The Tyre prophecy

[1robin]

Ezekiel 26:12 says:

"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."

The verse has to refer only to the island fortress since that is where most of the riches, and merchandise was, and probably where all of the pleasant houses were. As far as I know, Nebuchadnezzar did not have anything to do with tearing down the walls of the island fortress. In addition, the use of the word "they" excludes Nebuchadnezzar.

What evidence shows that Alexander made "vast efforts at throwing tons of what was Tyre into the water"?

I don't know what your response has to do with what you responded to but I don't think these verses only refer to the island though it is possible that most of their claims mention things that were mostly on the island. The houses were mostly on the mainland. The small island was primarily a fortress and port. It was not where most lived. There was also much wealth on the mainland. It was where overland trade occurred. When attacked most of that wealth was transferred to the island and out of reach.

There are two things we know about the rubble. It is on the bottom of the sea and much of it is in a causeway Alexander built. He also beat the walls to pieces which were built on the very edge of the island's circumference. It as well was left in the ocean. More than enough to make the prophecy accurate.

Your making two mistakes in your attempt to draw hyper literals from the prophecy and find technical mistakes in them. You are not looking up the original language which would be necessary to anyone who sincerely was making an effort to evaluate the prediction. Second your ignoring the obvious intent, hermeneutics, and exegesis and making word by word technical comparisons. That is not what was intended.

 

[Agnostic75]

What evidence do you have that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock?

The final act that brought down the fortress is well known. It was battering rams at all points seaward and catapults from the causeway. What was left was a bare rock with a pile of stones on it. The stones were cleared because historical records show it was used to spread fishing nets upon and the stones have been found used as building material in structures many miles away. It is now a complete bare rock sitting under the Mediterranean. What you see above land is what accumulated upon the causeway. If you were there and looked you would see bare rock covered by a few feet of water.

That is utterly absurd, and you know it. It is probable that only a few breaches were made from ships. No source claims that any breaches were made from the causeway. If Alexander did not finish building the causeway before he defeated the fortress, he could not have used battering rams on the causeway to breach the walls. My question was about Alexander, and much of what you said happened many centuries after Alexander.

At http://www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Alexander_Sources5.html, Arrian discusses the battle in detail. What he says implies that the fortress was left largely intact, partly because some of Alexander's ships with troops got into the harbor without breaching the walls, and partly because it was very difficult for Alexander to breach the walls, and some his attempts failed. Since the walls were very difficult to breach, it is unlikely that very many breaches were made. Arrian says that once Alexander's soldier got into the fortress, they quickly defeated the Tyrians.

Battering rams would have increased the amount of rubble inside the fortress, meaning that Alexander could not have scraped the island clean and made it look like a bare rock unless he tore down most of the walls of the fortress and cast the rubble into the sea, which no credible source claims, and/or tore down most of the buildings and cast the rubble into the sea, which no credible source claims.

As I showed in my post 235, after Alexander defeated the fortress, it was rebuilt, and I showed that a distinguished Christian source said that part of the prophecy was not fulfilled until almost 1300 A.D. I doubt that Ezekiel meant that the fortress would be defeated, and destroyed so much that is looked like a bare rock, and would then be rebuilt.

Contrary to what your sources claim, the building of the causeway did not fulfill any of the prophecy.

By any rational interpretation to be intended to suggest their fortress and their pride was to be broken and left in ruin upon the rock that supported it. It was, despite all probability to the contrary.

Nonsense, it is probable that someone would have conquered the island fortress by 1200 A.D.

Do you have any idea how trivial and petty these objections sound. I said nothing about erosion nor did Ezekiel. Almost all the original island was submerged by an Earthquake, not erosion.

Some earthquakes did happen in that area, but since the causeway is still there, and is not underwater, and is less substantial geologically than the island was, there are not any good reasons to assume that most of the original island is underwater.

I read one source that said that an earthquake destroyed parts of the walls of the island fortress, but that would not necessarily have covered the island with water.

Please quote some sources that say that most of, or all of the original island is under water. You probably based your claim on an article at http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...ancy-or-fallibility-of-the-old-testament.aspx that you mentioned in your first post in this thread. The writer of the article quote mined what some experts said about some of the island being under water.

The rock did not wash away but is still intact and bare, lying underwater where the earthquake left it. It was not a major quake and the causeway being broken instead of smooth simply started collecting debris until a whole new and different island was constructed slightly out of position with the old. You can clearly see this from most aerial photos that had good light.

If Alexander finished building the causeway, then the island and the causeway would have become a peninsula, and the new peninsula would have started to collect debris. If that happened, there was nothing miraculous about that, and Ezekiel did not say anything about that. If Alexander did not finish building the causeway, then sediments joined the causeway to the island.

The NIV says:

Ezekiel 26

4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.

5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations,

Since the island fortress was rebuilt after Alexander defeated it, it is quite obvious that it was not just a place to spread nets, and it is quite obvious that it did not look like a bare rock.

Even more remarkable it meant that Phoenicia could not rebuild it again.

But after Alexander defeated the island fortress, it was rebuilt, and it was not completely destroyed until after 1200 A.D. In addition, after Nebuchadnezzar defeated the mainland settlement, it was largely rebuilt, and flourished for centuries.

In fact from that point the entire Carthaginian empire began to disappear.

The Tyre prophecy is only about Tyre, not any of the other Phoenician city-states.

Wikipedia says:

Ancient Carthage was a Semitic civilization centered on the Phoenician city-state of Carthage, located in North Africa on the Gulf of Tunis, outside what is now Tunis, Tunisia. It was founded in 814 BC. Originally a dependency of the Phoenician state of Tyre, Carthage gained independence around 650 BC and established a hegemony over other Phoenician settlements throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa and what is now Spain which lasted until the end of the 3rd century BC. At the height of the city's prominence, it was a major hub of trade with political influence extending over most of the western Mediterranean.

In 146 BC, after the third and final Punic War, Carthage was destroyed and then occupied by Roman forces. Nearly all of the other Phoenician city-states and former Carthaginian dependencies fell into Roman hands from then on.

The Phoenicians established numerous colonial cities along the coasts of the Mediterranean in order to provide safe harbors for their merchant fleets, to maintain a Phoenician monopoly on an area's natural resources, and to conduct trade free of outside interference. They were also motivated to found these cities to satisfy the demand for trade goods or to escape the necessity of paying tribute to the succession of empires that ruled Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos, and by fear of complete Greek colonization of that part of the Mediterranean suitable for commerce. The Phoenicians lacked the population or necessity to establish large self-sustaining cities abroad, and most of their colonial cities had fewer than 1,000 inhabitants, but Carthage and a few others developed larger populations.

Although Strabo's claim that the Tyrians founded three hundred colonies along the west African coast is clearly exaggerated, colonies were established in Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Iberia, and to a much lesser extent, on the arid coast of Libya. The Phoenicians were active in Cyprus, Sardinia, Corsica, the Balearic Islands, Crete and Sicily, as well as on the European mainland at present-day Genoa in Italy and Marseille in present-day France. The settlements at Crete and Sicily were in perpetual conflict with the Greeks, but the Phoenicians managed to control all of Sicily for a limited time. The entire area later came under the leadership and protection of Carthage, which in turn dispatched its own colonists to found new cities or to reinforce those that declined with the loss of primacy of Tyre and Sidon.

The first colonies were settled on the two paths to Iberia's mineral wealth along the North African coast and on Sicily, Sardinia and the Balearic Islands. The centre of the Phoenician world was Tyre, which served as its economic and political hub. The power of this city waned following numerous sieges by Babylonia, and then its later voluntary submission to the Persian king Cambyses and incorporation within the Persian empire. Supremacy passed to Sidon, and then to Carthage, before Tyre's eventual destruction by Alexander the Great in 332 BC. Each colony paid tribute to either Tyre or Sidon, but neither had actual control of the colonies. This changed with the rise of Carthage, since the Carthaginians appointed their own magistrates to rule the towns and Carthage retained much direct control over the colonies. This policy resulted in a number of Iberian towns siding with the Romans during the Punic Wars.

So after 650 B.C., Carthage was independent, and separate from Tyre. In addition, when Alexander attacked the island fortress, Carthage had promised to send ships to help the Tyrians, but they never sent them. Further, Phoenicians from Sidon, and Byblus joined Alexander against Tyre.

There is not anything miraculous about any of that, and it is not surprising that one fortress on a small island was defeated by 1200 A.D.

 

[Agnostic75]

Ezekiel 26:12 says:

"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."

The verse has to refer only to the island fortress since that is where most of the riches, and merchandise was, and probably where all of the pleasant houses were. As far as I know, Nebuchadnezzar did not have anything to do with tearing down the walls of the island fortress. In addition, the use of the word "they" excludes Nebuchadnezzar.

What evidence shows that Alexander made "vast efforts at throwing tons of what was Tyre into the water"?

I don't know what your response has to do with what you responded to but I don't think these verses only refer to the island though it is possible that most of their claims mention things that were mostly on the island. The houses were mostly on the mainland.

Your complete sentence was:

The point is that Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander made concerted and vast efforts at throwing tons of what was Tyre into the water just as predicted.

Ezekiel did not predict that Alexander would build a causeway with rubble from the mainland settlement.

What sources say that Nebuchadnezzar cast rubble from the mainland settlement into the sea?

Parts of the walls of the island fortress would have fallen into the sea no matter who attacked it.

The Pulpit Commentary says:

"Verse 12. - Thy pleasant houses; Hebrew, houses of desire. The palaces of the merchant-princes of Tyro, stately as those of Genoa or Venice. In the midst of the water. We are again reminded that it is the island city of which the prophet speaks."

Since Nebuchadnezzar largely destroyed the mainland settlement, and since he got very little wealth from the mainland settlement, it is unlikely that any fine houses would have been left when Alexander got to Tyre.

They is the meat of the issue.......It uses pluralities in every case where more than Nebuchadnezzar was needed to accomplish what it stated. It uses the singular in every single case where only what Nebuchadnezzar accomplished what was mentioned.

I agree, and that is why verse 12, which uses the word "they," refers only to the island fortress, and not also to Nebuchadnezzar.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my two previous posts.

 

[1robin]

That is utterly absurd, and you know it. It is probable that only a few breaches were made from ships. No source claims that any breaches were made from the causeway. If Alexander did not finish building the causeway before he defeated the fortress, he could not have used battering rams on the causeway to breach the walls. My question was about Alexander, and much of what you said happened many centuries after Alexander.

At Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre, Arrian discusses the battle in detail. What he says implies that the fortress was left largely intact, partly because some of Alexander's ships with troops got into the harbor without breaching the walls, and partly because it was very difficult for Alexander to breach the walls, and some his attempts failed. Since the walls were very difficult to breach, it is unlikely that very many breaches were made. Arrian says that once Alexander's soldier got into the fortress, they quickly defeated the Tyrians.

Alexander's ships banged away at the walls for quite some time before it was taken. The causeway was certainly complete. He rolled a huge siege tower across it to the walls and jumped from it onto the fortress.

The seven month siege, from January to July 332 B.C., was over. "The great city over which Hiram had once held sway was now utterly destroyed.
Destruction Of Tyre by Alexander the Great and Nebuchadnezzar

For your argument to work you would have to show exactly how much damage was indicated by a proper exegesis of the prophecy and show it did not occur. Since every grain of the stones that composed the wall was obviously not going to be accounted for and destroyed something between that minimal destruction was intended. How much damage was indicated exactly?

Battering rams would have increased the amount of rubble inside the fortress, meaning that Alexander could not have scraped the island clean and made it look like a bare rock unless he tore down most of the walls of the fortress and cast the rubble into the sea, which no credible source claims, and/or tore down most of the buildings and cast the rubble into the sea, which no credible source claims.

Do you actually think the prophecy indicated that Alexander would search out and remove every speck of dust from the rock? Your being arbitrary hyper-literal. The prophecy actually indicates in apocalyptic language that Tyre would be devastated. It was.

As I showed in my post 235, after Alexander defeated the fortress, it was rebuilt, and I showed that a distinguished Christian source said that part of the prophecy was not fulfilled until almost 1300 A.D. I doubt that Ezekiel meant that the fortress would be defeated, and destroyed so much that is looked like a bare rock, and would then be rebuilt.

I remember you claimed that. I do not remember that you demonstrated it. Please look up apocalyptic literature as it existed in the ANE. We are not on the same page here.

Contrary to what your sources claim, the building of the causeway did not fulfill any of the prophecy.

The prophecy does not mention a causeway. It does mention that rubble would be cast into the sea. Among many other occasions rubble was thrown into the sea when the causeway was built.

Nonsense, it is probable that someone would have conquered the island fortress by 1200 A.D.

The prophecy was against the Phoenicians and what they had built. Their rule over Tyre came to an end in BC and was barely a memory in 1200AD. The Hellenistic period of the city has nothing to do with the prophecy.

Some earthquakes did happen in that area, but since the causeway is still there, and is not underwater, and is less substantial geologically than the island was, there are not any good reasons to assume that most of the original island is underwater.

So seeing most of the old island underwater in photographs is not a good reason.

I read one source that said that an earthquake destroyed parts of the walls of the island fortress, but that would not necessarily have covered the island with water.

Water is used in that prophecy both symbolically and literally. I do not remember it ever insists that every square inch on the island would be submerged but that what was held as a source of strength would be covered by water. It was.

Please quote some sources that say that most of, or all of the original island is under water. You probably based your claim on an article at Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy or Fallibility of The Old Testament? that you mentioned in your first post in this thread. The writer of the article quote mined what some experts said about some of the island being under water.

If Alexander finished building the causeway, then the island and the causeway would have become a peninsula, and the new peninsula would have started to collect debris. If that happened, there was nothing miraculous about that, and Ezekiel did not say anything about that. If Alexander did not finish building the causeway, then sediments joined the causeway to the island.

I did not suggest there was anything miraculous about it. Just that it was consistent with the prophecy.

The NIV says:

Ezekiel 26

4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.

5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations,

Since the island fortress was rebuilt after Alexander defeated it, it is quite obvious that it was not just a place to spread nets, and it is quite obvious that it did not look like a bare rock.

The prophecy does not say how long the island would be used for nets. It only suggests a great fortress would be destroyed so completely that it's foundation would be used for nets at one time.

But after Alexander defeated the island fortress, it was rebuilt, and it was not completely destroyed until after 1200 A.D. In addition, after Nebuchadnezzar defeated the mainland settlement, it was largely rebuilt, and flourished for centuries.

Do you still not understand my position. The Phoenician city was never rebuilt. It was they whom the prophecy concerned. Agree or not you seem to not even remember my claims.

The Tyre prophecy is only about Tyre, not any of the other Phoenician city-states.

Wikipedia says:



So after 650 B.C., Carthage was independent, and separate from Tyre. In addition, when Alexander attacked the island fortress, Carthage had promised to send ships to help the Tyrians, but they never sent them. Further, Phoenicians from Sidon, and Byblus joined Alexander against Tyre.

Tyre was settled by Phoenicians from Carthage. It was the Tyrian Carthaginians that were condemned. They never recovered. In fact the entire empire began to come apart after this event but that is not part of the prophecy. Carthage was never controlled by Tyre. It was the other way around, so of course Carthage was independent of Tyre. It always had been.

There is not anything miraculous about any of that, and it is not surprising that one fortress on a small island was defeated by 1200 A.D.

The Tyrians had nothing to do with Tyre after 300 BC. So I no longer can allow longer than that for the prophecy. Nothing that occurred after that is relevant except their non recovery of Tyre.

 

[Agnostic75]

That is utterly absurd, and you know it. It is probable that only a few breaches were made from ships. No source claims that any breaches were made from the causeway. If Alexander did not finish building the causeway before he defeated the fortress, he could not have used battering rams on the causeway to breach the walls. My question was about Alexander, and much of what you said happened many centuries after Alexander.

At Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre, Arrian discusses the battle in detail. What he says implies that the fortress was left largely intact, partly because some of Alexander's ships with troops got into the harbor without breaching the walls, and partly because it was very difficult for Alexander to breach the walls, and some his attempts failed. Since the walls were very difficult to breach, it is unlikely that very many breaches were made. Arrian says that once Alexander's soldier got into the fortress, they quickly defeated the Tyrians.

Alexander's ships banged away at the walls for quite some time before it was taken.

But not nearly enough for it to look like a bare rock, and it was rebuilt. In addition, in order for the island to look like a bare rock, Alexander would have needed to destroy, and remove, all of the buildings in the fortress, and no credible source says that that happened. Even one of your own sources says that the fortress was not completely destroyed until after 1200 A.D.

The causeway was certainly complete. He rolled a huge siege tower across it to the walls and jumped from it onto the fortress.

Arrian says that some breaches were made from ships. He does not say that any breaches were made from the causeway. Arrian says:

As the Tyrians were no longer able to gain any assistance from their ships, the Macedonians brought their engines right up to the wall. When they were brought along the mole they achieved nothing worthy of mention because of the strength of the wall, so they brought some of the ships that carried engines up to that part of the wall which faced Sidon.

So the wall that faced the causeway did not look like a bare rock because of the strength of the wall.

When even there they did not do any better, Alexander sent them round to the south and the part of the wall facing towards Egypt, so as to test every part of the fortification. It was at this point that the wall was first of all battered to a considerable extent and then partly destroyed by a breach. At that time, Alexander made a limited attack, just throwing gangways where the wall had been damaged; the Tyrians easily drove back the Macedonians.

That was all from ships.

Two days later, after waiting for calm weather and encouraging his battalion commanders for the task in hand, Alexander brought up the engines to the city on ships. First he batted down a considerable section of the wall, and when the breach seems sufficiently broad, he ordered that the ships carrying the engines to back off; he then led in two others which were carrying gangways which intended to place where the wall had been breached.

The company of guards took over one of the ships, under the command of Admetus, while the squadron of Coenus took over the other; Alexander himself intended to cross the wall with his guards wherever it was possible. He ordered some of his triremes to sail round the entrances to both harbours, in case they could force an entry into them while the Tyrians were distracted by his assault on the wall. The other triremes, which either had missiles for hurling from the engines or archers on the decks, were ordered to sail round the wall in a circle, then land where possible or stay within firing range as long as landing proved impossible, so that the Tyrians, under assault from all sides, would be at a loss in the terrible crisis.

When the ships with Alexander approached the city and the gangways were thrown onto the wall from them, the royal guards went along then bravely on to the wall. Admetus showed himself a brave man at this time, and Alexander followed them, taking energetic part in the action, yet watching to see if there were any outstanding display of courage by others in the crisis. The wall was first captured where Alexander had stationed himself; the Tyrians were easily thrust back from the wall, since the Macedonians for the first time were making their assault from a secure foundation which was not excessively steep in every direction. Admetus was the first onto the wall, and as he was ordering his men to follow up, he was struck by a spear and died there. Alexander followed him and seized the wall with his companions. When he gained control of some towers and the parts of walls between them, he went through their fortifications towards the palace because the descent into the city seemed easier by that route.

As for the men on the ships, the Phoenicians, who happened to be moored near the harbour which faced towards Egypt, forced their way in and after destroying the booms began wrecking the ships in the harbour; some they rammed while they were at sea, and others they forced onto the shore. At the other harbour which faced towards Sidon there was not even a barrier across the entrance, and the Cyprians sailed in and captured the city on this side straightaway. The majority of the Tyrians, when they saw that the wall had been captured, deserted it and gathered together at what is called the shrine of Agenor, and there they turned to fight the Macedonians. Alexander fell upon them with his royal guards, and slaughtered some of them fighting there, then pursued those who fled. There was a great massacre, since those who were coming from the harbour now had control of the city and Coenus’ battalion had entered it.

That was all from ships.

The seven month siege, from January to July 332 B.C., was over. "The great city over which Hiram had once held sway was now utterly destroyed."

Destruction Of Tyre by Alexander the Great and Nebuchadnezzar

Destruction Of Tyre by Alexander the Great and Nebuchadnezzar

The fortress was rebuilt.

For your argument to work you would have to show exactly how much damage was indicated by a proper exegesis of the prophecy and show it did not occur. Since every grain of the stones that composed the wall was obviously not going to be accounted for and destroyed something between that minimal destruction was intended. How much damage was indicated exactly?

Consider the following:

What evidence do you have that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock?

The final act that brought down the fortress is well known. It was battering rams at all points seaward and catapults from the causeway.

I already showed that Arrain says that that Alexander was not able to extensively damage the wall that faced the causeway.

What was left was a bare rock with a pile of stones on it.

Not a chance for reasons that I have already stated. Catapults from ships were probably not able to extensively damage the walls of the fortress, and there is not any credible evidence that battering rams from ships caused more than about five breaches in the walls.

The stones were cleared because historical records show it was used to spread fishing nets upon and the stones have been found used as building material in structures many miles away. It is now a complete bare rock sitting under the Mediterranean.

We were discussing what Alexander did, not what happened centuries later.

What you see above land is what accumulated upon the causeway. If you were there and looked you would see bare rock covered by a few feet of water.

If the island is under water, that would be due to ordinary erosion, which would not be miraculous, but there is not any credible evidence that most of it is under water. The island was more substantial geologically than the causeway was. The island and the causeway became a peninsula. What credible evidence shows that most of the island part of the peninsula is underwater?

What happened to the walls of the fortress, and to the buildings? If they were put in the water, that would have helped to prevent erosion.

 

[Agnostic75]

As I showed in my post 235, after Alexander defeated the fortress, it was rebuilt, and I showed that a distinguished Christian source said that part of the prophecy was not fulfilled until almost 1300 A.D. I doubt that Ezekiel meant that the fortress would be defeated, and destroyed so much that is looked like a bare rock, and would then be rebuilt.

I remember you claimed that. I do not remember that you demonstrated it.

Are you claiming that the island fortress was not rebuilt?

Please look up apocalyptic literature as it existed in the ANE. We are not on the same page here.

I do not have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[Agnostic75]

Contrary to what your sources claim, the building of the causeway did not fulfill any of the prophecy.

The prophecy does not mention a causeway. It does mention that rubble would be cast into the sea.

Ezekiel implied that the rubble would come from the island fortress, but Alexander used rubble from the mainland settlement.

Verse 12 says:

"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."

The walls has to refer only to the walls of the island fortress.

"They" can only refer to someone other than Nebuchadnezzar.

"They," or parties other than Nebuchadnezzar, did not tear down the walls of the mainland settlement since Nebuchadnezzar did that. Parties other than Nebuchadnezzar tore down some of the walls of the island fortress, so verse 12 has to only refer to the island fortress.

Nebuchadnezzar did not make a prey of the merchandise since most of it was taken to the island fortress, so parties other than Nebuchadnezzar made a prey of the merchandise at the island, and tore down some of the walls of the island fortress.

There are not not any good reasons not to believe that Ezekiel implied that verse 12 refers only to the island fortress. That is where most of the power, and prestige were, and why Ezekiel referred to the mainland settlement as daughters of the island fortress even though the mainland settlement was built before the island fortress was built.

It is probable that Ezekiel had no idea that a causeway would be built from the mainland to the island, and that he believed that rubble from the island fortress would be cast into the sea, not the mainland settlement since it would have been very unattractive to throw lots of rubble into the water at the beach.

 

[Agnostic75]

Tyre was settled by Phoenicians from Carthage.

No it wasn't, Carthage was settled by people from Tyre. Wikipedia says:

Ancient Carthage was a Semitic civilization centered on the Phoenician city-state of Carthage, located in North Africa on the Gulf of Tunis, outside what is now Tunis, Tunisia. It was founded in 814 BC.

Originally a dependency of the Phoenician state of Tyre, Carthage gained independence around 650 BC and established a hegemony over other Phoenician settlements throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa and what is now Spain which lasted until the end of the 3rd century BC.

Carthage's economy began as an extension of that of its parent city, Tyre.

Tyre was founded around 2750 BC according to Herodotus and was originally built as a walled city upon the mainland. Its name appears on monuments as early as 1300 BC.

Contrary to what you claim, Tyre was founded many centuries before Carthage was founded.

Carthage was never controlled by Tyre. It was the other way around, so of course Carthage was independent of Tyre. It always had been.

That is obviously false since I just quoted Wikipedia as saying:

Originally a dependency of the Phoenician state of Tyre, Carthage gained independence around 650 BC

The prophecy was against Tyre, not against any of the other independent Phoenecian city-states, which had lives, and needs of their own without being concerned with rebuilding the island fortress. When Alexander attacked the island fortress, Carthage promised to send ships to help the Tyrians, but the ships never came. Sidon, and Byblos joined Alexander against Tyre. Some of the Phoenician city-states had small populations, and had plenty of troubles of their own against conquerors.

 

[Agnostic75]

The Tyrians had nothing to do with Tyre after 300 BC. So I no longer can allow longer than that for the prophecy. Nothing that occurred after that is relevant except their non recovery of Tyre.

The prophecy was against Tyrians who lived in 586 B.C., which is the year that Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement. The part of the prophecy that applies to the island settlement did not happen during the lifetimes of the people who lived there. Those people were long dead by the time that Alexander went to Tyre. If what Alexander did to people who had been dead for centuries is relevant, then so is what anyone else would have done to them by 1200 A.D.

The Hellenistic period of the city has nothing to do with the prophecy.

It does according to the first source that you mentioned in this thread, which was Paul Ferguson, Ph.D. In an article at Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy or Fallibility of The Old Testament? that he wrote. He says:

The total destruction of Tyre would be accomplished gradually by one nation after another.

In the end Tyre would be destroyed down to the bare rock and never rebuilt. The final destruction took place in AD 1291, almost 2,000 years after Ezekiel was written.

John A. Bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A. theology, is a distinguished Christian professor at Biola University, which is also where William Lane Craig teaches. In an article at Is Fulfilled Prophecy of Value for Scholarly Apologetics? - bethinking.org, he says:

From Arrian's descriptions it is very clear that Alexander did not level the island fortress, in fact, he had Tyre rebuilt. Tyre remained an important trading and manufacturing center that was fought over by Alexander's immediate successors, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.

Clearly in New Testament times, the prophecy of Ezekiel was not fulfilled: Tyre was a thriving commercial center when the First Testament was distributed throughout the Roman Empire by Jewish and Christian communities alike.

Tyre served as a major trading and manufacturing center throughout the Byzantine and Muslim periods. During the Crusades, Tyre remained strong and well-fortified, surviving a siege by Saladin in 1187-88 A.D. Finally, in 1291 A.D., the last wave of the nations crashed against Tyre. The Mamluks from Egypt took Tyre, massacred the citizens or sold them into slavery, and destroyed the city as part of their 'scorched-earth' policy to thwart any attempt by the Crusaders to return.

Most ancient historians know that a number of ancient cities, and civilizations, were destroyed, and were never rebuilt, but Old Tyre, and New Tyre were rebuilt. They did not achieve their former glory, but they were rebuilt.

 

[Agnostic75]

Please quote some sources that say that most of, or all of the original island is under water. You probably based your claim on an article at Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy or Fallibility of The Old Testament? that you mentioned in your first post in this thread. The writer of the article quote mined what some experts said about some of the island being under water.

So seeing most of the old island underwater in photographs is not a good reason.

What aerial photographs are you referring to?

Water is used in that prophecy both symbolically and literally. I do not remember it ever insists that every square inch on the island would be submerged but that what was held as a source of strength would be covered by water. It was.

Those images are from a Christian blog at The Siege of Tyre | Sophismata. The blog does not say where the images came from. The image on the right is largely the same as the image on the left. The walls of the fortress may not have encircled nearly all of the image on the left.

The blog also shows the following image:

http://sophismata.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tyre_formation.jpg?w=510

The blog also does not say where that image came from.

Nothing at that blog reasonably proves that most of the island fortress is under water. There would have been some natural erosion, but there is not anything miraculous about that. Even if all of the fortress was under water, there would not be anything miraculous about that.

In your first post in this thread, you mentioned a link at http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...ancy-or-fallibility-of-the-old-testament.aspx as a source. The link provides that the following 19th map of the peninsula:

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/image.axd?picture=2009/12/19th-century-map.jpg

Nineteenth-century map of Tyre, showing the present-day causeway between the mainland and the island city. When Alexander the Great besieged the island in 332 BC he built a narrow mole from the rubble of the destroyed mainland city of Tyre. It spanned the 1/3 mi (600 m) between the mainland and the island. In time, the causeway became enlarged by sand deposits washed in by the waves. Today the causeway and the island form a peninsula stretching out into the Mediterranean. Evidence of Tyre’s ancient ports can still be seen on the north and south sides of the former island.

Your source implies that a good portion of the original island is not under water.

Is the highlighted part of the map supposed to be the old island, or the fortress?

The island was more substantial geologically than the causeway was. When the causeway and the island became a peninsula, all of the new peninsula would have collected sediments, not just the former causeway.

Please reply to my previous five posts.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: In an article at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...t4K4Cg&usg=AFQjCNHgpB2Bh1kGzUSP2N1CKyMzkPM8VQ, there is proof that much of the ancient island is not underwater, and is covered by modern urban dwellings.

Consider the following excerpts from the article:

"The exact location and chronology of the ancient harbours of Phoenicia’s two most important city-states, Tyre and Sidon, is a longstanding debate. New geoarchaeological research reveals that the early ports actually lie beneath the modern urban centres. During the Bronze Age, Tyre and Sidon were characterised by semi-open marine coves. After the first millennium BC, our bio-sedimentological data attest to early artificial harbour infrastructure, before the later apogees of the Roman and Byzantine periods. Post-1000 AD, silting-up and coastal progradation led to burial of the ancient basins, lost until now, beneath the city centres. The outstanding preservation properties of such fine-grained sedimentary contexts, coupled with the presence of the water table, means these two Levantine harbours are exceptionally preserved. This work has far-reaching implications for our understanding of Phoenician maritime archaeology and calls for the protection of these unique
cultural heritages."

"Progradation" means a buildup of silt.

Figure 3 shows where the Northern Harbour was.

Consider the following from an article that was written by a Christian:

http://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=getmagazine&InfoID=1369835458#.U2JMCSxOVxA

In the years following Nebuchadnezzar's empty victory, the site of Old Tyre (Paleotyrus) was rebuilt — contrary to Adam Clarke and the author of Prophecy Speaks! Its old walls were not restored, but it became a significant open city, extending along the shore. This was not at all clear to us when we visited Tyre in 1957.

When Alexander, the king of Macedonia, reached the Phoenician coast in 332 B.C., in his conquest of the Persian empire, he appeared before the nobles of Tyre on the mainland. Alexander requested permission to sacrifice to the Tyrian god Heracles, from whom he claimed descent. At ,that time there were two temples of Heracles at Tyre, one on the mainland and one on the island fortress (Quintus Curtius 4.2.4). This fact we overlooked for years. The Tyrians offered the Macedonian king the temple on the mainland at Old Tyre for his sacrifice. The king was insulted and demanded to enter the island city or he would besiege it!

The rest is history. Alexander built from the quickly abandoned mainland town a mole linking the mainland to the island. He took the masonry and large stones, the timber and the very dust of Old Tyre and laid them in the sea to form the mole. New Tyre, on the island, fell. Its riches were captured. And the mole became a peninsula as the sands washed against it over the centuries.

Both Old Tyre and New Tyre were resettled. By the time of Jesus the city Tyre had again become a thriving port (Mark 7:24-31). It is referred to in Acts 12:20-21, during the reign of Herod. Pliny, a Roman scholar, visited Tyre in the days of the apostles and recorded its size. He computed the circuit of mainland Tyre and the island at 19 Roman miles and the circumference of the island proper at slightly less than 3 miles (Pliny, Natural History, 5.17.76).

But what of the prophecy that Tyre would not be rebuilt?

Look again at Ezekiel 26. Remember, verses 7 to 11 use the singular pronoun to refer to Nebuchadnezzar. Suddenly, verse 12 uses the plural pronoun "they" to refer to Alexander and numerous other generals who came after him and plundered Tyre — Greeks, Romans, Arabs, the Crusaders, the Mamelukes. Ezekiel 26:3 quotes God as saying that He "will cause many nations to come up against thee [Tyre] , as the sea causeth his waves to come up." That is precisely what has happened through history. One nation after another has come against Tyre. "They" made a spoil of Tyre's riches.

The Mamelukes, after taking the city from the Crusaders near the close of the 13th century, dismantled the city so it would not again be used as a fort by so-called Christian Crusaders from Europe against Islam.

In the next century Sir John Maundeville traveled from Cyprus to Jerusalem by way of Tyre. He wrote of his experience: "In a day and night he that hath good wind may come to the haven of Tyre, which is now called Sur. [This is the Arabic word for Tyre and means "rock."] Here was once a great and good city of the Christians, but the Saracens have destroyed it in great part, and they guard that haven carefully for fear of the Christians" ("The Book of Sir John Maundeville, A.D. 1322-1356" in Thomas Wright, Early Travels in Palestine. p. 141).

A similar indication of the life of the Moslem town is given by Bertrandon de La Brocquiere, one of the last medieval travelers, in 1432 (Early Travels in Palestine, pp. 282-283).

Tyre continued to sink into obscurity until the Metualis occupied the district in 1766. It once again grew to a few thousand inhabitants. With the coming of the state of Israel, Tyre rapidly expanded to accommodate those Islamic Arabs who fled Palestine and settled in southern Lebanon.

And that is where we are today in history. Tyre is still inhabited, still a minor port. Its wealth is gone.

But Ezekiel 26:13-14 reveals something yet to happen: "And I" — no longer "they," but "I" — "will cause the noise of thy songs [they are Arabic songs today] to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard. And I" — not "they" — "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."

This is God's doing. He will cause the waters of the Mediterranean to wash over the site of Tyre till the accumulated millennia of rubble are washed away, and it is suitable only for the spreading of nets between tides. This has never fully happened. Oh yes, a small part of New Tyre on its western edge is under water. We saw it clearly in 1957. But the major part of the Phoenician city is covered by sand and the accumulated rubble of later buildings, roads and burial grounds. A significant part lies today beneath the modern Arab town.

This prophecy, much misunderstood, is not the challenge to the skeptic we assumed. It is a prophecy yet to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ when He brings peace to the world!

That Christian knows a lot more about the Tyre prophecy than you do, and he helped me to realize something obvious, which is that the island has never been a place that is only suitable for the spreading of fishing nets.

Please reply to my other recent posts.

 

[1robin]

To everyone: I have been unable to post for quite a while. I will just pick up again at this point but if there were any posts where I left anyone hanging let me know.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have been unable to post for quite a while. I will just pick up again at this point but if there were any posts where I left anyone hanging let me know.

Please reply to my previous seven posts.

 

[Agnostic75]

I will just pick up again at this point but if there were any posts where I left anyone hanging let me know.

You left lots of my most recent arguments hanging, as I showed in my previous seven replies to you. You made a number of invalid arguments in this thread, some of your own sources disagree with you about certain issues, and incredibly, you even tried to discredit one of your own sources.

 

[Agnostic75]

The island was made virtually like a bare rock.......

Not by Alexander, and not until 1291 A.D.

.......and nets were spread on it.......

Nets were spread on the island before and after Ezekiel wrote the Tyre prophecy. Since Ezekiel would not have predicted that something would happen that had already happened, and was still happening, meaning that fishing nets were already being spread at the island, he must have meant that the island would eventually become a place that was only good for the spreading of fishing nets. That did not happen. In part of my post 252, I quoted a Christian named Herman L. Hoeh who agrees with me about that. In addition, since Ezekiel predicted that the island would become uninhabited, that complements his other prediction that the island would become a place that was only good for the spreading of fishing nets.

.......most of the original island is now under water.

No, modern archaeological evidence shows that most of it is covered by modern buildings, as my post 252 proves. In addition, Herman L. Hoeh, who is the Christian that I quoted in my post 252, saw for himself in person that most of the island is not underwater.

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 results in mass imprisonment and slaughter of Tyre's inhabitants. I think 2,000 alone were crucified.
7. Either one of histories largest or three navies.

How utterly absurd. Regarding item 1, historically, all major kingdoms were defeated, so the eventual defeat of the island fortress before the invention of cannons after 1200 A.D. was probable. As it turned out, Alexander first defeated the fortress, but he did not level it as you claimed, and it was rebuilt, and was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D. After Alexander died, Antigonous, one of his generals, set siege to the island fortress for a year and three months, and defeated it primiarily by using ships, just like Alexander did.

Regarding item 2, Ezekiel did not say, or imply anything about Alexander, and I have told you a number of times that verse
12, which says that the walls will be cast into the sea, refers only to the island fortress, not to the mainland settlement.

Regarding item 3, Ezekiel said that the fortress would be defeated. As I said, that was probable before the invention of cannons. The Carthaginians used siege engines before Alexander's father used them, so the Greeks improved on existing technology, which other people would have done sooner or later.

Regarding item 4, same as item 3.

Regarding item 5, same as item 3.

Regarding item 6, Ezekiel said that some of the Tyrians would be killed. He did not say, or imply how many, he did not mention anything about slavery, which you mentioned weeks, or months ago, and he did not say anything about crucifixion.

Regarding item 7, Ezekiel did not say, or imply anything about navies, but he must have believed that either ships would eventually be used to defeat the island fortress, or that Nebuchadnezzar would be able to convince the island fortress to surrender by defeating the mainland settlement.

It is very unlikely that Ezekiel believed that a causeway would be built from the mainland to the island, and it is very probable that he believed that the walls of the island fortress, reference verse 12, would be cast into the sea. That is partly why verse 12 refers only to the island fortress. Common sense, logic, and reason indicate that Ezekiel would have written verse 12 based upon his expectations, and he, and almost anyone else of his time would not have expected that a causeway would be built from the mainland to the island. It is reasonable to assume that if Ezekiel believed that a causeway would be built from the mainland to the island, he would have said so.

The following is from one of my posts that you did not reply to:

Wikipedia says:

"Anabasis Alexandri (Greek: Ἀλεξάνδρου ἀνάβασις Alexándrou anábasis), the Campaigns of Alexander by Arrian, is the most important source on Alexander the Great. The Greek term anabasis referred to an expedition from a coastline into the interior of a country. The term katabasis referred to a trip from the interior to the coast. So a more literal translation would be The Expedition of Alexander."

http://www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Alexander_Sources5.html

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.

Is Wikipedia also run by idiots?

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.

As I will show, you were much more confused than you thought you were, as you are with many issues in this thread.

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.

This post has provided some good examples of how confused you really are regarding this thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Post 119, 2/28/14

I can keep this up for quite a while but it would be like herding cats. This ought to be interesting.

Well yes, it has been interesting since I have proven that you are very confused about many issues in this thread. Your previous boasting, and pomposity were quite obviously premature, and you have embarrassed yourself on a number of occasions.

Are you claiming that Nebuchadnezzar did not have enough power to severely damage the mainland settlement, and that he did not want to severely damage it?

Now that is a military history question not a biblical one.

On the contrary, it is a military history question, and a biblical question since if it was widely believed during Ezekiel's time that Nebuchadnezzar had enough power to severely damage the mainland settlement, which most people must have believed, and Nebuchadnezzar wanted to conquer the mainland settlement, which surely many people believed, then Ezekiel merely made some easy guesses, and if he knew about the attacks in advance, he did not guess. So Ezekiel either made some easy guesses, or he knew about the attacks in advance.

He had sufficient force to extensively damage the mainland but guess he would do so when in most cases attackers did not would not be consistent with some kind of guessing by Ezekiel.

I do not have any idea what that means. Please restate what you said more clearly.

If guessing it is always prudent to go with probability not against it time after time.

No guesses were necessary regarding people's logical assumption that Nebuchadnezzar had enough power to severely damage the mainland settlement. If it had been widely known for months, or years, that Nebuchadnezzar eventually wanted to attack the mainland settlement, which is plausible if not probable, then obviously no one needed to guess that Nebuchadnezzar eventually wanted to attack Tyre.

As I have said time after time attackers normally have no reason to expend the time, effort, loss of life, loss of loot in wages, and the loss of surprise a siege of annihilation requires.

But history easily shows that humans have historically been aggressive, and have fought many wars even though they had to expend time, effort, loss of life, loss of loot in wages, and the loss of surprise a siege of annihilation requires. In addition, Nebuchadnezzar had ruled Babylon for 19 years before he attacked the mainland settlement of Tyre, and had already shown many times that he was willing to expend the things that you mentioned.
Consider the following from the Ancient History Encyclopedia:

King Nebuchadnezzar II (634-562 BCE) was the greatest king of ancient Babylon, succeeding his father, Nabopolassar. King Nabopolassar had defeated the Assyrians with the help of the Medes and liberated Babylonia from Assyrian rule. In this way he provided for his son (as Philip II would do for his son Alexander later) a stable base and ample wealth on which to build; an opportunity for greatness which Nebuchadnezzar took full advantage of.

Upon ascending to the throne, Nebuchadnezzar spoke to the gods, in his inaugural address, saying, “O merciful Marduk, may the house that I have built endure forever, may I be satiated with its splendor, attain old age therein, with abundant offspring, and receive therein tribute of the kings of all regions, from all mankind” and it would seem the gods heard his prayer in that, under his reign, Babylon became the most powerful city-state in the region and Nebuchadnezzar II himself the greatest warrior-king and ruler in the known world.

Nebuchadnezzar II defeated the Egyptians and their allies the Assyrians at Carchemish, subdued Palestine and the region of Syria and, consolidating his power, controlled all the trade routes across Mesopotamia from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. Remaining true to the vision of his inaugural address, the great king spent the tolls he collected and the taxes he gathered in creating a city which, he hoped, would be recognized as a wonder of the world (and, indeed, his hopes were realized in later writers adding the walls of Babylon and, in particular, the Ishtar gate to the list of the Seven Wonders of the World). In the forty-three years of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar II made the most of the time employing a vast army of slave labor to surround his city with walls so thick that chariot races were conducted around the tops and which stretched fifty-six miles in length, encircling an area of two hundred square miles. The bricks of the walls were faced with a bright blue and bore the inscription, “I am Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.”

That easily proves that Nebuchadnezzar's attacks against the mainland settlement of Tyre were typical of his ambitions, and many conquests. It takes a lot of money to build, and run an empire, and most people in the area knew that Tyre was very wealthy, so it was not unusual at all that Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement.

It was a rare event and not what Ezekiel should have "guessed" would occur and that, not capacity is the issue.

On the contrary, there was nothing rare at all about Nebuchadnezzar's desire to expand his already large empire.

The preparations for Nebuchadnezzar's attacks against the mainland settlement would have taken months, and would have been observed by many people in Babylon. Most people in Babylon would have seen some of the preparations, or would have heard about them. It is plausible if not probable that Ezekiel saw some of the preparations, or heard about them.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Tyre prophecy

To make prophecies of future is not the core teaching of any revealed religion.

Regards