the right religion

[1robin]

I don't know that the moral values are perfectly objective so much as inter-subjective. I guess I occupy a middle ground between total relativism and total absolutism. I was saying that I believe there to be an absolute reality or Truth beneath all appearances, but morals are different and have more to do with the proper way for humans to live together within the context of Earth. I don't equate morality with absolute Truth, but rather with partial or pragmatic "truths" created within particular contexts and due to limitations in human perception and language.

Could you please list what you consider to be objective moral values so I might have a better idea what you mean?

Well I will confine myself to more extreme examples just to illustrate the point. It would actually be wrong to torture a child for fun. It would actually be wrong to rape handicapped women. It would actually be wrong to exterminate a race of people for political or race superiority reason. In other words some things are wrong whether everyone or even anyone agrees or not. Moral relativists say things are only socially inconvenient and even that may change over time but nothing is actually wrong. If God exists then moral requirements are absolute and in effect objective (in that no subject of those requirements opinions had any effect on the standards) and judgment would be absolute and perfectly just. It may turn out that God does not exist. I can't prove he does but the implications of his existence or nonexistence are easily determined. If God does not exist nothing is actually wrong just individually or socially inconvenient to a certain group. That is why Dostoevsky said: Without God all things are permissible. That is also why even Nietzsche knew that to kill God would be the equivalent of wiping away the horizon with a sponge.

 

[Straw Dog]

Well I will confine myself to more extreme examples just to illustrate the point. It would actually be wrong to torture a child for fun. It would actually be wrong to rape handicapped women. It would actually be wrong to exterminate a race of people for political or race superiority reason. In other words some things are wrong whether everyone or even anyone agrees or not. Moral relativists say things are only socially inconvenient and even that may change over time but nothing is actually wrong. If God exists then moral requirements are absolute and in effect objective (in that no subject of those requirements opinions had any effect on the standards) and judgment would be absolute and perfectly just. It may turn out that God does not exist. I can't prove he does but the implications of his existence or nonexistence are easily determined. If God does not exist nothing is actually wrong just individually or socially inconvenient to a certain group. That is why Dostoevsky said: Without God all things are permissible. That is also why even Nietzsche knew that to kill God would be the equivalent of wiping away the horizon with a sponge.

It seems to me all that's required is a natural sense of empathy and the cultivation of compassion to determine right and wrong in different contexts. That's my guide anyway. I could never torture someone while maintaining a commitment to practicing compassion. On the flip side, some folks claiming to be following God are very capable of committing violence. Perhaps they should be more committed to compassion? Apparently, they don't have privileged access to Truth after all. Either way, at the end of the day, morality is personal in practical daily life when you pay attention to how it plays out. It may be relative, but...

"All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify." -1 Corinthians 10:23

Everyone can do whatever they want, but it's destructive to do so in many cases and does not lead to inner peace, which most people tend to really want once they get passed their more artificial desires. Like I said, I don't equate morality with absolute reality. When a genuine state of equanimity, compassion, and receptivity to Truth are cultivated, then relative morality is transcended and people may act according to what is written on their hearts. If you pay attention to the sages from all ages, the word written on their hearts isn't that different. It just manifests differently through different cultures and languages. Again, perception and language are inherently relative so cannot possibly contain absolute Truth. I don't see a way around this language barrier. At best, words can point towards Truth, but they can never represent it without breaking it down into partial "truths" within a particular context. So even the most spiritually awakened human being is still limited by their condition. They cannot speak or write absolute Truth. They can only be perfectly receptive to it.

 

[Straw Dog]

Having said all that, the rational conclusion of my position is that I'm merely writing out another partial or practical "truth", which may or may not point towards a higher truth beyond words. I'm not actually interested in debating to win and prove the superiority of my views over yours. You have much more practice in debate then I do anyway. In fact, I think you should remain a Christian and work on cultivating all the teachings of Jesus, especially the one about transcending apparent opposites. Good stuff! Thanks for the discussion.

 

[1robin]

It seems to me all that's required is a natural sense of empathy and the cultivation of compassion to determine right and wrong in different contexts. That's my guide anyway. I could never torture someone while maintaining a commitment to practicing compassion. On the flip side, some folks claiming to be following God are very capable of committing violence. Perhaps they should be more committed to compassion? Apparently, they don't have privileged access to Truth after all. Either way, at the end of the day, morality is personal in practical daily life when you pay attention to how it plays out. It may be relative, but...

It seems that your position is far more consistent with my original estimation than your subsequent posts. If you abandon a transcendent standard to found a moral system on whats left then whatever you claim in absence of God to justify morality all (no matter what words are used) equals opinion or preference. In almost every civilized country or society in normal times that would be sufficient for an individual but as in most things it is the exceptions and the extreme circumstances where inadequate things masquerading as truth begin to crack. Without God nothing is actually wrong and opinion is the sole arbiter of morality. That, in many cases would be fine if everyone had very good moral instincts or opinions but I will list a few of the common but more extreme circumstances where the problems arise.

1. If morals have no foundation beyond personal opinion by what standard can ones actions be determined wrong. If Hitler wants to wipe out all the Jews he has arrived at his conclusion in exactly the same way you did yours. If Montezuma wants to cut the hearts out of 20,000 of his neighbors a day he has arrived at this conclusion based on opinion and preference as well.
2. If it is determined that Montezuma's and Hitler's actions must be stopped you must violate your own moral system in order to force your moral opinion on them over their own rights to their moral opinion. A mother in New England around 1861 would need a much better justification to risk the death of all of her sons in order to save a people she had never met from being enslaved by another group of people she had never met. She would want to know she was acting on the side of objective right against objective wrong not that she must risk her sons to gratify the opinion of one group over the opinion of another.
3. Virtually every single person in history (including you) and almost all societies act as if absolute moral standards exist. In every news story you will see where great tragedies have occurred you will find reference to absolute concepts or wrong, right, justice, fairness, and rights.
4. When our rights were recorded in the Declaration of independence the man who recorded them was asked to justify them (and he was certainly no Christian) said our creator is the only justification for actual rights of any kind.
5. Things like the murder of millions of unborn children each year cannot be stopped without an appeal to the absolute value of all human life.
6. Slavery can't be fought without a way to justify the equality of man.
The last two are things that your system can't provide and God can.
7. Why should a person who stole something spend years in jail if his action was not actually wrong but only not convenient for the victum. The entire justice system is based on the fact that stealing is actually wrong and justice is the absolute normal "ought" that governs law.

So you see subjective values make great conversation pieces at dinner parties or philosophical meetings but in the crucible of harsh reality they begin to crack.

"All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify." -1 Corinthians 10:23

I do not think that verse means what you think it does.

Everyone can do whatever they want, but it's destructive to do so in many cases and does not lead to inner peace, which most people tend to really want once they get passed their more artificial desires. Like I said, I don't equate morality with absolute reality. When a genuine state of equanimity, compassion, and receptivity to Truth are cultivated, then relative morality is transcended and people may act according to what is written on their hearts.

You are assuming absolute value for things you cannot justify without God. You are assuming that equanimity, compassion, and receptivity are absolute good and then deriving a subjective argument from an objective reality you can't prove in your view. There is no possible way to show that any of those things are right or wrong without God. You may say they are desirable or preferred but that does not make them so. If God is not, who dictates what "ought" to be and why "ought' things be good for us? There is no way to show without God that we deserve the right to demand compassion from reality while we deny it to beetles that may very well be of equal value with us in your system. Once again you are making objective assumptions that your system has no way of justifying. For example prove that the act of destroying millions of mosquitos to stop a few thousand humans from getting sick is justified. Why without God are we more valuable than any other biological anomaly?

And let me state emphatically that I do not want to exist in a world where the human heart that has resulted in the deaths of millions upon millions of most innocent selves reigns unrestrained by God's temperance.
Jeremiah 17:9 ESV / 40 helpful votes
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
http://www.openbible.info/topics/wicked_heart
The sad tale of woe that is our tragic history testifies to the truth contained in that verse. Man makes a poor God though that defencency does not come from a lack of desire or number of attempts.

If you pay attention to the sages from all ages, the word written on their hearts isn't that different. It just manifests differently through different cultures and languages. Again, perception and language are inherently relative so cannot possibly contain absolute Truth. I don't see a way around this language barrier. At best, words can point towards Truth, but they can never represent it without breaking it down into partial "truths" within a particular context. So even the most spiritually awakened human being is still limited by their condition. They cannot speak or write absolute Truth. They can only be perfectly receptive to it.

They may very well speak truth as well as absolute moral requirements. There is nothing to prevent anyone from doing so. It does not mean that anyone knows all of either nor that even if what is said is absolute it will be rocognized as such. You are confusing application with existance. If you are pointing out the commonality of core morality then that also indicates that morals are external truths not internal preferences. I also would add that a God given conscience is also a very good explanation for a common core morality. However this commonality also has to be reckoned with alongside the Aztec’s, Hun's, Roman legions, and pagan sacrifices of the world. Only God gives a comprehensive explanation for both the diabolical wickedness and the self-sacrificial tenderness we find in the world. Every single other attempt at explanation just falls flat.

 

[1robin]

Having said all that, the rational conclusion of my position is that I'm merely writing out another partial or practical "truth", which may or may not point towards a higher truth beyond words. I'm not actually interested in debating to win and prove the superiority of my views over yours. You have much more practice in debate then I do anyway. In fact, I think you should remain a Christian and work on cultivating all the teachings of Jesus, especially the one about transcending apparent opposites. Good stuff! Thanks for the discussion.

Very well, but what is a teaching on transcending opposites?

 

[Straw Dog]

Like I said, I'm not interested in asserting my view as superior because that would contradict my position to being with. I should have been more careful entering into this as the entire edifice of debate is based on an "either/or" mentality, which I consider delusional, whereas I endorse a "both/and" position transcending apparent opposites.

If morality makes more sense to you when utilizing your personal notion of God, then by all means use it. It just doesn't make sense from my perspective, but both of us only have a relative view of the same absolute Truth and both of us are still capable of acting ethically so I don't really see the issue. Some people aren't even searching for Truth because if they were then they would never commit such atrocious acts as you have described. The search for Truth uncovers "truths".

I just wanted to flesh out my position more here, but I've realized that this was the wrong context for it entirely. If you want to discuss it further, maybe we can learn more about each others' views elsewhere. The context of "Right Religion" is just asking for intellectual violence at some point, and I would like to avoid that temptation now, despite how charming and reassuring that smiley face is in the title.

Go in peace, friend.

 

[Straw Dog]

Very well, but what is a teaching on transcending opposites?

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." -Matthew 5:44-45

"And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider...?" -Luke 12:13-14

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to dissolution; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." -Matthew 12:25

 

[Walkntune]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

I believe all religions are a man made path to try and get to God in mans effort.When man fell in the garden you will notice that it was his own efforts he fell out of the provisions of Gods grace.Man tries to get back in his own effort but it is not possible. When man comes to the end of himself and his own efforts then he begins the right path.The only way back into the grace of God is by grace. No effort can get you there.Only faith will cross the river Jordan.This is what I believe.
Even those in twelve step programs at least touch the hem of grace when they come to the end of themselves.
I don"t think God is judging people on whether they have the right ritualistic practices in their religion .God just wants man to quit trying and" doing" in his own efforts and to just start being a" child" of God by faith.God wants man to come back to his provision.This is what I believe.

 

[1robin]

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." -Matthew 5:44-45

"And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider...?" -Luke 12:13-14

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to dissolution; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." -Matthew 12:25

Oh, I guess you just used some unique terms to describe what I would call how to treat those who make themselves our enemies. It is a little more complex than what you have listed here. There are other verses that need to be considered:

New Living Translation (©2007)
"What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed.
New International Version (©1984)
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
New International Version (©1984)
Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
Matthew 23:33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Jesus had patience and kindness for every sincere skeptic. He had very little for those who think they know, yet do not.

 

[1robin]

I believe all religions are a man made path to try and get to God in mans effort.When man fell in the garden you will notice that it was his own efforts he fell out of the provisions of Gods grace.Man tries to get back in his own effort but it is not possible. When man comes to the end of himself and his own efforts then he begins the right path.The only way back into the grace of God is by grace. No effort can get you there.Only faith will cross the river Jordan.This is what I believe.
Even those in twelve step programs at least touch the hem of grace when they come to the end of themselves.
I don"t think God is judging people on whether they have the right ritualistic practices in their religion .God just wants man to quit trying and" doing" in his own efforts and to just start being a" child" of God by faith.God wants man to come back to his provision.This is what I believe.

That is a very good point. All other religions are methods by which Man may strive to reach God through ceremony, ritual, good works, or secret knowledge etc.... Christianity is unique in all the world's religions in that God comes down to us through Jesus. He did all the work because we could never do enough to merit salvation. All we have to do is believe and be born again by virtue of his merit not our.

 

[camanintx]

You have a woefully inadequate understanding of that prophecy. King Nebuchadnezzar was specifically said to only destroy the mainland city or (choicest houses, it says he will attack the island fortress but not defeat it) but it goes on to say that they meaning Nebuchadnezzar and an unnamed addition king (Alexander, and some even throw a Muslim army in there for some reason but it isn't needed or helpful) will together destroy the city. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city proper and Alexander destroyed the island fortress.

And you have a woefully inadequate understanding of linguistics, grammar and geography. When a pronoun like "he" or "they" is used, it always refers to the preceeding noun. The only noun in Ezekeil 26:7-14 that these pronouns can be refering to is King Nebuchadrezzar and his army. Infering that these passages also refer to King Alexander's seige two centuries later is specious at best. Besides, Ezekeil 26:9-10 mentions the walls, towers and gates of Tyre which at that time only existed on the island.

 

[Ingledsva]

That is a very good point. All other religions are methods by which Man may strive to reach God through ceremony, ritual, good works, or secret knowledge etc.... Christianity is unique in all the world's religions in that God comes down to us through Jesus. He did all the work because we could never do enough to merit salvation. All we have to do is believe and be born again by virtue of his merit not our.

Actually you believe you are unique - we don't.

 

[Murphy Weine]

Did you ever consider that religion should be found in your heart and not within a "community"? This is how there is more than one true religion, because there is more than one person who chooses to seek the truth within all written doctrine (sciences included) and does not place any Deity before True Knowledge.

John 7:17 if any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.

 

[RJ50]

John 7:17 if any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.

Yeh right! There is no evidence a deity exists, let alone whether the Bible has anything to do with it!

 

[Murphy Weine]

The right religion is "Church of God"

 

[RJ50]

The right religion is "Church of God"

Sez you, but that doesn't mean you are right!

 

[1robin]

Actually you believe you are unique - we don't.

Since what you concede does not determine reality then my claim still stands. I did not mention anything about me, only Christianity. Saying nuh-uh without at least attempting to show why nuh-uh is true is less than persuassive. It is a fact that no other major religion is similar to Christianity along the lines I mentioned.

 

[1robin]

And you have a woefully inadequate understanding of linguistics, grammar and geography. When a pronoun like "he" or "they" is used, it always refers to the preceding noun. The only noun in Ezekiel 26:7-14 that these pronouns can be referring to is King Nebuchadnezzar and his army. Inferring that these passages also refer to King Alexander's siege two centuries later is specious at best. Besides, Ezekiel 26:9-10 mentions the walls, towers and gates of Tyre which at that time only existed on the island.

Well I can agree that my grammar skills stink however since that has absolutely nothing to do with anything here I hardly think it worth mentioning. It is not specious it has been a well-known fact for over a thousand years. It mentions the exact extent to which Nebuchadnezzar will accomplish his part and always says they when it mentions the total destruction. There is not a single exception. No argument can be made that that prophecy is not speaking about two (or more) attackers. I have no idea what all that grammatical stuff was supposed to do. They means in addition to Nebuchadnezzar.



Ezekiel 26 and the Tyre prophecy is a flagship proof text for those who claim divine inspiration for the Scriptures. Let's see if it bears out under assorted criticisms and examination. I first wrote this essay some years ago and in 2003 had some new insights and arguments to add.


Who Are "They"?
"They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise.." (NIV)
This verse is pivotal to many of the arguments of each side. Our side would say that the "they" in v. 12 refers back the "nations" in v. 3-5, and were represented by Alexander the Great, who did the things described in v. 12, thus fulfilling the prophecy. Skeptics and other critics, however, say that the "they" in v. 12 refers to the elements of Nebuchadnezzar's forces in verses 7 and 11. Nebuchadnezzar never did the things ascribed to "they," in verse 12 - he failed to take Tyre at all - so the prophecy, it is said, was not fulfilled.





A key here is that the "they" in v. 12 can only refer to the "nations" in v. 3. Let's see how this is so.

• 3 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

Note to begin with this verse -- the being who is in charge here, who "will" do things, is the Lord God, Adonai YHWH. YHWH is at the head of the efforts, and it is He who will "cause many nations" to come up. The use of Adonai (which means sovereign or controller) places YHWH at the head of the nations.

• 4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.

We see again the same pairing: they and I. The nations will scrape Tyre off, and destroy the walls, and break down the towers. ANY nations are eligible for this action.

• 5 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.

Once again, the I/nations pairing is made.

• 6 And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the LORD.
• 7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

Adonai YHWH now is said to bring on a specific attacker -- Nebuchadnezzar. In our view, this brings on the first of the nations against Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar comes WITH all these things. And now note how the pairing changes:

• 8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.

Note that now the pairing I/they is not used, but it is now he -- Nebuchadnezzar, as all would agree -- who is "in charge" of the scene. And of course "he" personifies his own army here, and those things with him (horses, etc) -- obviously Nebuchadnezzar did not do all of these things himself.

• 9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

The "he" continues, and the subsuming "his" (with reference to the axes).

• 10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

In one more case Nebuchadnezzar's forces are personified under himself; the horses are "his" and the horsemen, wheels and chariots are subsumed under the heading of when "he" enters.

• 11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

And yet again: HIS horses, HE shall slay. But now note the change in the next verses:

• 12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

We return to "they" for the first time since v. 4. And:

• 13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

We return also to "I": Adonai YHWH. And it continues:

• 14 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.

This oracle clearly offers two pairings: the I/they of Adonai YHWH the sovereign, leading the nations; the he/personified-possession army of Nebuchadnezzar, who though still under Adonai YHWH's sovereign control, is given credit for being able to "will" do things on his own, with his army under him and subsumed under his identity. The oracle therefore indicates that Nebuchadnezzar will do specific actions, and that "nations" will perform certain actions. Nebuchadnezzar brings one of those nations, but the language tells us that the actions of 3-5 and 12-14 may be performed by any nations God brings against Tyre and need not be actions of Nebuchadnezzar.
Verses 3-5 and 12-14 are "I/they" verses -- and form a minor chiastic structure around the central core of verses describing Nebuchadnezzar's actions alone. The linguistic pattern of this passage indicates that the "they" of v. 12 are the nations of v. 4. Not only is the pronoun ("they") the same, but in addition, only in these verses is Adonai YHWH the sole leader, and two unique actions -- net spreading, scraping -- are the same as those ascribed to the nations in 3-5.
Slaying of the enemy is ascribed throughout the oracle, as would be expected of a common element of war.
Bottom line: "they" in v. 12 does not refer to Nebuchadnezzar and his army; they, as one of the "nations" brought by Adonai YHWH, would have qualified to fulfill those passages, but so could any other nation brought against Tyre in its history following.
One known proposal to refute the assertion that "they" in verse 12 refers to a plural antecedent is by comparing it Ezekiel 29:17-20, which is alleged to be similar in structure.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

In fact it is not similar in structure at all, and has quite different contents. There are no "nations" in view in this short passage to serve as candidates for an antecedent of the pronoun "they", or anything else that can serve as a possible antecedent. There is no chiastic structure as the above noted. There is also no "I/They" pairing and consistent comparability of unique actions.



Let's look at the passage closely:

• 17 And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Initially it is unreasonable to take a passage written 17 years later and compare it with the previous oracle, as though Chapters 26 and 29 were read and written in succession as we read it now. Any such comparison must be done critically and not on mere surface resemblances, which is all this objection does.

• 18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:

Note that "he" and "his army" are highlighted together in a way that they are not in Ezekiel 26. During the Tyre prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar's army is personified under singular references to Nebuchadnezzar himself, or treated as his possession, a non-personal entity in which horses and chariots are listed with horsemen together.



That is not what is happening here: The army is allowed to have its own identity, in order to emphasize that "every head was made bald, and every shoulder was rubbed raw" - a simple, hyperbolic way of expressing how much trouble the army had to go to against Tyre.

• 19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.

Nebuchadnezzar and his army are again treated as separate entities, with no subsuming at all: Nebuchadnezzar is the head of the army who distributes the spoils, but he is not the one wielding axes or treading the streets. Here he literally occupies only the normal role for the leader of the army.

• 20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

It is this "they" which critics think parallels for Ch. 26, but there are again no "nations" or any other possible antecedent for "they" to refer to in this short oracle. There is no comparable linguistic pattern as in Ch. 26.
Those who reckon this as some sort of careless shift in grammar, or speak of Ezekiel "carelessly" separating a pronoun from its antecedent by such a great space in 26, are not only anachronistic but also ignoring the extensive linguistic pattern in the 26 oracle, which has no parallel in the 29 oracle.

At this point we bring in an argument brought to my attention, though it was not written in response to this page. An article entitled "A Problem of Unfulfilled Prophecy in Ezekiel" by one David Thompson, at an online location now defunct, argues thusly:
...the prediction of utter destruction is not easily separated from Nebuchadnezzar. Towers and standing columns (massebot) portrayed in the highly schematized art of Assyrian reliefs of insular Tyre make it quite probable that such "towers" and "columns" were distinctive features of the island city. 32 Their appearance in verses 4, 9, and 11 make it difficult to separate the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege from the opening general prediction of Tyre's complete destruction. This overlap between the opening announcement of Tyre's destruction and the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege in reference to an apparently distinctive feature of island Tyre make it further probable that Nebuchadnezzar's siege here is seen by Ezekiel as at very least including a thoroughly destructive conquest of the island, not just mainland Tyre.
Thompson's argument rests upon the premise, however, that the "towers" and "columns" by Ezekiel refer to specific (and literal) architectural elements. (Thompson also does not explain what the reliefs depict the mainland city as looking like, and whether it had any such features.) Since the word for "towers" is used in the Bible to refer to places that are merely lookouts that are higher than the rest of the city, and since "columns" can refer to an edifice even as small as the altar set up by Jacob, I have serious doubts about the relevance of the Assyrian relief specified.
There is no reason why the two words cannot refer to less-prominent structures, or else be understood as metaphors for military strength.
Other points raised by Thompson about the reliability of the text itself have been dealt with by Lawhead in a reply article and will not concern us here.
Nations Scraping and Nets
3 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.
Ezekiel 26:3 verse says that "many nations" will be against Tyre. Babylon, Alexander the Great, and the Muslim crusaders are commonly cited as fulfillment. I will argue later that it is unnecessary to bring the Muslim crusaders into the picture and that Alexander's actions sufficiently fulfilled the prophecy.
Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon was the first of the nations to come against Tyre. Alexander's forces were put together from a coalition of Greek city-states. Each of these was an independent entity and acted as a nation unto itself. Alexander's father, Philip II, unified (by military force) these city-states and the regions of Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece proper under his rule - giving Alexander the unified front he needed to go forth and conquer.
Nevertheless, this was a coalition composed of many nations - and thus fulfills the prophecy.
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/zeketyre.html

I have never had anyone challenge the obvious use of "they" before. By what grammar rules does "they" mean Nebuchadnezzar only? Grammar or my lack of skill in that area won't help you. That prophecy is perfectly accurate if bizarre arbitrary standards are not forced on it that have no justification in any field of academics.

This was your entire "argument" for lack of a better word.
1. I am no grammar scholar. True but has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
2. That apparently your saying that "they" does not mean more than Nebuchadnezzar. False and just plain silly and makes my grammatical skills look good.
3. That it mentions towers and walls and they were on the island: True but pointless. It says that Nebuchadnezzar will attack the columns and towers but it never says he overcame them. Besides the Bible uses those two words in many ways that do not mean what we mean by them. History records that he shot some rocks at the island tore up a few things then gave up and left. So does the Bible. The Island had a massive wall around the entire perimeter and even a smaller concentric wall around the fortress. It was all that Alexander could do with his professional seige experienced army, the largest seige machines ever created at the time, and entire navy's to punch holes in the walls after months of trying. No one has ever thought the Babylonian army could have done it. That is exactly what history records. The utter and final destruction is always associated with they and them. The loot of Tyre had been stashed away in the fortress when they were attacked yet the prophecy says specifically that Nebuchadnezzar will not acquire enough loot to pay his troops (specifically because they were not predicted to take the island and gain the money stashed there) and will be allowed to invade and loot Egypt. Which once again is exactly what history records. That was not much of a counter argument.

BTW you live in a grammatical glass house. I had to correct a few misspelled words in your statements. It was more of a innacurate semantical protest based on nothing.

 

[1robin]

The right religion is "Church of God"

If you mean the COC good luck showing that. If you mean a universal brotherhood of born again believers then ok.