mansions being constructed for our future use are. It also contains the true tabernacle (God) where the "church" body of Christ is destined. Your heaven is empty.

I believe none of the verses that you used as reference say what you believe. I challenge you to try to make a logical connection but I believe you will fail to do so.

Possibly but there are a large number of people and I go quickly on a mission.

I believe: I do not contradict myself. You have not proven your claim. The New Jerusalem is in heaven (small h which means the universe) and is not the capitol of Heaven (Capitol H which means a definite place within the universe) since there is nothing material in Heaven. You have incorrect logic. First of all your premise that the New Jerusalem is Heaven is incorrect, therfore your conclusion is also incorrect.

I believe that only God is good.

No doubt God created everything good in the beginning but somewhere along the line the creation ceased to be good. The creation of Adam's race is not original creation and the spirit that God breathed into Adam was already flawed. Adam did what was in his nature to do or he wouldn't have done it.

Jesus is perfect because He is God in the flesh. The creation of flesh can't cause a perfect being to become imperfect. There is no indication in the text that the Garden is perfect. Revelation was perfect? What does that mean? Heaven is perfect. It changes not. Why is incorrect information unimportant? I believe what scripture says "My people perish for lack of knowledge."

I have the Holy Spirit. People study and never come to the truth but The Holy Spirit always speaks the truth.

God is everywhere. Jesus is in the New Jerusalem. I prefer the New Jerusalem to Heaven because I enjoy physical life but Heaven has its own benefits because the flesh does become tiresome at some point. I spent some time there as a refuge from this evil world but returned because I have work to do. Heaven is empty of physical things but it is not empty of spiritual things.

 

[1robin]

You can repeat your previous lines of reasoning but I will continue to point out that they fail for two simple reasons.

First, you cannot show what Ezekiel actually wrote. Chapter 26 says it takes place in 570 BCE, but the earliest manuscript only dates back to 300 BCE. Since your arguments are based on later copies which don't match the earliest copy, it's my argument that these changes were made after the fact specifically to support the claim of biblical prophecy.
Second, your only argument that Chapter 26 doesn't apply to Nebuchadnezzar rests on the assumption that Chapter 26 is prophecy, which is the claim you're attempting to support with Chapter 26. This is called circular reasoning and invalidates your argument.

I have many irons in the fire at the moment and my posting will be effected. Are you saying I would have to go back in time and take a picture of Ezekiel writing this document? Historical claims are never ever required to have this kind of certainty. They are assigned a probability of accuracy figure. Ezekiel has a very high probability of being written by Ezekiel and before any of these events happened. I have already covered all these issues with another poster in a Tyre thread if you wish to review them. If we do not have the original copy how is it that you know the later ones are wrong? That last part is some strange philosophy. Claiming the Bible is true because it says it is, is circular reasoning. Claiming a chapter is a prophecy because it says it is, is not. I can claim that a sentence has the word "the" in it because it actually does have "the" in it. That is not circular. I do not get the dynamic you mention. Are you somehow claiming that these verses were never intended as a prediction? It says over and over again this WILL happen not that it DID happen. That is a new one.

I went to the site you provided and I like it. I am going to learn how to use it effectively soon.

Here are the verses in question.
26:4 = No difference. They is used in both and they are virtually identical.
26:6 = No difference. They is used in both and they are virtually identical.
26:11 = The Septuagint actually has "they" where the KJV has he. This is the opposite of what you were claiming but even it has no meaningful impact. The "they" in question is horses not nations and he in this instance can be plural or apply to the horses leader. Either way nothing changes.

26:12 = All the "they"s are in the KJV but not the Septuagint. The KJV says: 26:12 And they shall make a spoilºº of thy riches,º and make a preyºº of thy merchandise:º and they shall break downºº thy walls,º and destroyºº thy pleasantº houses:º and they shall layºº thy stonesº and thy timberº and thy dustº in the midstº of the water.º

The words that are translated as they did this or that are
harac
shalal
suwm
None of those words make it clear whether "they' or "he" should be used. That had to be determined when they were translated however if you replaced "they" with 'he" in that verse it would still be true.

He and they made spoil of Tyre's riches. Nebuchadnezzar did get some loot just not enough to pay the troops. He and they both broke down walls. The only one I would want further clarification on is he and they throwing timbers and stones into the water. My point was that in every case where he is the only one who did X and in every case where it took more than he to do X or al of X that Ezekiel could not have guessed right by accident every time.

26:15 = It says they in the Septuagant however it has no effect on nebachadrezzer or Alexander. This difference means absolutely nothing.
26:16 = Virtualy identicle.
26:17 = Both use "they".

So in summary we have 4 identicle uses of they and he. We have 2 that make no difference what so ever. We have one verse where two uses have no effect and only one is questionable. Hardly a damning case.

BTW both the septuagant and the KJV use the same words in 26:3 and 4 which are the most important places in setting the tone. There would have been no need what so ever to switch from a general they to a specific he if they were synonimous.

 

[1robin]

There is not any historical evidence that the Trye prophecy was written before Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre.

Yes there is and if you will search for the Tyre thread at this forum you wil find it. I had already listed it in another discussion. What there is not a single scrap of evidence indicating is that it was written after the attacks. It is not as strong evidence as I wish but none of what we have indicates it was written later.

 

[camanintx]

I have many irons in the fire at the moment and my posting will be effected. Are you saying I would have to go back in time and take a picture of Ezekiel writing this document? Historical claims are never ever required to have this kind of certainty. They are assigned a probability of accuracy figure. Ezekiel has a very high probability of being written by Ezekiel and before any of these events happened. I have already covered all these issues with another poster in a Tyre thread if you wish to review them. If we do not have the original copy how is it that you know the later ones are wrong?

Nothing quite so difficult I'm sure. Paper being what it is, we're not likely to find an original text so all we have are copies. If we compare the oldest copies we can find, and there is a difference between them, which do you think would be more accurate?

That last part is some strange philosophy. Claiming the Bible is true because it says it is, is circular reasoning. Claiming a chapter is a prophecy because it says it is, is not. I can claim that a sentence has the word "the" in it because it actually does have "the" in it. That is not circular. I do not get the dynamic you mention. Are you somehow claiming that these verses were never intended as a prediction? It says over and over again this WILL happen not that it DID happen. That is a new one.

Where in Ezekiel 26 does it differentiate itself from simple boasting?

So in summary we have 4 identicle uses of they and he. We have 2 that make no difference what so ever. We have one verse where two uses have no effect and only one is questionable. Hardly a damning case.

BTW both the septuagant and the KJV use the same words in 26:3 and 4 which are the most important places in setting the tone. There would have been no need what so ever to switch from a general they to a specific he if they were synonimous.

All of which rests on an assumption that the "many nations" in verse 3 cannot possibly refer to King Nebuchadnezzar II, "a king of kings".

 

[1robin]

Nothing quite so difficult I'm sure. Paper being what it is, we're not likely to find an original text so all we have are copies. If we compare the oldest copies we can find, and there is a difference between them, which do you think would be more accurate?

Short of going back in time as I have said we will be left with probabilities. In this case every single scrap of evidence we have suggests traditional dating is accurate. That is not to say we have as much as we wish to, nor that it constitutes a probability that does not allow for questioning. I am different from you concerning these things. I have or at least believe I have experienced God personally and I have about a thousand different lines of evidence and reason to justify my faith. When I see an issue that may not be an absolute and may have less evidence than I wish it to I can give it the benefit of the doubt. There is nothing irrational or unjustified by doing so. It is just as valid as believing something someone says that you trust even though you may not know it to be a fact. It is done in legal matters and historical claims every day. In this case I can rely on many things.
1. No evidence what so ever to the contrary.
2. Some evidence to the affirmative (if you wish to know what find that Tyre thread I mentioned).
3. The supernatural track record concerning historical claims in the Bible as a whole. There are 25,000 plus confirmed historical corroborations and as far as i know not a single proven false claim. Even ones that were thought to be false have all given time been resolved in the Bibles favor. Examples are Luke’s use of very unique and rare titles of officials or actual museums filled with artifacts from cultures that at one time were said to not have ever existed etc.....infinitum.
4. A wealth of scholarship. A vanishingly small fragment of which I provided.
5. The verified accuracy of Ezekiel himself.
6. The fact that there are over 2000 other prophecies that have been fulfilled. If you only have the type of "well maybe this or that" objections that you have for this one for the thousands of others it just becomes begging the question and silly at some point.
7. My own subjective proof of the supernatural.
8. The fact that that same proof is claimed by billions and billions of people.
I can go on but why.
Conclusion: What we have is more than enough to justify reasonable faith. Taking the very slight probability that your contentions are right and gambling the consequences of rejection of faith on it seems to me to be irrational and driven far more by preference than evidence but you would be the more competent judge of the latter claim.

Where in Ezekiel 26 does it differentiate itself from simple boasting?

I do not understand the question. What is boasting concerning statements about what another person or group of people will do to another, especially when it is a fact of history that it happened?

All of which rests on an assumption that the "many nations" in verse 3 cannot possibly refer to King Nebuchadnezzar II, "a king of kings".

I have been very candid and honest in admitting that proof is a rare commodity in historical claims of any kind. That being said the fact that there is an obvious intentional switch between "he" and "they" and it occurs consistently in relation to nations and Nebuchadnezzar, and that it is perfectly consistent with historical facts, etc... the probabilities are all on my side. It is not an assumption devoid of reasons to assume. There is no exact numbers possible but I will guess and say I give your view a 15% chance of being the correct one and mine 85%. When that is combined with the factors I listed above and considering that that is a very partial list it seems desperate to potentially gamble your soul on the less than 15% resultant odds and more in common with preference than cold logic. Not only that but you would have to additionally explain away the uncontestable 80% or so of this prophecy in addition to the even less contestable myriad of less complex and clear prophecies as well as the endless other methods of deriving God's existence. To think you can explain away these countless lines of reasoning by arguments as weak as this one seems desperate.

It seems to have come down to this. You will (for whatever reason) adopt non faith even though it requires the correctness of claims that have a very small probability of being correct time and time agian, in cases numbering in thousands. I do the opposite. I know very well the Bible has no counter proofs. I also know it does have claims that have areas that can be contended even if the contention is much less probable than it's truth. My point is why would you want to. I do not know how this is resolvable but have appreciated the discussion and admire your tenacity and willingness to research. I will leave the continuation of this topic to your descretion.

 

[Philomath]

IMO there is no "right" religion.

 

[BruceDLimber]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r [sic] only one right religion....

The Baha'i Faith clearly states otherwise! I quote:

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

—(Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

Peace,

Bruce

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The Baha'i Faith clearly states otherwise! I quote:

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose.

Which ones?

 

[ruffen]

Although some say that the big monotheistic religions all believe in the same God in different ways, I'll say it crudely like this:

Judaism and Christianity say that Islam got it wrong.
Islam and Christianity say the Jews got it wrong.
Islam and Judaism say the Christians got it wrong.

I say that they are all correct in what they say.


You state that "surly there r only one right religion", but have you considered the possibility that there is not one right religion. In other words, maybe they are all wrong?