The Tyre prophecy

[Agnostic75]

Anyway, you are wasting your time since an evil God can predict the future just as easily as a good God can. When I first used that argument in another thread, you made the nonsensical claim that God has provided Christians with ways to tell good supernatural beings from evil ones, but it is quite obvious that if an evil God inspired the Bible, he inspired the Scriptures that say that Christians can tell good supernatural beings from evil ones.

No an evil God cannot even be God.

An evil God cannot be the God of the Bible, but that is exactly my point, which is that it is plausible that God is not the kind of God that the Bible claims he is.

God is a being with maximal great making properties. Evil is not a great making property. There is a debate (a rare one) where Craig and another Christians took on two atheists at Oxford I believe. In the question period someone asked if Satan could not simply be God but evil. Craig said evil is not a great making property and the whole place laughed themselves silly. BTW that is one of the few debates where votes were taken. The Christians won by a lot. This is also an irrelevant subject. Demons and Satan are created creatures and do not possess great making properties which means they cannot predict the future accurately at 100%. Which is why palm reader, people talking to the dead, and false prophets always have errors among anything they get right.

How absurd can you get? Votes being taken does not prove anything.

Craig is just plain stupid regarding that particular issue. Consider the following:

Perfect Being Theology | Reasonable Faith

I’ve already acknowledged a degree of play in the notion of a great-making property. For example, is it greater to be timeless or omnitemporal? The answer is not clear. But our uncertainty as to what properties the greatest conceivable being must have does nothing to invalidate the definition of “God” as “the greatest conceivable being.” Here Anselm’s intuition which you mention seems on target: there cannot by definition be anything greater than God.

Now you might think, “But what good is it defining God as the greatest conceivable being if we have no idea what such a being would be like?” The answer to that question will depend on what project you’re engaged in. If you’re doing systematic theology, then you have that other control, namely, Scripture, which supplies considerable information about God, for example, that He is eternal, almighty, good, personal, and so on. Perfect Being theology will aid in the formulation of a doctrine of God by construing those attributes in as great a way as possible. On the other hand, if your project is natural theology, which makes no appeal to Scripture, then you will present arguments that God must have certain properties.

Nothing there, or elsewhere in the article, reasonably disproves my arguments. All that is required for my arguments to be true is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and evil. Obviously, an evil God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and evil would easily be able to pretend to be good, to predict the future, and to do good works. No logic requires that all possible Gods be good.

If God is an evil God who is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?

Please reply to all of my posts on the previous page.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is currently no Phoenician anything.

Ezekiel 26 only refers to Tyre, not to any of the other independent Phoenician city-states.

I previously mentioned a list of ten forgotten kingdoms. There were surely more of them, and the ones that I mentioned were larger than just one fortress on a small island.

The Phoenicians in Tyre were from Carthage.

Wikipedia says that "Carthage was founded by Canaanite-speaking Phoenician colonists from Tyre." Some people from Carthage might have moved to Tyre, but how many, and what difference does it make if some people from Carthage moved to Tyre?

Carthage ruled the seas and had a huge empire. They were rich and powerful.

What does that have to do with the Tyre prophecy?

Tyre was a world class, extremely wealthy, virtually impregnable island fortress.

So what?

He then stated that one of the strongest and wealthiest fortresses would be wiped off the face of the earth, to the bedrock.

But it is plausible that that would have happened anyway by say 750 A.D. I am sure that many college professors of ancient warfare would agree with me. Even if it wasn't plausible, the odds are astronomical that very unusual things will sometimes happen, which obviously includes an unusual person like Alexander being born.

If Alexander had not been born, the Persians would eventually have had the military power to defeat the island fortress from ships like Alexander did. Carthage used siege machines before Alexander and his father used them. If Alexander had not first used siege machines on ships, someone else would have.

Centuries after Alexander, the Romans would have had the military power to defeat the island fortress from ships like Alexander did.

Nothing that Nebuchadnezzar did was unusual.

Please reply to my previous post, and to all of my posts on the previous page.

 

[Agnostic75]

On the contrary, the website only quoted Arrian, and does not have any commentary at all. As most ancient historians know, Arrian is widely acknowledged by scholars as one of the best ancient sources on Alexander, and some scholars say that he is the best ancient source on Alexander.

He is widely known to have written what he thought Alexander wanted to hear.

That is quite interesting since Arrian was born over 350 years after Alexander died.

Please quote your sources.

He even went well beyond even that.

Please quote your sources.

In one case Alexander threw his entire manuscript in the sea saying no one would believe that.

Please quote your sources.

If Alexander threw his entire manuscript in the sea, someone else must have recorded what allegedly happened since Arrian discusses what allegedly happened. Many if not the majority of credible sources about famous historical characters are not autobiographical, so your comment was absurd.

 

[1robin]

But that is not what Ezekiel said. He said that an unspecified number of people would be killed, he did not mention slavery at all, he did not say who would kill the people, and he did not limit the time frame to 500 years as you claimed.

You are still missing the point. Ezekiel claimed that something very rare would occur in Tyre. In fact a successive string of them would. Multiplicative probabilities very very quickly become unmanageable by naturalistic explanation.

 

[1robin]

Every case is different. Everyone knows that. If Ezekiel was in Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar left for Tyre, no one living today could possibly adequately estimate the odds that he, or anyone else knew where Nebuchadnezzar was going. It might have been common knowledge that he was going to Tyre. Ezekiel might have been popular among some of the military commanders who told him about that attacks. Some residents of Babylon might have overheard some of the commanders discussing the plans, and gossip spread the news. There are many other possibilities.

There are not any good reasons why some Babylonians would not have told Ezekiel that Nebuchadnezzar was going to Tyre. Ezekiel, and other Hebrews, hated Tyre, and were jealous of it, so Ezekiel being told about it would not have been a threat to Nebuchadnezzar since Ezekiel wanted him to defeat the mainland settlement.

So every case is different but you must show that this one justifies your claim. So far all you have shown is it was not impossible. It is far more reasonable that a slave did not know the specifics of a future battle than he did. remember history is best fit, not Agnostic is right unless proof exists they aren't. However this only would explain the first of a dozen predictions. Even if he knew where he was going he would not have known the rest.

 

[1robin]

I refer you to my post 162. I quoted three sources that say that Alexander's siege machines on the causeway did very little damage to the fortress, and that Alexander had to use naval forces to breach the walls. Alexander was on a ship when the walls were breached from ships.

Please quote your sources that say that Alexander's forces breached the walls from the causeway.

You did not read what I said carefully. Assaults have differing facets. Usually the part that knocks holes in walls is not the part that takes advantage of them. In this particular case all were necessary.

1. You needed a causeway to get to the enemy.
2. You needed naval siege equipment (the original water born rams).
3. You needed blockade forces.
4. Supply.
5. You needed anti-personnel medium siege equipment. The siege towers were full of them.
6. He needed a way to get a large number or men through any breakthroughs.

IMO all the machines and tactics were necessary. The ships did most of the structural damage, and the causeway allowed for invasion.

For Ezekiel's predictions to come true all these improbabilities must be multiplied together.

1. A reason or offense that justified the siege of what was thought to be impregnable.
2. A half mile causeway to be built form rubble of the suburbs.
3. A commander so relentless as to persist through all the setbacks this type of attack would yield.
4. The first ship born rams in history.
5. The largest siege equipment built until that time and possibly since.
6. Some provocation that resulted in mass impressment and slaughter of Tyre's inhabitants. I think 2000 alone were crucified.
7. Either one of histories largest or three navies.
etc..

If you simply subtract one it is doubtful whether all the rest would have succeed. It is a multiplicative problem.

 

[1robin]

The rubble refers only to the island fortress. If rubble from the island fortress had been thrown into the sea, that would have agreed with part of the prophecy.

Both came true so in this case I have no need to split hairs.

But those Scriptures are sufficient to show that if the rubble from the island fortress had been thrown into the sea, that would have agreed with part of the prophecy.

The sea floor is covered in rubble from both.

You cannot reasonably prove that Ezekiel was not referring only to the island fortress.

I told you I was going to ignore these

ambiguous reasonably prove demands. I meant it.

In my post 154, I provided reasonable evidence that verse 12, which mentions the rubble, refers only to the island fortress.

It says this:

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.

Meaning that both would do so and both did so.

In my post 156, I provided reasonable evidence that only verses 6-11 refer to the mainland settlement, and only to Nebuchadnezzar.

I think I agree with this.

In my post 181, I quoted Christian apologist James Holding as saying:

I didn't get this.

I agree, and that it the basis that I used for my posts 154, and 156.

If we agree where is the problem?

 

[1robin]

That is quite interesting since Arrian was born over 350 years after Alexander died.

I got the person you mentioned confused with either Diodorus or Perdicass. I will have to review Arrian before I can comment further. I am very short on time today.

 

[Agnostic75]

Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre

Quote:

"Alexander easily persuaded his men to make an attack on Tyre. An omen helped to convince him, because that very night during a dream he seemed to be approaching the walls of Tyre, and Heracles was stretching out his right hand towards him and leading him to the city. Aristander explained that this meant that Tyre would be captured with great effort, just as the labours of Heracles also demanded great effort. Certainly the siege of Tyre was a considerable undertaking."

That site must be run by idiots.

On the contrary, the website only quoted Arrian, and does not have any commentary at all. As most ancient historians know, Arrian is widely acknowledged by scholars as one of the best ancient sources on Alexander, and some scholars say that he is the best ancient source on Alexander.

He is widely known to have written what he thought Alexander wanted to hear.

That is quite interesting since Arrian was born over 350 years after Alexander died.

I got the person you mentioned confused with either Diodorus or Perdiccas. I will have to review Arrian before I can comment further. I am very short on time today.

You couldn't have meant Diodorus since he lived during the first century A.D.

Perdiccas was one of Alexander's generals. Since when was he widely known for writing what Alexander wanted to hear, if he wrote anything at all about Alexander? I checked a number of Internet references about Perdiccas, and I could not find where he wrote anything about Alexander, or anyone else.

He even went well beyond even that.

Who is "he," and what are you talking about? Please quote your sources.

In one case Alexander threw his entire manuscript in the sea saying no one would believe that.

Please quote your sources.

If Alexander threw his entire manuscript in the sea, someone else must have recorded what allegedly happened since Arrian discusses what allegedly happened. Many if not the majority of credible sources about historical characters are not autobiographical, so your comment was absurd.

 

[Agnostic75]

You are still missing the point. Ezekiel claimed that something very rare would occur in Tyre. In fact a successive string of them would. Multiplicative probabilities very very quickly become unmanageable by naturalistic explanation.

But I have adequately refuted all of your examples, and I will be happy to go over all of them again.

 

[Agnostic75]

Every case is different. Everyone knows that. If Ezekiel was in Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar left for Tyre, no one living today could possibly adequately estimate the odds that he, or anyone else knew where Nebuchadnezzar was going. It might have been common knowledge that he was going to Tyre. Ezekiel might have been popular among some of the military commanders who told him about that attacks. Some residents of Babylon might have overheard some of the commanders discussing the plans, and gossip spread the news. There are many other possibilities.

There are not any good reasons why some Babylonians would not have told Ezekiel that Nebuchadnezzar was going to Tyre. Ezekiel, and other Hebrews, hated Tyre, and were jealous of it, so Ezekiel being told about it would not have been a threat to Nebuchadnezzar since Ezekiel wanted him to defeat the mainland settlement.

So every case is different but you must show that this one justifies your claim.

Obviously not since it was the Bible's original, prior claim that God told Ezekiel about Nebuchadnezzar's plan to attack the mainland settlement that I discussed. Surely all of the claims in all ancient religious books are not true until they have been reasonably proven to be false.

So far all you have shown is it was not impossible.

Absolutely not, I have provided evidence that is just as likely as your evidence is. As I said:

"There are not any good reasons why some Babylonians would not have told Ezekiel that Nebuchadnezzar was going to Tyre. Ezekiel, and other Hebrews, hated Tyre, and were jealous of it, so Ezekiel being told about it would not have been a threat to Nebuchadnezzar since Ezekiel wanted him to defeat the mainland settlement."

It is certainly plausible that a guard told Ezekiel about the plans when he brought food and water to him. By the time that Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon for Tyre, the gathering of the troops, and equipment would have been big news all over Babylon.

As I have told you before, Nebuchadnezzar might have planned to attack the mainland settlement years before he attacked it, and that might have been common knowledge in Babylon.

I assume that even some conservative Christian historians would agree with me that it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel found out that Nebuchadnezzar was going to Tyre by ordinary means, just like many other people did.

It is far more reasonable that a slave did not know the specifics of a future battle than he did.

But as I have told you before, Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king, and it was expected that he would severely damage the mainland settlement. The terms that Ezekiel used to describe the damage that Nebuchadnezzar would cause are typical of how many other people would have described the damage. Here is what Ezekiel said:

Ezekiel 26

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

There is not anything unusual about anyone predicting that a powerful king like Nebuchadnezzar would cause damage like that.

However this only would explain the first of a dozen predictions. Even if he knew where he was going he would not have known the rest.

We have already discussed all of that before, and I adequately refuted all of your arguments. I will be happy to discuss those issues with you again as many times as you wish.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Ezekiel 26:19 says:

"For thus says the Lord God: When I make you a city laid waste, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you."

That did not happen since part of the original island settlement is inhabited, and all of the original island settlement is not covered with water.

The original location of the mainland settlement is unknown, but there are lots of people living at the mainland in the vicinity of the island. Since the original location of the mainland settlement is unknown, there is not any credible evidence that water ever covered all of it, and that all of it ever looked like a bare rock.

Some sources say that the mainland settlement was a group of suburbs. If that is true, and some of the suburbs were separated by hundreds of yards, or more, it is reasonably possible that Alexander only used rubble from suburbs that were closer to the island settlement, in which case, all of the suburbs did not look like a bare rock. In addition, parts of some of the suburbs might have been quite rocky, and would have been difficult to excavate, in which case those suburbs would not have looked like a bare rock.

Only verses 4, and 14 mention the word “rock.” Verse 4 clearly refers to the island settlement since the word "they" is used. Verses 1-5 say:

1. And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

2. Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste:

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.

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.

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.

Since verse 3, and 5 refer to the island settlement, and verse 4 uses the word “they, and since it was Nebuchadnezzar who destroyed the mainland settlement, and the daughters that are in the field are not mentioned until verse 6, it is reasonable to assume that verse 4 refers only to the island settlement.

After verses 6-11, which refer only to Nebuchadnezzar, Ezekiel goes back to the island settlement. Consider the following 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.

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

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.

Verse 12 clearly refers only to the island settlement since 1) parties other than Nebuchadnezzar (they) are mentioned, and 2) the island settlement was where most of the riches, merchandise, and pleasant houses.

Ezekiel implied that the rubble would come from the island settlement since verse 12 mentions not only the rubble, but also riches, merchandise, and pleasant houses, which means that all of those things were in the same place, which was at the island settlement. Nebuchadnezzar largely destroyed the mainland settlement. When Alexander went to Tyre, surely most of the riches, merchandise, and pleasant houses were at the island settlement, and probably all of the fine houses were there.

Most of the wealth, power, and reputation of Tyre came from the island settlement. Ezekiel knew that, and he knew that if the rubble from the island settlement had been cast into the sea, that would have been far more disgraceful than if the rubble from the mainland settlement had been cast into the sea. In other words, Ezekiel knew that if the rubble from the mainland settlement had been cast into the sea, and the island fortress had not been conquered, most of the wealth, power, and reputation of Tyre would not be destroyed.

Casting things, or people out of a house, or town, or into the sea, is frequently mentioned in the Bible in a derogatory fashion. In most, or all cases, nothing subsequent is mentioned, so there are not any good reasons to assume that something other than just the rubble being cast into the sea would have happened. If Alexander, or anyone else, had cast the rubble from the island settlement into the sea, that would have agreed with verse 12.

1. You needed a causeway to get to the enemy.
2. You needed naval siege equipment (the original water born rams).
3. You needed blockade forces.
4. Supply.
5. You needed anti-personnel medium siege equipment. The siege towers were full of them.
6. He needed a way to get a large number or men through any breakthroughs.

Alexander breached the walls from ships, not from the causeway, and right after the breach was made, his forces quickly defeated the Tyrians soldiers without any help from the siege machines at the causeway. The Ancient History Encyclopedia says:

Alexander now brought his ships directly beneath the walls and began to pound them with battering rams. Greek forces at the northern end of the island attempted to make a breach but failed. A small breach was made in the southern defences but a Macedonian attack across causeways resulted only in casualties and failure.

Alexander waited for three days before resuming his assault. Whilst diversionary attacks occupied the defenders attention, two ships with bridging equipment approached the southern breach. Alexander himself was in command of this force, which consisted mostly of elite hypaspists and pezhaitoroi. The Macedonians managed to force their way onto the wall: Admetus, commander of the Hypaspists, was the first man onto the battlements and was killed by a spear as he exhorted his men onward. Neverthless the assault was a success, and soon the Macedonians were pouring down into the city itself, killing and looting. After this initial breach was forced, Alexanders command was swollen as more and more Greeks and Macedonians succeeded in entering the city from various points, including the harbours.

The surviving Tyrians fell back to the Agenorium, an old fortress in the northern sector of the city, but only managed to hold out for a brief period before they were slaughtered.

No mention is made about the causeway. Have you read any sources that say that Alexander completed the causeway, and whether he completed it before, or after he defeated the island fortress? If so, please quote your sources. The same article that I just quoted does not say, or imply that Alexander finished building the causeway. Alexander left a garrison at the fortress after he conquered it. If he did not finish building the causeway, the garrison would have been less vulnerable to attacks from the land.

Do you have any evidence that siege machines, and soldiers, were transferred from the causeway to ships? Even if that happened, Alexander showed that the island fortress could still have been conquered if he had not built the causeway. You could argue that that would have been more expensive, and time consuming, but surely building the causeway was also expensive, and time consuming.

Alexander was a great military planner, but by building a causeway to the island, he greatly reduced its military, and economic significance. If he had known in advance that he would not have been able to breach the walls of the fortress from the causeway, and chose to use naval forces to accomplish that, he would not have built the causeway. He would have conquered the fortress, rebuilt it, and would have added a great military, and economic prize to his empire.

There is plenty in Ezekiel chapter 26 that supports my arguments, and there is not anything that says, or even remotely implies that Ezekiel believed that the rubble would come from the mainland settlement.

Regarding verse 14, the mention of nets is merely a restatement of verse 5, which also mentions nets.

 

[1robin]

Obviously not since it was the Bible's original, prior claim that God told Ezekiel about Nebuchadnezzar's plan to attack the mainland settlement that I discussed. Surely all of the claims in all ancient religious books are not true until they have been reasonably proven to be false.

I have spent dozens of posts debating the evidence for the prophecy to be true. I have never simply assumed it was true or claimed it. This has been a discussion of evidence.

Absolutely not, I have provided evidence that is just as likely as your evidence is. As I said:

"There are not any good reasons why some Babylonians would not have told Ezekiel that Nebuchadnezzar was going to Tyre. Ezekiel, and other Hebrews, hated Tyre, and were jealous of it, so Ezekiel being told about it would not have been a threat to Nebuchadnezzar since Ezekiel wanted him to defeat the mainland settlement."

That is not evidence. It is an assumption based on hypotheticals.

It is certainly plausible that a guard told Ezekiel about the plans when he brought food and water to him. By the time that Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon for Tyre, the gathering of the troops, and equipment would have been big news all over Babylon.

So prophecies can't be right until proven wrong but objections to them can be. Plausibility is not evidence.

As I have told you before, Nebuchadnezzar might have planned to attack the mainland settlement years before he attacked it, and that might have been common knowledge in Babylon.

As I have responded before even if your evidence less assumption was true that would only account for one of a dozen or so details of the prophecy. It is a total assumption but one that would not make a significant difference anyway.

I assume that even some conservative Christian historians would agree with me that it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel found out that Nebuchadnezzar was going to Tyre by ordinary means, just like many other people did.

I am sure even some atheists would agree that Tyre is a remarkable prediction. Did I win?

But as I have told you before, Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king, and it was expected that he would severely damage the mainland settlement. The terms that Ezekiel used to describe the damage that Nebuchadnezzar would cause are typical of how many other people would have described the damage. Here is what Ezekiel said:



There is not anything unusual about anyone predicting that a powerful king like Nebuchadnezzar would cause damage like that.

As I have told you before I have not used the extent of the damage to the mainland as evidence for the prophecy. Some of the related details are extraordinary, like throwing rubble into the sea and taking so long to take the place, but the level of destruction it's self has not been an issue I have raised.

We have already discussed all of that before, and I adequately refuted all of your arguments. I will be happy to discuss those issues with you again as many times as you wish.

I am sure you are. You have only managed to reply not refute. I cannot even think of a wrong refutation to the other points. I can think of hypotheticals, maybes, and could be's but no refutations of any kind.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Ezekiel 26:19 says:

"For thus says the Lord God: When I make you a city laid waste, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you."

That did not happen since part of the original island settlement is inhabited, and all of the original island settlement is not covered with water.

The original location of the mainland settlement is unknown, but there are lots of people living at the mainland in the vicinity of the island. Since the original location of the mainland settlement is unknown, there is not any credible evidence that water ever covered all of it, and that all of it ever looked like a bare rock.

This prediction is multifaceted. Some of it is apocalyptic trash talk, some applies to only the island, and some to both. If you leave each in it's proper context they all came true. The island was made virtually like a bare rock and nets were spread on it, rubble form both currently lies on the ocean floor, in fact most of the original island is now under water. Even if the original cities location was not known (and it is) it is obvious it no longer stands.

Some sources say that the mainland settlement was a group of suburbs. If that is true, and some of the suburbs were separated by hundreds of yards, or more, it is reasonably possible that Alexander only used rubble from suburbs that were closer to the island settlement, in which case, all of the suburbs did not look like a bare rock. In addition, parts of some of the suburbs might have been quite rocky, and would have been difficult to excavate, in which case those suburbs would not have looked like a bare rock.

I have explained this over and over. The Island not the city was built on bare rock. It was it that was predicted to be scraped clean. It was. It does not matter which suburbs Alexander used. Rubble was thrown in the sea. The prophecy does not break down tonnage by suburb.

Only verses 4, and 14 mention the word “rock.” Verse 4 clearly refers to the island settlement since the word "they" is used. Verses 1-5 say:



Since verse 3, and 5 refer to the island settlement, and verse 4 uses the word “they, and since it was Nebuchadnezzar who destroyed the mainland settlement, and the daughters that are in the field are not mentioned until verse 6, it is reasonable to assume that verse 4 refers only to the island settlement.

It has been my claim that bare rock refers only to the island or is only generally associated with Tyre as a whole. It has been your position that the mainland was to be made bare. Now you have switched.

After verses 6-11, which refer only to Nebuchadnezzar, Ezekiel goes back to the island settlement. Consider the following verses:

I agree with that.

Verse 12 clearly refers only to the island settlement since 1) parties other than Nebuchadnezzar (they) are mentioned, and 2) the island settlement was where most of the riches, merchandise, and pleasant houses.

Ezekiel implied that the rubble would come from the island settlement since verse 12 mentions not only the rubble, but also riches, merchandise, and pleasant houses, which means that all of those things were in the same place, which was at the island settlement. Nebuchadnezzar largely destroyed the mainland settlement. When Alexander went to Tyre, surely most of the riches, merchandise, and pleasant houses were at the island settlement, and probably all of the fine houses were there.

I see no problem.

Most of the wealth, power, and reputation of Tyre came from the island settlement. Ezekiel knew that, and he knew that if the rubble from the island settlement had been cast into the sea, that would have been far more disgraceful than if the rubble from the mainland settlement had been cast into the sea. In other words, Ezekiel knew that if the rubble from the mainland settlement had been cast into the sea, and the island fortress had not been conquered, most of the wealth, power, and reputation of Tyre would not be destroyed.

Rubble from both is in the sea. This one leaves no room for doubt. No matter whether you claim the rubble came from the island, mainland, or both the prediction came true.

Casting things, or people out of a house, or town, or into the sea, is frequently mentioned in the Bible in a derogatory fashion. In most, or all cases, nothing subsequent is mentioned, so there are not any good reasons to assume that something other than just the rubble being cast into the sea would have happened. If Alexander, or anyone else, had cast the rubble from the island settlement into the sea, that would have agreed with verse 12.

I still see no problem.

Alexander breached the walls from ships, not from the causeway, and right after the breach was made, his forces quickly defeated the Tyrians soldiers without any help from the siege machines at the causeway. The Ancient History Encyclopedia says:



No mention is made about the causeway. Have you read any sources that say that Alexander completed the causeway, and whether he completed it before, or after he defeated the island fortress? If so, please quote your sources. The same article that I just quoted does not say, or imply that Alexander finished building the causeway. Alexander left a garrison at the fortress after he conquered it. If he did not finish building the causeway, the garrison would have been less vulnerable to attacks from the land.

Read what I wrote. I never said the walls were breeched from the causeway. The causeway was built to allow an unbelievably large siege tower to be wheeled up to the wall so soldiers including Alexander could leap onto the wall. I have explained the details of the siege many times. The causeway is complete. No speculation needed. I have never heard a single secular history of the events or anything from any source that disagreed with the obvious fact the causeway was and is complete. It was his leaping onto the wall from the tower that used the causeway that is probably the pinnacle event of the whole attack.

Do you have any evidence that siege machines, and soldiers, were transferred from the causeway to ships? Even if that happened, Alexander showed that the island fortress could still have been conquered if he had not built the causeway. You could argue that that would have been more expensive, and time consuming, but surely building the causeway was also expensive, and time consuming.

I never suggested anything was transferred from the causeway to the ships. The ships were fitted with the first rams in history but I have no idea nor need to know where they were fitted out from. The causeway was a necessity as amphibious assault alone would not have defeated Tyre. I have explained the military necessity of every aspect of my claims. I just can't do it again.

Alexander was a great military planner, but by building a causeway to the island, he greatly reduced its military, and economic significance. If he had known in advance that he would not have been able to breach the walls of the fortress from the causeway, and chose to use naval forces to accomplish that, he would not have built the causeway. He would have conquered the fortress, rebuilt it, and would have added a great military, and economic prize to his empire.

I have told you and you have agreed Alexander's attack was punitive. He did not want the place, and did not even originally intend to attack it. It was only as revenge for wrongs, and to get rid of an untrustworthy fortress in his rear that he attacked. He was not trying to preserve anything. He was trying to tear it up. Alexander was obsessed by Persia not Tyre. His eye was on Babylon not the coast. His direction of advance was south east, not west. He finally wound up in India.

There is plenty in Ezekiel chapter 26 that supports my arguments, and there is not anything that says, or even remotely implies that Ezekiel believed that the rubble would come from the mainland settlement.

I believe every time you mention the rubble you claim it came from the opposite place you claimed it did the last time. Fortunately rubble from either place was thrown into the water so I do not have to keep up with each switch you make.

Regarding verse 14, the mention of nets is merely a restatement of verse 5, which also mentions nets.

That is not an argument. It is a diversion. Nets were predicted and nets occurred. I think the place is even currently used to spread nets, but it certainly was historically.

 

[Agnostic75]

Absolutely not, I have provided evidence that is just as likely as your evidence is. As I said:

"There are not any good reasons why some Babylonians would not have told Ezekiel that Nebuchadnezzar was going to Tyre. Ezekiel, and other Hebrews, hated Tyre, and were jealous of it, so Ezekiel being told about it would not have been a threat to Nebuchadnezzar since Ezekiel wanted him to defeat the mainland settlement."

That is not evidence. It is an assumption based on hypotheticals.

On the contrary, it is a fact that the Hebrews hated Tyre, and that Ezekiel being told that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the mainland settlement would not have been a security threat.

Your claim that God inspired the Tyre prophecy is hypothetical.

It is certainly plausible that a guard told Ezekiel about the plans when he brought food and water to him. By the time that Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon for Tyre, the gathering of the troops, and equipment would have been big news all over Babylon.

So prophecies can't be right until proven wrong but objections to them can be.

But you know that I never said that my objections are right until they are proven wrong.

Plausibility is not evidence.

None of your arguments are evidence.

Plausible arguments are widely considered to be acceptable in debates, and in court trials.

You might as well say that all writings by skeptic scholars are not evidence, but very few Christians would make such an absurd argument. When William Lane Craig debates skeptics, he always discusses what they consider to be their plausible arguments. He does not merely say that their arguments are not evidence. Rather, he explains in detail why be believes that their arguments are not valid.

As I have told you before, Nebuchadnezzar might have planned to attack the mainland settlement years before he attacked it, and that might have been common knowledge in Babylon.

As I have responded before even if your evidence less assumption was true that would only account for one of a dozen or so details of the prophecy.

I agree that if some other parts of the prophecy are true, there would not be any need to discuss whether or not some Babylonians told Ezekiel that Nebuchadnezzar was going to attack the mainland settlement, but none of your other arguments are valid.

Regardless of other parts of the prophecy, we are discussing whether or not it is reasonably possible that some Babylonians told Ezekiel that Nebuchadnezzar was going to attack the mainland settlement, and you have not provided any credible evidence that it is not reasonably possible.

It is a total assumption.......

Your claim that God inspired the Tyre prophecy is total assumption.

.......but one that would not make a significant difference anyway.

Well, you have spent a lot of time discussing an issue that you do not believe makes a significant difference. It certainly does make a significant difference since if Ezekiel learned by ordinary means that Nebuchadnezzar was going to attack the mainland settlement, that would mean that everything that he said about Nebuchadnezzar was easy guesses.

But as I have told you before, Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king, and it was expected that he would severely damage the mainland settlement. The terms that Ezekiel used to describe the damage that Nebuchadnezzar would cause are typical of how many other people would have described the damage.

There is not anything unusual about anyone predicting that a powerful king like Nebuchadnezzar would cause damage like that.

As I have told you before I have not used the extent of the damage to the mainland as evidence for the prophecy. Some of the related details are extraordinary, like throwing rubble into the sea and taking so long to take the place, but the level of destruction it's self has not been an issue I have raised.

Consider the following:

It would have been surprising to many people is Nebuchadnezzar had not severely damaged the mainland settlement.

That is not true. Damage depends on many things and extensive damage requires many improbable things to be that way. The commander has to find it worth expending the time and energy, he has to want to lose many men and kill much of the enemy.......

How is any of that an issue? We know that Nebuchadnezzar wanted to attack the mainland settlement since he attacked it. When he decided to attack it, from that point on, it was probable that he would attack it, and severely damage it, not improbable.

So you did make an issue out of the extent of the damage. If you did not believe that that was an important issue, why did you mention it? As far as I know, you did not reply to that argument that I made.

Please reply to my post 209.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is plenty in Ezekiel chapter 26 that supports my arguments, and there is not anything that says, or even remotely implies that Ezekiel believed that the rubble would come from the mainland settlement.

I believe every time you mention the rubble you claim it came from the opposite place you claimed it did the last time. Fortunately rubble from either place was thrown into the water so I do not have to keep up with each switch you make.

Ezekiel implied that the rubble from the island fortress would be cast into the sea. The odds are not astronomical that no one would have done that by say 1200 A.D.

Fishing nets being spread at either settlement is not an issue since they were spread at both settlements before, and after Ezekiel made the prophecy.

Verse 12 clearly refers only to the island settlement since 1) parties other than Nebuchadnezzar (they) are mentioned, and 2) the island settlement was where most of the riches, merchandise, and pleasant houses were.

Ezekiel implied that the rubble would come from the island settlement since verse 12 mentions not only the rubble, but also riches, merchandise, and pleasant houses, which means that all of those things were in the same place, which was at the island settlement. Nebuchadnezzar largely destroyed the mainland settlement. When Alexander went to Tyre, surely most of the riches, merchandise, and pleasant houses were at the island settlement, and probably all of the fine houses were there.

I see no problem.

Verse 12 is the only verse that mentions the rubble. The verse refers only to the island fortress. Alexander did not build the causeway with rubble from the island fortress. Therefore, the building of the causeway did not fulfill verse 12 since it only refers to the island settlement, and Alexander got all of the rubble from the mainland.

Most of the wealth, power, and reputation of Tyre came from the island settlement. Ezekiel knew that, and he knew that if the rubble from the island settlement had been cast into the sea, that would have been far more disgraceful than if the rubble from the mainland settlement had been cast into the sea. In other words, Ezekiel knew that if the rubble from the mainland settlement had been cast into the sea, and the island fortress had not been conquered, most of the wealth, power, and reputation of Tyre would not be destroyed.

Rubble from both is in the sea. This one leaves no room for doubt. No matter whether you claim the rubble came from the island, mainland, or both the prediction came true.

The rubble did not come from the island, so the building of the causeway did not fulfill verse 12. It would not have been surprising if someone had damaged the walls of the fortress by say 1200 A.D.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have told you and you have agreed Alexander's attack was punitive. He did not want the place, and did not even originally intend to attack it.

On the contrary, Wikipedia says:

The Siege of Tyre occurred in 332 BC when Alexander set out to conquer Tyre, a strategic coastal base. Tyre was the site of the only remaining Persian port that did not capitulate to Alexander. Even by this point in the war, the Persian navy still posed a major threat to Alexander. Tyre, the largest and most important city-state of Phoenicia, was located both on the Mediterranean coast as well as a nearby Island with two natural harbours on the landward side.

Arrian is widely acknowledged as the best ancient source on Alexander. Consdier the following:

Major Battles of Alexander's Asian Campaign

To this Tyrian Heracles, Alexander said he wished to offer sacrifice. But when this message was brought to Tyre by the ambassadors, the people passed a decree to obey any other command of Alexander, but not to admit into the city any Persian or Macedonian; thinking that under the existing circumstances, this was the most specious answer, and that it would be the safest course for them to pursue in reference to the issue of the war, which was still uncertain. When the answer from Tyre was brought to Alexander, he sent the ambassadors back in a rage. He then summoned a council of his Companions and the leaders of his army, together with the captains of infantry and cavalry, and spoke as follows:

"Friends and allies, I see that an expedition to Egypt will not be safe for us, so long as the Persians retain the sovereignty of the sea; nor is it a safe course, both for other reasons, and especially looking at the state of matters in Greece, for us to pursue Darius, leaving in our rear the city of Tyre itself in doubtful allegiance, and Egypt and Cyprus in the occupation of the Persians. I am apprehensive lest while we advance with our forces towards Babylon and in pursuit of Darius, the Persians should again conquer the maritime districts, and transfer the war into Greece with a larger army, considering that the Lacedaemonians are now waging war against us without disguise, and the city of Athens is restrained for the present rather by fear than by any good-will towards us. But if Tyre were captured, the whole of Phoenicia would be in our possession, and the fleet of the Phoenicians, which is the most numerous and the best in the Persian navy, would in all probability come over to us. For the Phoenician sailors and marines will not dare to put to sea in order to incur danger on behalf of others, when their own cities are occupied by us. After this, Cyprus will either yield to us without delay, or will be captured with ease at the mere arrival of a naval force; and then navigating the sea with the ships from Macedonia in conjunction with those of the Phoenicians, Cyprus also having come over to us, we shall acquire the absolute sovereignty of the sea, and at the same time an expedition into Egypt will become an easy matter for us. After we have brought Egypt into subjection, no anxiety about Greece and our own land will any longer remain, and we shall be able to undertake the expedition to Babylon with safety in regard to affairs at home, and at the same time with greater reputation, in consequence of having appropriated to ourselves all the maritime provinces of the Persians and all the land this side of the Euphrates."

By this speech he easily persuaded his officers to make an attempt upon Tyre. Moreover he was encouraged by a divine admonition, for that very night in his sleep he seemed to be approaching the Tyrian walls, and Heracles seemed to take him by the right hand and lead him up into the city.

It was only as revenge for wrongs, and to get rid of an untrustworthy fortress in his rear that he attacked.......

I quoted the following from Arrian:

"When the answer from Tyre was brought to Alexander, he sent the ambassadors back in a rage."

That means that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers. He probably threatened them. If he threatened to attack them if they did not let him enter the city, and they believed him, they hung his messengers because they did not believe that he would be able to conquer the fortress.

Alexander could have been furious with the Tyrians for strategic reasons, for religious reasons, or both. Whichever is the case, it doesn't matter since he was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers, and he probably would have attacked the fortress even if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers.

If Alexander had strategic motives for being furious with the Tyrians, that agrees with some of my arguments.

There may be some theological reasons as well, I don't know, but they are not important. Method is not important. Only prediction and result are for prophetic claims.

Why did Alexander go to Tyre? You must believe that his reasons are important or you would not have discussed them a number of times. In debates, you frequently try to gain even a small advantage. When that does not work, you then claim that what you said was not important. You have done that in a number of threads, including the thread on homosexuality.

Alexander was obsessed by Persia not Tyre. His eye was on Babylon not the coast. His direction of advance was south east, not west.

Alexander attacked Tyre in 332 B.C. The Battle of Gaugamela occurred in the next year, which was 331 B.C. Wikipedia says that the Battle of Gaugamela "was a decisive victory for the Hellenic League and led to the fall of the Persian Empire." Wikipedia also says that Alexander conquered Babylon in 331 B.C.

So Alexander's plans from 332 - 331 B.C. worked out quite well regarding Tyre, Darius, and Babylon.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Ezekiel 26:19 says:

"For thus says the Lord God: When I make you a city laid waste, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you."

That did not happen since part of the original island settlement is inhabited, and all of the original island settlement is not covered with water.

This prediction is multifaceted.

No it isn't since verse 19 refers only to the island settlement, and it has probably never been uninhabited. Even if the verse partly refers to the mainland settlement, it probably has never been uninhabited.

Some of it is apocalyptic trash talk, some applies to only the island, and some to both.

We are discussing verse 19, not some other verses. Verse 19 refers only to the island settlement.

Please reply to my three previous posts.

 

[Agnostic75]

So you guessing at siege engines is out.

Siege engines failed at Constantinople to breech anything. They literally could not make them work. It was only when one of the first artillery pieces was brought in that a breech was made. It was a huge gun and there exists pictures of it if you search.

A Wikipedia article at List of sieges of Constantinople - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows that there were many sieges of Constantinople. Siege machines, and battering rams were used in the siege of Constantinople in 717-718 A.D. That is the siege of Constantinople that I mentioned in my post 182.

Siege machines, and battering rams improved after Alexander’s time, but they still used the same basic principles, and those principles did not change until cannons were used after 1200 A.D. Therefore, there are not any good reasons to limit the time frame to before 1200 A.D.

If the island fortress had been conquered say five years before cannons were first used in the Ancient Near East, and had not been rebuilt during the next five years, it is obvious that it would have never been rebuilt after cannons were used in the Ancient Near East.

You tried to limit the time frame to 500 years. Do you have any evidence that the island settlement looked like a bare rock within 500 years?

 

[Agnostic75]

Some sources say that the mainland settlement was a group of suburbs. If that is true, and some of the suburbs were separated by hundreds of yards, or more, it is reasonably possible that Alexander only used rubble from suburbs that were closer to the island settlement, in which case, all of the suburbs did not look like a bare rock. In addition, parts of some of the suburbs might have been quite rocky, and would have been difficult to excavate, in which case those suburbs would not have looked like a bare rock.

I have explained this over and over. The island not the city was built on bare rock. It was it that was predicted to be scraped clean. It was.

In your post 41, you mentioned a book that is titled "Science Speaks," that was co-written by Peter W. Stoner. He died in
1980. The book is available for free online at On-line book: Science Speaks by Peter Stoner (Peter W. Stoner). The book says:

PETER W. STONER, M.S.
Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College until 1953; Chairman of the science division, Westmont College, 1953-57; Professor Emeritus of Science, Westmont College; Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Astronomy, Pasadena City College.

Within a few days, I will discuss most of what Stoner discussed about the Tyre prophecy, but for now, consider the following from the book:

After seven months, by a combined attack of land forces marching in over the causeway, and the fleets of conquered cities, he took Tyre. Thus items 2,3, and 5 of the prophecy were fulfilled: (2) Other nations are to participate in the fulfillment of the prophecy. (3) The city is to be made flat like the top of a rock. (5) Its stones and timber are to be laid in the sea.

You said that Ezekiel predicted that the island settlement would be made flat like the top of a rock, but Stoner says that that part of the prophecy refers to the mainland settlement.

James Holding, who is another one of your sources that you mentioned in your post 41, also disagrees with you about that. You mentioned his article about the Tyre prophecy at http://www.tektonics.org/uz/zeketyre.php. Holding says:

Thus, even if the first aspect I have mentioned in not accepted as a fulfillment, the second has to be - for it involves, by the most conservative count now, 11 nations; by a larger allowance, 13 or more - and either number certainly can be regarded as "many" in any event.

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.

Few would dispute that Alexander fulfilled this verse, though Nebuchadnezzar undoubtedly started the process of breaking down walls and towers. It was Alex, though, who turned the rubble of Tyre into a causeway to defeat the island city. Note particularly that it is the city itself which will be made like the top of a rock.

Another one of your sources disagrees with you. In your post 8, you mentioned a source at http://www.equip.org/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-as-an-apologetic/. Consider the following:

Centuries after Ezekiel’s body had decomposed in his grave, Alexander the Great fulfilled a major portion of the prophecy. In order to conquer the island fortress of Tyre (without the luxury of a navy), he and his celebrated architect Diades devised one of the most brilliant engineering feats of ancient warfare. They built a causeway from Tyre’s mainland to the island fortress, using the millions of cubic feet of rubble left over on mainland Tyre. Thus Tyre was scraped bare as a rock, just as Ezekiel predicted.