the right religion

[camanintx]

My goodness is there nothing clear enough that it can't be obscured for the sake of non belief.

I'm not the one spinning a perfectly clear description of a single attack on Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar into an obsure reference to a later attack by an unnamed "they".

1. Nebuchadnezzar actually destroyed the entire mainland city of Tyre. I think he must have entered it's gates in order to accomplish this. He even destroyed much of the entrance to the island fortress it's self which included it's famous main gate.

While there were settlements on the mainland, the city wall along with any gates and towers was completely on the island.

Map of Ancient Tyre

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]
I'm not the one spinning a perfectly clear description of a single attack on Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar into an obscure reference to a later attack by an unnamed "they".

No, that would be me and every other commentator, theologian, secular historian, history its self and every unbiased reader I can find. You are making literals - symbolic, the symbolic - literal, and based on nothing legitamite at all. You are complicating the obvious and trivializing the momentous (if you can tell me the movie that is from I will concede one pity point to your side concerning the claim of your choice).

While there were settlements on the mainland, the city wall along with any gates and towers was completely on the island.
Map of Ancient Tyre

That link won't work for me, it goes to a blank page (I am on a DOD server so there may be some conflict). It would not matter anyway. I avoided complicating things further as it only increases opportunity for purposeful contention but I am a glutton for punishment so what the heck.

Here is a map that covers the actual periods in question at the same site I gave before but apparently was never visited. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/01/26/the-biblical-cities-of-tyre-and-sidon.aspx or http://www.errantskeptics.org/TyreSidonMaps.htm or https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible-maps/map-11?lang=eng

The verses concerning the mainland are among others:
6 And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the LORD

This is a reference to outskirts or suburbs in modern English.

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.

Again daughters are symbolic offspring of a parent city unless you think God was only mad at the female population.

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.

This is a very interesting verse. As in almost all cities the oldest parts no longer were the choicest parts. Even today the outskirts are where the city’s most prominent houses are located.

". . . I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon . . ."
". . . He will ravage your settlements on the mainland . . ."
". . . he will set up siege works against you . . ."
". . . He will direct the blows . . ."
". . . with his weapons . . ."
". . . His horses will be so many . . ."
". . . when he enters your gates . . ."
". . . The hoofs of his horses will trample . . ."
". . . he will kill your people . . ."

Nebuchadnezzar is not the "many nations" referenced in verse 3. Instead, he is the first of the "many nations" referenced in verse 3. And the word "they" in verse 12 is not a continuation of the Nebuchadnezzar theme, but rather a continuation of the "many nations" theme of which Nebuchadnezzar is the starting point.

Only in verses 7-11 is Nebuchadnezzar specifically and unquestionably referred to. And in these verses, only the mainland of Tyre is addressed - never the island. The destruction of the island and the looting of the island, then, is the job of the "many nations" of verse 3. And many nations did attack, conquer and rule over the island
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/tyre.htm


I have read extensively about Alexander and seen countless maps of the time. Some were even drawn at that specific time by biographers he carried with him. Old Tyre (the island) was at that time a fortress and was dominated almost completely by defensive fortifications. Ezekiel would have never dreamed of recording that horses would ride into the island, there was no peninsula until Alexander threw all the debris that was already destroyed previously into the water to create it (BTW fulfilling another prophecy). It was completely ringed by a wall with several inner walls and towers. It had only a temple, a massive harbor (two actually) a few markets and dwellings when Alexander assaulted it. That is why it took him seven months or so. He literally could not set foot on the island until the massive walls were destroyed. If it was a simple city on a rock not only would he have walked straight in, on the first day but so would have Nebuchadnezzar. I can keep listing verses and links to maps but nothing helps.

If you wish to claim that city Tyre was on the Island then that causes you additional problems: "In point of fact, the mainland city of Tyre later was rebuilt and assumed some of its former importance during the Hellenistic period. But as for the island city, it apparently sank below the surface of the Mediterranean…All that remains of it is a series of black reefs offshore from Tyre, which surely could not have been there in the first and second millennia b.c., since they pose such a threat to navigation. The promontory that now juts out from the coastline probably was washed up along the barrier of Alexander’s causeway, but the island itself broke off and sank away when the subsidence took place; and we have no evidence at all that it ever was built up again after Alexander’s terrible act of vengeance. In the light of these data, then, the predictions of chapter 26, improbable though they must have seemed in Ezekiel’s time, were duly fulfilled to the letter—first by Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century, and then by Alexander in the fourth." (Archer, “Tyre,” Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)
http://www.padfield.com/1994/tyre.html

Keep swinging you may land something by accident.

P.S. Your link finally worked. Did you not notice that it labels the mainland as Tyre along with the Island. It calls it old tyre because it had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar years before. The map concentrates on the Island that was the center of buisness (though it was little more than a port and fortress) in Alexanders time. You must be getting confused somewhere because every map I found including yours is perfectly consistent with the Bible.


You did say one thing I couldn't counter mainly because there is no way to know. That includes you. I can't prove there were gates on the mainland but then again every ancient city I know of had gates as a neccessity so it stands to reason it did. I think you are getting way to much from a graphic from Alexanders time that illustrates the fortress sea wall only.

 

[knock_ask_seek]

amen!

 

[illykitty]

It means that many religions seek to have members do good but the members are not able to do so but a Christian can do good because He is enbaled by the Holy Spirit.

I've seen plenty of people do good not being Christian.

If the bible is so clear and true how come then I don't feel convinced by it any more than other religious books? How come most of it sounds confusing and vague? To me it has as much proof as any other book.

The problem with Christians is that they can't prove it to be true without circular reasoning. The bible is true because Jesus said so and Jesus is true because the bible said so. Or other religions aren't true because the bible says so. Well good for you but that doesn't prove anything to non Christians.

I'd love something clear that isn't part of this circular reasoning.

I already believe in a divine, higher being, because it is what I believe in my core, but religion, I can't find any which my core says "this is the right one".

 

[knock_ask_seek]

..perhaps there is not a right religion, or it isn't good because it divides good people. Religion is an organization of churches or people whose purpose was mainly to spread the words of God and God purpose to separate good people from bad people. It seems though that the messenger was given more importance rather than the messages itself and it's origin.

 

[camanintx]

No, that would be me and every other commentator, theologian, secular historian, history its self and every unbiased reader I can find. You are making literals - symbolic, the symbolic - literal, and based on nothing legitamite at all. You are complicating the obvious and trivializing the momentous (if you can tell me the movie that is from I will concede one pity point to your side concerning the claim of your choice).

Then you shouldn't have any problems producing one of these non-biased, secular historian who claims that Ezekiel 26 makes reference to Alexander the Great, because I can't find one. Here's a non-secular, biased historian who also rejects the connection.

http://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_a_07_Ulrich_Ezekiel26And29.pdf

The promontory that now juts out from the coastline probably was washed up along the barrier of Alexander’s causeway, but the island itself broke off and sank away when the subsidence took place

Seriously, show me a single map of ancient Tyre that supports this. While the southern island of Hercules has subsided into the water, the main portion of the island where the ancient walls and buildings were is still dry land. Compare any of the maps on the following web site against Google Maps if you doubt this.

Siege of Tyre and Gaza

You did say one thing I couldn't counter mainly because there is no way to know. That includes you. I can't prove there were gates on the mainland but then again every ancient city I know of had gates as a neccessity so it stands to reason it did. I think you are getting way to much from a graphic from Alexanders time that illustrates the fortress sea wall only.

While there are ruins of an ancient aqueduct and roads on the mainland, there are no ruins of a wall and therefore no gates for Nebuchadnezzar to ride through.

 

[1robin]

Then you shouldn't have any problems producing one of these non-biased, secular historian who claims that Ezekiel 26 makes reference to Alexander the Great, because I can't find one. Here's a non-secular, biased historian who also rejects the connection.

http://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_a_07_Ulrich_Ezekiel26And29.pdf

This is a paradoxical issue. If a person believes the Bible they are usually not secular and therefore not accepted by you. It is a strange claim to require that only people who do not buy into something be used to examine it. It is like demanding an evolutionist verify a creationist claim. If you can explain why this makes sense I will answer your request and may do so anyway.

Seriously, show me a single map of ancient Tyre that supports this. While the southern island of Hercules has subsided into the water, the main portion of the island where the ancient walls and buildings were is still dry land. Compare any of the maps on the following web site against Google Maps if you doubt this.
Siege of Tyre and Gaza

I am unclear what you are contending. The peninsula that currently exists was created by alexander and what was once the Island bears little resemblance to what it used to be. It is a well-known fact that a very traumatic seismic event changed many geographical locations in this exact area. I am not avoiding your requests but I have very little time today and so have decided to get clarification as that is all I have time for. I will answer your questions directly very soon. I will admit that I was not familiar with this issue until I ran into it recently and it needs more research but has very little impact on the prophecy either way.

While there are ruins of an ancient aqueduct and roads on the mainland, there are no ruins of a wall and therefore no gates for Nebuchadnezzar to ride through.

There are no verifiable ruins of most of ancient sites, especially ones that have built over time after time since their existence. As much as we know about Egypt, most Egyptologists say that there is far more still to be discovered and far more than that that does not exist to be found anymore. In this case since mainland settlements were a known fact at the location, and since virtually every single city in the time period had defensive walls at the time, and since further this specific area (the silk road) was constantly being fought over it is no stretch to assume it had defensive walls and gates even if we have not found any. They Bible records their destruction. History records their rubble being used by Alexander for his causeway specifically, as well as rubble being used not only locally but up and down the coast in this area. We would not be expected to find much of anything there at all. I will give much more comprehensive replies soon as I have time. Sorry.

 

[camanintx]

This is a paradoxical issue. If a person believes the Bible they are usually not secular and therefore not accepted by you. It is a strange claim to require that only people who do not buy into something be used to examine it. It is like demanding an evolutionist verify a creationist claim. If you can explain why this makes sense I will answer your request and may do so anyway.

You claimed that your interpretation of Ezekiel 26 was shared by "every other commentator, theologian, secular historian, history its self and every unbiased reader" you could find. I'm simply asking you to back it up.

I am unclear what you are contending. The peninsula that currently exists was created by alexander and what was once the Island bears little resemblance to what it used to be. It is a well-known fact that a very traumatic seismic event changed many geographical locations in this exact area. I am not avoiding your requests but I have very little time today and so have decided to get clarification as that is all I have time for. I will answer your questions directly very soon. I will admit that I was not familiar with this issue until I ran into it recently and it needs more research but has very little impact on the prophecy either way.

I'm contending that the main part of the island, where the walls, towers and building referenced in Ezekiel 26 reside, still sits above water. It's relevant because it disproves the prophecy in verse 26:19.

There are no verifiable ruins of most of ancient sites, especially ones that have built over time after time since their existence. As much as we know about Egypt, most Egyptologists say that there is far more still to be discovered and far more than that that does not exist to be found anymore. In this case since mainland settlements were a known fact at the location, and since virtually every single city in the time period had defensive walls at the time, and since further this specific area (the silk road) was constantly being fought over it is no stretch to assume it had defensive walls and gates even if we have not found any. They Bible records their destruction. History records their rubble being used by Alexander for his causeway specifically, as well as rubble being used not only locally but up and down the coast in this area. We would not be expected to find much of anything there at all. I will give much more comprehensive replies soon as I have time. Sorry.

There are many ancient ruins in mainland Tyre, a necropolis, a hippodrome and some roads. No mention of any walls.

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]
You claimed that your interpretation of Ezekiel 26 was shared by "every other commentator, theologian, secular historian, history its self and every unbiased reader" you could find.

Hold the phone a second. This was the statement you made:

I'm not the one spinning a perfectly clear description of a single attack on Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar into an obscure reference to a later attack by an unnamed "they".

To which I said the fact that the prophecy applies to Alexander as well is what I meant that every one I have seen has agreed with. I did not suggest that the entire prophecy is adopted or validated by everyone. I was only illustrating what the prophecy is said to be, not whether it was fulfilled. Another problem is that I said "everyone that I had read". That does not suggest that everyone that exists is the same. I do not know what value it is to you or your point for me to provide a list of scholars that I have read on this issue. Also by unbiased I am eliminating any scholar that begins research by concluding God does not exist and he never spoke as that is not a legitimate method for research and renders their conclusions meaningless (this accounts for a great many).

I'm contending that the main part of the island, where the walls, towers and building referenced in Ezekiel 26 reside, still sits above water. It's relevant because it disproves the prophecy in verse 26:19.

You are going to remain incurably confused and running in circles if you will not spend enough time to learn how Biblical prophecy and cultural literature works. Most of it as I have said repeatedly is romantic and apocalyptic literature. You first must understand that in prophecy words like mountain = kingdom, utter destruction = the collapse of the ruling paradigm, seas represent armies or multitudes of people many times. For what is literal and what is symbolic certain well established and consistent methods must be used. You can't assign what you wish to be literal or what you wish to be symbolic as such. It must be read as it was intended. This concept does not seem to register with you but has existed in every single form of literature and cultural language use in history. I can recognize when bias is driving an argument instead of reason by the suspension or dismissal by a person of these simple necessary ideas. As for 26:19.
This is the original: 26:19 ὅτιτάδελέγεικύριοςκύριοςὅτανδῶσεπόλινἠρημωμένηνὡςτὰςπόλεις τὰςμὴκατοικηθησομέναςἐντῷἀναγαγεῖνμεἐπὶσὲτὴνἄβυσσονκαὶκατακαλύψῃσεὕδωρπολύ.
The words that for some reason you have arbitrarily decided are literal are:
1. tĕhowm (depths) and means: abyss, the grave
2. mayim (waters) and means: of danger, violence, transitory things, refreshment
The effect of understanding what these words meant to imply can be seen in the translations.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will make Tyre an uninhabited ruin, like many others. I will bury you beneath the terrible waves of enemy attack. Great seas will swallow you.

Again waves and water are synonymous with enemy attacks and the depths with the grave or abode of the dead.

The Targum also illustrates this:
when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and the great waters shall cover thee: the waters of the sea shall rush in and overflow the city, the walls of it being broken down; just as the old world, and the cities of it, were overflowed with the deluge, to which the allusion may be; whether this was literally accomplished on Tyre is not certain; perhaps it is to be taken in a figurative sense, and to be understood of the large army of the Chaldeans that should come up against it, and overpower it. So the Targum, "when I shall bring up against them an army of people, who are many as the waters of the deep, and many people shall cover thee; see
Revelation 17:15.''

Wesley's Notes
26:19 The deep - Nebuchadnezzar's army. Great waters - Great afflictions. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
19. great waters-appropriate metaphor of the Babylonian hosts, which literally, by breaking down insular Tyre's ramparts, caused the sea to "cover" part of her.
Ezekiel 26:19 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you,
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Continued

If you wish to maintain a literal view of these words "as is your want" then there is still no problem.

That the prophet was speaking about the mainland city in reference to many aspects of his prophecy has much to commend it. It was to that mainland city that King Nebuchadnezzar directed most of his attention and destructive measures described in Ezekiel 26:8-11. Furthermore, it was the mainland city that Alexander destroyed completely and cast into the sea to build his causeway to the island city. In addition, Benjamin Tudela’s quote corresponds precisely to the statement that the prophet made in the latter part of chapter 26: “For thus says the Lord God: ‘When I make you a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you’” (26:19, emp. added). In addition, Katzenstein noted that the scholar H.L. Ginsberg has suggested that the name “Great Tyre” was given to the mainland city, while the island city was designated as “Little Tyre” (p. 20). He further noted 2 Samuel 24:7, which mentions “the stronghold of Tyre,” and commented that this “may refer to “Old Tyre,” or the mainland city (p. 20).
Apologetics Press - Tyre in Prophecy

In summary most scholars suggest a symbolic view and even a literal view is no obstacle. This last site is the most comprehensive I have seen and undeniably counters in detail all the common claims that you have made. Do you read any of the sources I provide? If you would check the original language and read the sites I have mentioned you could save both of us much time.

There are many ancient ruins in mainland Tyre, a necropolis, a hippodrome and some roads. No mention of any walls.

I do not get it. We have discovered very very little of ancient Tyre. Most of what ever was there is unknown or undiscovered in recent times. Here is another example of what you could find if you actually researched the sites I give you: In approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels. “Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d.). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre.

From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbor in its midst.... There is no harbor like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city.... In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907, emp. added.).
Apologetics Press - Tyre in Prophecy

So in summary. You suggest we should find walls on the mainland (and there are contemporary records that they did exist) because it was predicted he would destroy them. Why do you say that we should have found walls he is said to have destroyed? Not only was the mainland city destroyed but the debris used to make the causeway to the island. If there was little on the mainland what is it that can be seen to lie in the water between the island and the mainland? There are hundreds of tons of buidling stones used for the causway you say did not exist. You have said the existence of anything means the prophecy is wrong and the non existence of things mean it is wrong. This is a heads I win tails you lose argument. It took 3000 years plus to find workers homes for the pyramids and they were never intentionally destroyed or thrown into the sea and are huge and relate to the most studied archeological area on Earth. Yet you insist we should have walls that were destroyed still standing on the mainland at Tyre. Why? Your claim that mainland Tyre was almost void of buildings is incorrect. As from above it can be seen that mainland Tyre was called “Great Tyre” and the island “little Tyre” not the other way around. You do not call a hippodrome and a sewer pipe "Great" anything.

Additional data:

Alexander knew of a temple to Melkart, whom he identified with the Greek god Heracles, within the new city walls and informed the inhabitants that they would be spared if he were allowed to make sacrifice in the temple (the old port had been abandoned and the Tyrians were now living on an offshore island half a mile from the mainland). The defenders refused to allow this and suggested he use the temple in the mainland,
Siege of Tyre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alexander determined to build a mole to get his troops from the mainland to the island. The mole is said to have been at least 200 feet wide. It was constructed from stones and timber from the old city of Tyre on the mainland. In fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, the very foundation stones, timbers and dust of the city was cast "in the midst of the water" (Ezek. 26:12).
Destruction Of Tyre by Alexander the Great and Nebuchadnezzar

Tearing down the remains of the old mainland city of Tyre, Alexander's men began building a mole that was approximately 200 ft. wide.
Siege of Tyre - Alexander the Great Siege of Tyre

 

[camanintx]

I do not get it. We have discovered very very little of ancient Tyre. Most of what ever was there is unknown or undiscovered in recent times. Here is another example of what you could find if you actually researched the sites I give you: In approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels. “Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d.). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre.

From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbor in its midst.... There is no harbor like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city.... In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907, emp. added.).

Still quoting exclusively from apologetics sources I see. Haven't found an unbiased, secular historian who agrees with you? You do realize that every post of yours perfectly illustrates the circular reasoning of biblical apologetics. Ezekiel 26 is fulfilled prophecy only if you start with the assumption that Ezekiel was writing prophecy and not just fiction.

Here's an unbiased, secular study of the geography of Tyre over the last 5,000 years.
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Archaeological Science - Ancient Tyre and its harbours: 5000 years of human-environment interactions

The following photo shows the underwater portion of ancient Tyre mentioned by Benjamin of Tudela.

When you compare this to satellite photos of the entire city, you can clearly see that the majority of it remains high and dry.



One can also see that Tyre, far from being a bare rock, is not only remembered but continues to be rebuilt and populated to this day, directly contradicting many of Ezekiel's claims.

 

[1robin]

Still quoting exclusively from apologetics sources I see. Haven't found an unbiased, secular historian who agrees with you? You do realize that every post of yours perfectly illustrates the circular reasoning of biblical apologetics. Ezekiel 26 is fulfilled prophecy only if you start with the assumption that Ezekiel was writing prophecy and not just fiction.

There is absolutely no such thing as circular reasoning mandated by the fact that a Christian is the one doing the research. That is like saying a Chemist researching chemistry is circular. For example Catholic priests are far more skeptical of miracles and demonic events than anyone is. I have read much on demonic events and the secular authorities (doctors and police) are always far less skeptical than the priest. They are required to rule out absolutely every other explanation then subject the issue to tests that have no other explanation and receive 100% confirmation before the case is even considered.

There are several things I have come to understand are synonymous with someone who has a very weak argument.
1. They argue or reject inconvenient things based on arbitrary declerations about sources which they never actually show even exist. You have basically declared anyone that has the affirmative position can't be right. I do not reject negative claims because they are negative. I reject them because they are making a mistake in their analysis.
2. They stubbornly maintain semantic arguments they have no justification in maintaining or even having.
3. They just will not let cultural language use and well established methods for understanding prophecy operate.

You are doing all three.

Here's an unbiased, secular study of the geography of Tyre over the last 5,000 years.
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Archaeological Science - Ancient Tyre and its harbours: 5000 years of human-environment interactions

That is an interesting site. I will review it further but as of yet do not see any contentions.

The following photo shows the underwater portion of ancient Tyre mentioned by Benjamin of Tudela.

When you compare this to satellite photos of the entire city, you can clearly see that the majority of it remains high and dry.

There are no satellite photos of the city or fortress of Tyre in Biblical times nor of Benjamin's time. I do not see what value photos of the modern settlement in this location have. The photo does reveal the seismic activity that must have occurred here that I mention. I have already explained that the reference to great "Tyre" meant the mainland portion. That portion was at the bottom of the ocean when Alexander used it to build a causeway to the island. I further explained that most experts suggest the water in question is a continuation of the nations theme along with the waves and that the depths are symbolic of the grave. I even gave several examples in the Bible where the same symbolism is used.

One can also see that Tyre, far from being a bare rock, is not only remembered but continues to be rebuilt and populated to this day, directly contradicting many of Ezekiel's claims.

This is really getting frustrating. The city was made as a bare rock over 2000 years ago. It is well known that it was in effect a bare rock after Alexander had smashed everything on the island to rubble. What in the world does a satellite photo made within the last 50 years have to do with anything? It is predicted that the place would be made into a bare rock not that it would always remain one. Regardless it could still be described as a bare rock if you are not insisting on hyperliteral definitions and it is still used to dry nets. It only shows that the modern views are drastically different from the maps of the era, which is exactly what the prophecy predicts.

Can we stick to a single claim until resolution is achieved? It takes a bit to get into a certain claim and just when I think the issue is just about to become undeniably clear you post something different. Pick your best contention and let’s stick with it until it is resolved or it can be seen no resolution is possible. I will also add in some probability estimates concerning this issue. I reviewed the above site again and can't find anything in it that has anything to do with that prophecy. It only shows drastic changes of the area and deals with them from a geologic view point which has no relevance to political or social claims.

 

[camanintx]

There is absolutely no such thing as circular reasoning mandated by the fact that a Christian is the one doing the research. That is like saying a Chemist researching chemistry is circular.

It's circular reasoning simply by the fact that it assumes Ezekiel 26 is prophecy, which is what we are trying to determine.

For example Catholic priests are far more skeptical of miracles and demonic events than anyone is. I have read much on demonic events and the secular authorities (doctors and police) are always far less skeptical than the priest. They are required to rule out absolutely every other explanation then subject the issue to tests that have no other explanation and receive 100% confirmation before the case is even considered.

I seriously doubt anyone can be more skeptical about miracles and demonic events than someone who doesn't believe they exist in the first place.

There are several things I have come to understand are synonymous with someone who has a very weak argument.

1. They argue or reject inconvenient things based on arbitrary declerations about sources which they never actually show even exist. You have basically declared anyone that has the affirmative position can't be right. I do not reject negative claims because they are negative. I reject them because they are making a mistake in their analysis.
2. They stubbornly maintain semantic arguments they have no justification in maintaining or even having.
3. They just will not let cultural language use and well established methods for understanding prophecy operate.

You are doing all three.

I've simply pointed out that all of your arguments take the form "Ezekiel 26 is prophecy because it says 'they' would destroy Tyre. We know 'they' refers to Alexander the Great because Ezekiel 26 is prophecy."

Can we stick to a single claim until resolution is achieved?

Let's start with the claim that Ezekiel 26 is prophecy. Why should we believe that the plural pronoun 'they' in verse 12 applies to anyone but the plural nouns in verse 7?

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]
It's circular reasoning simply by the fact that it assumes Ezekiel 26 is prophecy, which is what we are trying to determine.

That is the equivalent of saying that solar scientists are engaged in circular reasoning because they think the sun is a star. Of course Ezekiel is a prophecy. It predicts future events. I must have missed something because you are far too intelligent to be suggesting that the conclusion that it is a prediction is invalid.

I seriously doubt anyone can be more skeptical about miracles and demonic events than someone who doesn't believe they exist in the first place.

They can't be disproven and so to predetermine they do not exist is invalid. It would make them more skeptical though, I agree. I was speaking within the context of the groups of individuals that have recorded testimony concerning these events. It is a common theme that the secular individuals are astonished how skeptical the priest are and frequently say they were far less so. I did not mean some hyper literal detailed demographic conclusion here.

I've simply pointed out that all of your arguments take the form "Ezekiel 26 is prophecy because it says 'they' would destroy Tyre. We know 'they' refers to Alexander the Great because Ezekiel 26 is prophecy."

This is a valid point I guess but it has no explanatory power. It says more than the king of Babylon but never mentions Alexander, but that does not prove anything. It might make a claim less absolute but it does not have any counter proof capability. I have never said this prophecy is one of the most profound and conclusive. I have even said it is the opposite. I know of no fault within it but there are indeed areas where it's fulfillments are not as absolute or specific as others. It concerns degrees of certainty not any degree of uncertainty. IOW the affirmations may be weak or strong but there are no reasons to deny affirmation. It may not indicate Alexander as strongly as I wish but there are no reasons to suggest it doesn't. With all historical claims they are resolved to a degree or probability of certainty never to an absolute certainty.

Let's start with the claim that Ezekiel 26 is prophecy. Why should we believe that the plural pronoun 'they' in verse 12 applies to anyone but the plural nouns in verse 7?

I have answered this twice. I am going to start only copying and pasting repeat questions at least until we are back to where we left off but thanks for narrowing things down a bit. Let's try and stick to this one issue for a bit. I will also say that I do not think you knew much about this prophecy initially but you have shown a great willingness to research it and you will be competent to discuss it in the future even if you were not initially.
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 Nebuchadrezzar 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 sumbsumed 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.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

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. 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 chaistic structure as the above noted. There is also no "I/They" pairing and consistent comparability of unique actions.
Ezekiel's Tyre Prophecy Defended

As we get into individual contentions and past ground we have already traveled I will add in personal notes and multiple sources so do not fret that this is a simple copy job here. It is still as true and maybe more comprehensive than anything I would have added personally. I believe you drastically underestimate the complexity and depth of technical scholarship concerning Hermeneutics. No other subject or book is as exhaustively scrutinized. They are at least as competent in examining the Bible as Newton or Einstein were with physics.

 

[camanintx]

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.

Ezekiel's Tyre Prophecy Defended

Dean Ulrich answers this in his essay which I linked to earlier.

As noted above, conservative scholars have built their theory of multiple historical fulfillments on the pronominal switch in Ezek 26:12. The switch from third-person singular in vv. 7-11 to third-person plural in v. 12 is thought to indicate a reference to others besides Nebuchadnezzar who had a hand in the multistage destruction of Tyre. Although the MT and the Targum have third-person plural forms in 26:12, the LXX retains the third-person singular form through 26:13, and the obvious reference is to Nebuchadnezzar.

Given that the LXX was composed centuries before either the MT or the Targum, isn't it more likely to reflect the original text?

Even if we accept that v. 12 uses the third-person plural 'they', your source only claims that this doesn't refer to Nebuchadnezzar and his army without explain why it can not refer to Nebuchadnezzar and his army. Why should we believe that the 'they' in v. 12 refers to some unnamed nation from v. 3 instead of the named Nebuchadnezzar and his army immediately preceding it in v. 7? This is where your argument abandons the rules of grammar in order to support itself.

I'll go a step further and grant you that v. 12 may reference the 'many nations' from v. 3. When Ezekiel 26 was composed in 570 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar ruled over Babylon, Assyria, Phoenicia and Judah, each a separate nation in their own right. This is supported in v. 7 where Nebuchadnezzar is called "king of Babylon, king of kings". Your source makes no attempt to show why the 'many nations' in v. 3 refers to anyone other than Nebuchadnezzar.

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?

 

[McBell]

At the end of the day belief will determine actions which will determine outcome. As the saying goes the prof is in the pudding.

But all you are proving is that you believe your beliefs....

 

[Muffled]

I will try to but does it not bother you that getting re-incarnation out of the Bible is something only a vanishingly small amount of scholars would agree on. Even the secular or hostile ones.
I think the confusion is over the fact that the Bible teaches Heaven and earth are currently two distinct locations but one day heaven will be the Earth. Christ gives the impression the heaven is in "construction" and will descend to earth that has been burned up and rebuilt Garden of Eden style.

There can't be any physical evidence of something yet to happen but you must have missed the scriptural evidence.
All Things Made New
21 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me,[b] "Write, for these words are true and faithful."
Revelation 21:1-8 NKJV - All Things Made New - Now I saw a new - Bible Gateway
You may use any adjectives that you wish. The point is and was that the corrupt Earth will be cleansed by GOD's refining fire to prepare it to be placed back into its garden of Eden perfect condition.
I try and avoid these premillennial post millennial debates.
I have forgotten what this was about and the conversation is so old I have lost track. I think I meant I have noticed beliefs you hold that only a fraction of a tiny fraction believe. Which is fine but not something that would leave me comfortable, not that I follow the crown either.
I can agree with that.

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

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.

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 acompaniement of Jesus, you will see that it is the New Jerusalem, the Golden City in the sky that descends to Earth.

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.

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.

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

 

[Muffled]

I've seen plenty of people do good not being Christian.

If the bible is so clear and true how come then I don't feel convinced by it any more than other religious books? How come most of it sounds confusing and vague? To me it has as much proof as any other book.

The problem with Christians is that they can't prove it to be true without circular reasoning. The bible is true because Jesus said so and Jesus is true because the bible said so. Or other religions aren't true because the bible says so. Well good for you but that doesn't prove anything to non Christians.

I'd love something clear that isn't part of this circular reasoning.

I already believe in a divine, higher being, because it is what I believe in my core, but religion, I can't find any which my core says "this is the right one".

Certainly and that was the case with me before I was saved, but I was also capable of evil before and I am nowhere near capable of evil today. You do not have to read the news long before realizing that there is evil in the world.

I believe the apostle Paul says it is as though there is a veil over your eyes.

II Cor. 3:15 But unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart.
16 But whensoever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Joh 8:12 Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.

I believe actually this becomes Jesus is true because I have experienced His presence. I believe that this only happens if one does what I did.

I don't believe the Bible says that about any current religion although some neo-paganism might qualify. However I beleive in the Bible as an authoritative word and that any text contradicting it is not an authoritative word of God.

Most likely this is spiritual memory which is partial at best and simply could signify a lack of experience of Christian understanding. As such it is an unreliable guide.

 

[Muffled]

..perhaps there is not a right religion, or it isn't good because it divides good people. Religion is an organization of churches or people whose purpose was mainly to spread the words of God and God purpose to separate good people from bad people. It seems though that the messenger was given more importance rather than the messages itself and it's origin.

When religion is defined this way, I don't believe there is a right one. If religion is defined as a way of doing things then there is a right way and I believe Jesus makes it clear that He is the way.