Regarding item 1, I will not comment on it since nothing specific is mentioned.
I did not posts them there because I have already posted them and the link twice. You simply ignored them and have now forgotten them.
Regarding items 2, and 3, you cannot show that the odds against anyone defeating the island fortress within 500 years are so high that Ezekiel's prediction that it would be defeated was inspired by God. What is not common is not evidence of divine inspiration. The odds are astronomical that very unusual things will sometimes occur, and it would be impossible for them to never occur. Of course, when odds get high enough, they become a virtual certainty for all practical purposes, but you cannot reasonably prove that Ezekiel accurately predicting that someone would defeat the island settlement within 500 years beat astronomical odds.
The Tyrian's knowing full well what Alexander could do (he had just defeated an army 4 times his size at Issus) thought their fortress so impregnable as to defy and taunt him. Those in history who knew best thought their city was invulnerable, Alexander knew of it's impregnability and had to lobby hard to get any general to agree to attack it, he failed I think 3 times, and was going to give it up twice. There is no level at which God is the only explanation, but the level where Ezekiel could have made a dozen safe assumptions by natural means to details this astronomically improbable has long been over. Even the far less strong forts in the same area without being on islands are still there. At Acre the Christians many centuries later took years to starve it out because they could not defeat it and they were siege masters. It is absurd as predicting fort Hood will we demolished and obliterated today.
Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre in about 586 B.C. Five hundred years later would be 86 B.C. Do you have any historical evidence that the island looked like a bare rock by 86 B.C.? If by that date, the island fortress walls had been completely dismantled to make room for residential development, that would not have been odd, partly because the walls would have blocked much of the view of the water.
86Bc is not the issue. 332Bc is. That is when Alexander tore it apart. Every military account of the siege has Alexander dismantling the fortress. It was not swept clean as a bare floor (that was apocalyptic smack talking) but it was a pile of rubble on bare rock. That part of the island is today under the ocean.
There were a number of temples at the island fortress. Perhaps some of them had not been destroyed, or dismantled by 86 B.C. If that was the case, all of the island would not have looked like a bare rock.
This is what I mean by not having an argument. A well maybe this happened is not a counter point. It is a diversion. There exists no claim of any kind that I cannot invent a not0impossibel alternative to. This is simply more proof of bias. History is not determined based on what is not impossible but what the evidence suggests.
Regarding item 4, many of Ezekiels predictions came true, but none of them were divinely inspired. Nothing that he said about Nebuchadnezzar was unusual. Consider the following:
Nebuchadnezzar II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790
That article says that Ezekiel wrote the prophecy in 586 B.C., and Wikipedia says that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre in circa 586. If Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre in 586 B.C., on what exact date, or in what month, did his attacks begin? If Ezekiel wrote the prophecy in 586 B.C., on what exact date, or in what month did he write it?
In law a document is taken to be what it claims until evidence exists that is convincing it is other wise. Same with testimony.
Predictive prophecy stands as one of the most viable proofs of the Bibles divine inspiration. Ezekiels prophecy concerning the city of Tyre provides an excellent example of such evidence.
Ezekiels prophetic message is one of the easiest to place in an accurate time frame. In verse 2 of the first chapter, the prophet noted that his visions and prophecies began in the fifth year of King Johoiachins captivity. The date for this captivity is virtually unanimously accepted as 597 B.C. during the second deportation of citizens from Judea to Babylon, which is documented in detail in 2 Kings 24:10-20. Furthermore, not only is the deportation recorded in the biblical account, but the ancient Chaldean records document it as well (Free and Vos, 1992, p. 194). Since Ezekiels visions began five years after the deportation, then a firm date of 592 B.C. can be established for the beginning of his prophecy. The prophet supplies other specific dates such as the seventh year (20:1), the ninth year (24:1), the eleventh year (26:1), and the latest date given as the twenty-seventh year (29:17) [Note: for an outline see Archer, 1974, pp. 368-369].
Due to the firmly established dating system that Ezekiel chose to use for his prophecy, the date of the prophecy regarding the city of Tyre, found in chapter 26, can be accurately established as the eleventh year after 597, which would be 586 B.C.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790
Now since the date is firmly established let's pretend we have reason to believe it was written December 31'st at 11:59pm and Ezekiel lied. That would only make known the city Nebuchadnezzar attacked and would not explain another single detail and probably would not explain that one either. Your doing the same thing again. You showing it is not impossible that Ezekiel could have known about one detail in over a dozen so we can condemn them all. This is not an argument, it is pure bias.
There is no way that you can reasonably prove that the odds against Ezekiel learning about Nebuchadnezzars plans to attack the mainland settlement are so high that God must have told him about Nebuchadnezzars plans. For all we know, Nebuchadnezzar had planned to attack the mainland settlement years before he attacked it, and by the time that he did attack it, many people in, and outside of Babylon knew about it.
What exactly is reasonable proof? If you can't define it to an exactness I can't know if I met it, since your simply making it up. Error loves ambiguity and the dark. Truth loves clarity and light. I will not address anymore reasonable proof criteria until you define it specifically.
Once that Ezekiel, or anyone else, had heard about Nebuchadnezzars plans to attack the mainland settlement, surely many people expected him to severely damage it.
For the fourth or fifth time I have never used the damage Nebuchadnezzar did to the mainland as evidence of the prophetic.
Now that is utterly absurd even for you. It is not surprising that Nebuchadnezzar wanted to attack the mainland settlement. Your commander argument is irrelevant since when Nebuchadnezzar decided to attack the mainland settlement, his commanders had to do what he told them to do.
An article at
http://www.ancient.eu.com/Nebuchadnezzar_II/ says:
Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that it would have been surprising if a powerful king like Nebuchadnezzar had not severely damaged the mainland settlement.
Please reply to my posts 154, 156, 162, 176, 177, 178, and 179.
That is ridiculous.
1. I have not used the level of damage as a proof of the supernatural.
2. It is however improbable.
3. Commanders as is plainly obvious want to be as efficient as possible.
4. Why spend a decade trashing a meaningless town?
5. Why lose men tearing down houses and walls?
This does occur but unique conditions cause it.
1. The enemy is using the structures for cover. (See Cortez, Vietnam, etc...)
2. The enemy had made the commander so mad he is exacting vengeance.
3. He is a conqueror like Rome was who because of practicality severely punished resistance but was lenient on those who surrendered.
It is not part of my argument but it is highly unusual to spend a decade tearing down a meaningless city and having none of the above conditions mandating it. The most powerful army ever assembled took the fourth largest army and it's capital in weeks and had more firepower in one division that Alexander, Caesar, Nebuchadnezzar, and the Mongols combined and yet Bagdad is still intact and functioning. We exploded more energy in Nagasaki and Hiroshima that has ever been expended per mile in all of history yet those cities were not completely destroyed and have been rebuilt. That is the norm what occurred at Tyre is very abnormal. Of all the hundreds of cities Rome sacked in it's most tyrannical periods very very few were obliterated and they were 100 times as efficient with siege's as even Alexander.
