The Tyre prophecy

[paarsurrey]

The prophecies of a prophet are always open to interpretation.

Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

The Tyre prophecy

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

Regards

You know, you could just make a thread telling us what you believe. I for one really have no idea what your 'core' beliefs are.

 

[paarsurrey]

You know, you could just make a thread telling us what you believe. I for one really have no idea what your 'core' beliefs are.

I am not a founder of a religion; the founder of revealed religions as I have checked mention the core teachings which are common in all religions world over and in all times.

These core teachings are the nucleus around which all the secondary creeds are woven or must revolve to secure them; if they don't correspond with them and are inconsistent with them; then that religion is misunderstood and with the passage of time gets corrupted.

With a little effort if one googles one could find the core or prime teachings of Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Muhammad and many others great stalwarts of religions the world over.

Regards

 

[Desert Snake]

I am not a founder of a religion; the founder of revealed religions as I have checked mention the core teachings which are common in all religions world over and in all times.

These core teachings are the nucleus around which all the secondary creeds are woven or must revolve to secure them; if they don't correspond with them and are inconsistent with them; then that religion is misunderstood and with the passage of time gets corrupted.

With a little effort if one googles one could find the core or prime teachings of Zoroaster,Moses, Jesus,Muhammad and many others great stalwarts of religions the world over.

Regards

Or, you could just give a brief overview of what you think these 'core teachings' to be.
Your prerogative.........

 

[1robin]

What aerial photographs are you referring to?



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.

That is not an argument. That is an unfounded suggestion of bias. You have no reason to doubt the image except that it is not convenient. You are mistaken about the walls of the fortress. They would necessarily have been on the outermost edge of the island. That is how island defenses work. They are intended to deny you a foothold at all, because once you have established a beachhead that is pretty much dooms the fort. Not to mention this particular fortress is well known as it was described by many people. This is why Alexander spent a long time building a causeway instead of simply landing wherever the walls were not on the edge and why he contracted out so many ships and fitted them with rams.

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.

Until I have a reason to be suspicious of the image I have no need of it's source. The image you linked to says what I have said. The original island is largely buried and much of what is there now is the result of natural buildup on top of the rubble Alexander left behind. I'm not really sure what point your trying to make.

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.

That is not exactly what I said. There is an island there now because of so much rubble that allowed sand to be built upon it by wave action. I am saying that much of the old island was submerged by an earth quake. The point is that at one time the original island or part of it was submerged. Here is an eyewitness account of that:

From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbour in its midst.... There is no harbour like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city.... In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907, emp. added.).
https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

In your first post in this thread, you mentioned a link at Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy or Fallibility of The Old Testament? as a source. The link provides that the following 19th map of the peninsula:



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

I never said nor does the prophecy entail every square inch of the island be submerged nor that it remain partially submerged forever. What is there today is irrelevant and not in most part the original island anyway. I am surprised I did not use that site more. It is well written. Here is another statement illustrating another of the prophecies fulfillments.
Author Nina Jidejian summarizes the history of Tyre after Nebuchadnezzar:

Looking down into the water one can see a mass of granite columns and stone blocks strewn over the sea bottom. Until recently the ruins of Tyre above water were few. How was the ancient metropolis of Phoenicia so utterly demolished? Devastated by drawn-out sieges and earthquakes throughout her long history, Tyre from the 18th century onward has served as a “quarry” for the whole coast. Her stones may be found as far away as Acre and Beirut (1996: 13–14).
Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy or Fallibility of The Old Testament?

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

I did not check but they would be identical. Unless there existed a reason it could not be (and in that case no fortress would have been worth it) island fortresses usually follow the coast line absolutely. I get the impression from the accounts of Alexander and even later Muslim attacks that the island was not even recognizable because the wall was it's boundary. If not then rams on ships would have been useless. I think your missing the whole point. That island sank or much of it anyway, what is there today is irrelevant.

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.

I believe that has been what I have always said. Much of the island sank and it's remains and that of the causeway allowed silt to accumulate so today there is another recognizable land mass there.

Please reply to my previous five posts.

I am trying to respond as I can, but this issue has worn it's self out. Basically every argument you make is based on an unjustifiable hyper literalist interpretation of prophecy.

 

[1robin]

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.

Even if what you said is true it would not disprove anything. There is only the indication that the fortress would be destroyed and that at least part of it would become submerged. There is no indication of what part or portion would be. It does not say 4/5th's, 1/3rd, 2/17th's or anything similar.

Katzenstein describes some of the marine archaeological research of the massive harbor installations that are now under water (1997: 11–17). Aubet mentions that Tyre lay at the center of a line of reefs that made up the harbor, which are now under water. This has been due to erosion, human intervention and a rise in the sea level over the past 300 years. Alexander’s mole also interrupted water currents, and some of the structures from that mole are now under water (Aubet 1993: 153). When excavations are undertaken, it is as if the Tyre of Ezekiel’s day never existed (Gibson and Negev 2001: 519, 520).

Archaeologists have not unearthed the great buildings of Ezekiel’s day. Such great structures as the palace and temple of Hercules are yet to be found. James Pritchard, University of Pennsylvania archaeology director at Sarepta in Lebanon (1971), made the following observation:

Tyre, to be sure, is a principal showplace of archaeological treasures from the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Yet so spectacular are its public buildings that they cannot be removed to get at the remains that lie beneath (1978: 11).
Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy or Fallibility of The Old Testament?

That is all hat is necessary to believe the prophecy was accurate.

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."

I do not see anything here that disproves anything Ezekiel said.

"Progradation" means a buildup of silt.

I know what it means (it actually applies more to delta growth than here) but ok. It is exactly what I have stated over and over. The sea does not build up a peninsula on an island and peninsula that was already dry land. It builds on submerged structures. Something had to be sunk first to accommodate progradation.

Figure 3 shows where the Northern Harbour was.

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

A New Look at Ezekiel's Prophecy on Tyre - Good News Magazine



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.

What part of hat am I to "consider". The part about Tyre's mainland being rebuilt as soon as destroyed is not true. What is more, even if it was true that person would never know because it is a common complaint of archeologists that "nothing" of the mainland city of Tyre can be found. It was mostly wooden and would have rotted away long ago then been buried or at least rearranged by modern construction. I do not think a single significant structure has ever been found of the mainland city of that period. If anything has been it was not much.

 

[1robin]

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.

I have not even looked at this thread in maybe a month or so. When I see your name as the last post I always put it off until last because you seem to have unlimited time (I do not), repeat yourself, make the same point a hundred ways, and have little justification for your position to begin with, yet even when countered you claim victory anyway. That leaves little reason to set aside time to respond to your avalanche of posts. I have limited time and will only be able to post sporadically and you are low on the list. Your hyperbolically absurd claim to victory in the most lopsided debate I have ever observed (homosexuality) has left me with a feeling of utter futility in attempting to reason with you. I may still attempt it but it does not have the same priority it once held.

 

[1robin]

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

This will come down to your absurd notion of what "like a bare rock" means. Your taking a literal approach that could never ever come true (probably because it could not come true) no biblical specialist does this, it is unjustifiable. Tyre was build on solid rock. Alexander systematically dismantled the fortress leaving a place used for spreading nets. The destruction was immense and virtually total. This perfectly satisfies what those who specialize in prophecy suggest was predicted. BTW the resurfacing of another Tyre later on was also prophesied (I did not know this). This passage covers both a later non-Carthaginian Tyre that rose up and the total destruction Alexander caused.

It later regained a place of prominence in the world (cf. Acts 21:3, 7). Isaiah prophesied that after 70 years of devastation, Tyre would be restored to worldwide economic prominence (23:15–18). Her trading profit, however, would be set aside for Yahweh. This may refer to the fact that by New Testament times, only Tyrian coinage was allowed for the temple tax. It went to “those who live (sit) before the Lord” to give them food and fine clothes (high priest’s vestments?) (Is 23:18). Interestingly, the phrase “before the Lord” often refers to acts done with a solemn sense of Yahweh’s presence, many times at a sanctuary (Brown, Driver Briggs 1979: 817).

In 274 BC, some 58 years after Tyre’s demolition by Alexander, the city was given independent status by Ptolemy II. After that she generally received favorable treatment from Greeks and Romans and prospered, in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. The archaeology of the Roman era revealed arches, roads, buildings, etc. associated with this period.
Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy or Fallibility of The Old Testament?

It also shows that Tyre never went back to Carthaginian rule because Ptolemy was it's next satrap and he immediately followed Alexander.

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.

Your confusing a prediction you invented that Tyre would only ever be a place to spread nets with the actual prediction that for a time the place where the fortress was would be used for spreading nets. BTW this has never been used by me as a strong prophetic indication but just that the prediction and reality are consistent. On it's own that prediction would make a very weak prophecy but not included with another dozen or more details that took place.

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.

The island that Alexander attacked was partially submerged by the sea in a well documented earth quake. I gave historical eyewitnesses to that fact. Much later a new island formed on the submerged rubble of the old and the causeway. That was built upon by modern cultures. There is no problem here.

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.

Man your obstinate. Nebulous prediction that one day an empire would fall are not what is under discussion. We have names, mechanisms, incidental details, a rough time frame, the resulting details, what would happen in the near future after these events. Your indictment has nothing whatever to do with what your trying to indict.

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.

It is never strictly tied to the island. It seems to be a general result of it's primary actions. It was.

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.

It was not probable before cannons. It had been attempted many many times and had failed every single time before it occurred. It took one of histories greatest generals and a master at siege craft in order to finally make it occur. It even took unprecedented efforts by that individual and at least two complete failures before it took place. Many forts in that region far less substantial and on dry land as well were not even taken by the crusaders a thousand years later after years of sieges using much more advanced weapons. Your just making this garbage up.

Regarding item 4, same as item 3.

Regarding item 5, same as item 3.

Since three was pathetically invalid then 4 and 5 fall as well. Have you ever studied military history at all?

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.

He indicated that one of the world's greatest fortresses would completely and utterly fall. The other details are merely consistent with this. I never said slavery was predicted, I said slavery was consistent with the total devastation predicted. That word never appeared in what you responded to at all.

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.

He predicted destruction that could only occur if either the era's largest navy or 3 large navies assembled to attack Tyre. IOW without these highly improbable events what he predicted could not have occurred.

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.

I did not say Ezekiel predicted a causeway. I said Ezekiel's prediction that rubble would be thrown into the water was fulfilled by the causeway. It is actually hard to say what Ezekiel saw in his vision. We can only go by what he wrote. Either way an extremely unlikely and massive causeway had to be built in order for his predictions to be realized.

You seem to be confused by what was claimed with what was necessarily antecedent in order for what he predicted to come true.

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







Is Wikipedia also run by idiots?

I am having to guess what your point was. I never said Alexander's attack or actually his idea to test Tyre's claim to be cooperative with Alexander was a result of him being enraged. I said that his initial testing of Tyre's promises was first turned into a military action by their refusal to allow him to enter, then turned into an exercise of utter destruction when they hung his messengers on the wall. Your source is probably telescoping all these events together and calling the whole thing as 1 attack when it was several escalating events. This was very common when writing materials were less available.

BTW Wikipedia does indeed contain some idiots (a lot of them). Wikipedia is not a the source they are the facilitators of every day people who post and revise it's material. Many of them are complete idiots but in general it is a useful source, just not the best.

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

I thought we had concluded months ago that I mistakenly took your source to be Alexander's original biographer. Why is this still being discussed?











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

 

[1robin]

The Tyre prophecy

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

Regards

That is correct (at least for Christianity) but they are one of the best evidences possible for God's authorship of the text. Without this and other evidence the Bible is just another history book with some philosophy thrown in.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is correct (at least for Christianity) but they are one of the best evidences possible for God's authorship of the text. Without this and other evidence the Bible is just another history book with some philosophy thrown in.

You mean the OT is corrupted?

Regards

 

[Agnostic75]

Your hyperbolically absurd claim to victory in the most lopsided debate I have ever observed (homosexuality) has left me with a feeling of utter futility in attempting to reason with you.

My post 3757 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...proof-god-exists-existed-376.html#post3822562 shows reasonable people that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[1robin]

Post 119, 2/28/14

Are you archiving these things?

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.

I have never seen anyone as proud of themselves for less reason. You have only pointed out that 1 time I had mistaken your source, and without any justification whatever you will arbitrarily interpret a prophecy (in spite of the expert interpretations) to allow a misplaced and impotent rebuttal of things the bible nor I actually said.

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.

You have yet to provide a single reason I should even investigate whether a slave knew a kings intentions in detail. You just assume he could and build a rotten structure on that foundation. It is possible Ezekiel could have a battle was coming. It is unlikely he would have known with who or where it would occur and it is impossible he would have known all the details about it's execution he provided. That was all one huge non-issue you posted there.

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

Alright. Ezekiel probably did not but could have known Nebuchadnezzar had the capacity to severely damage the mainland city. That would not in any way indicate he should "guess" he would since commanders did not want to have to expend the capital to do so and he would not have known the specific location of a battle in general. Commanders like to lose as little as possible in attacking a place. If he was guessing he should have gone with the odds and predicted only necessary damage not total. That is a military question from start to finish. You do not know where we will fight next even as a citizen, I did not know even as a soldier until I got there, yet you are confident a slave did. Remarkably unreasonable.

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.

It has never been a point of contention what he could do but what he probably would do if a person was simply guessing at future events. There is only two choices. He either was aware of these events before hand or made them up. You seem not to care which one is more consistent but only wish to find some "problem" with the Biblical explanation for it, even if the other option is far more improbable.

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:

Again it is not a generalized prediction of a war occurring somewhere at some time. It is specifics about who, where, under what conditions, what is the result, and Isaiah goes on to even predict what would come after all this was over. These are two completely different things that so far apart they almost cease to have anything in common. For every battle of annihilation there were at least 50 that were only waged until a wall was breached or until the ones besieging ran out of food or patience. In fact the most common occurrence was a show of force and then capitulation. These scorched earth deals were very rare because they were very costly and destroyed what you were there to get in the first place. Not even the years long siege of Constantinople which had cannon and meant the loss of an entire empire was this complete.

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.

Not only did I not see any easy evidence, I did not even see a claim to any utter devastation what ever. Two things that I did notice were that he tended to leave other civilizations intact (which by the way was by far the way most Persian tyrants acted) which is why he was called the king of kings. He led coalitions of his defeated enemies. You cannot do that if your destroying them. The kingdom was and is famous for it's defensive structures not it's wars of annihilation. It ruled through the cooperation of others most of the time. BTW it is often used as a event counter to the prophecy that he did not conquer Egypt even though the prophecy only suggests the fall of it's prestige, yet your source says he did defeat Egypt (if it is the same battle).

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

There is something very very rare about doing so by destroying that which he wished to expand by. However it is not one point that makes this a prophecy but the inclusion of more than a dozen. You would have to at least show that half never occurred. The only thing you have done is suggest that he may have known a war would occur, and that is doubtful. The prophecy does not only state anything generalized about his expanding his 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.

So would our preparations. In fact much more so, yet you have still not even attempted to tell me where the next battle would take place. In WW2 the Germans transferred 4 million troops to the Russian front along with trains, tanks by the thousands, and all their millions of supports yet not even Stalin nor all but a few of his generals could tell where an attack was coming, he in fact did not think an attack was coming at all. The best I can give this (the only) point you have made with a not impossible conclusion but I have never used Ezekiel's mere prediction of a battle coming as part of what makes this a prophecy nor does it account for more than a dozen specific predictions which you have yet to scratch. That is enough on Tyre for now. I will check back soon if I can.

 

[1robin]

My post 3757 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...proof-god-exists-existed-376.html#post3822562 shows reasonable people that you do not know what you are talking about.

Were you a cheer leader for your self in college or HS? If you wish to believe this, then have at it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Were you a cheer leader for your self in college or HS? If you wish to believe this, then have at it.

I prefer to discuss the issue of homosexuality since I know that my arguments are far better than yours are. Idle banter is useless, and nonproductive, but when you get into trouble, you know that you cannot discuss the issue anymore since you will embarrass yourself further.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Argument 1

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.

That is not exactly what I said. There is an island there now because of so much rubble that allowed sand to be built upon it by wave action. I am saying that much of the old island was submerged by an earth quake. The point is that at one time the original island or part of it was submerged. Here is an eyewitness account of that:

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

https://apologeticspress.org/apconte...3&article=1790

There is nothing there about an earthquake. The article mentions two earthquakes, and the article does not say that the earthquakes covered any of the island with water.

You misinterpreted your source. The previous two paragraphs say:

One of the most disputed aspects concerning Ezekiel’s prophecy is the statement that the city of Tyre would “never be rebuilt” (26:14), and “be no more forever” (28:19). The skeptic points to modern day Tyre and suggests that these statements have failed to materialize. Till stated: “In fact, Tyre still exists today, as anyone able to read a map can verify. This obvious failure of a highly touted Old Testament prophet is just one more nail in the coffin of the Bible inerrancy doctrine” (n.d.).

Several possible solutions dissolve this alleged problem. First, it could be the case that the bulk of Ezekiel’s prophecy dealt with the mainland city of Tyre, the location of which has most likely been lost permanently and is buried under the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This solution has merit for several reasons. In approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels. “Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d.). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre.

So what you quoted refers to the mainland settlement, not to the island settlement.

Ezekiel 26:19 says:

"This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you."

There is not any credible evidence that the verse refers only to the mainland settlement, or to the mainland settlement at all. I believe that it refers only to the island settlement since it had most of the power, and prestige, not the mainland settlement. There is not any geological, or archaeological evidence that I know of that reasonably proves that most of the island was ever underwater.

The island settlement has never been uninhabited since it was founded.

I never said nor does the prophecy entail every square inch of the island be submerged nor that it remain partially submerged forever. What is there today is irrelevant and not in most part the original island anyway.

Part of Ezekiel 26:19 says "when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you."

I think that that indicates that most of, or all of the island would be underwater. What evidence do you have that most of, or all of the island was underwater?

Lots of ancient islands are partly, or completely underwater.

I am surprised I did not use that site more. It is well written.

You are referring to your source at Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy or Fallibility of The Old Testament?.

The article concludes with the following:

1. The rubble from Tyre would be put into the sea. This was fulfilled in 332 BC by Alexander the Great’s army, 250 years after Ezekiel was written.

2. The passage does not state that Nebuchadnezzar would capture the island city and get its wealth. On the other hand, it does not say Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre at all—he conquered “Old Tyre.” It simply states he did not get anything of value from it. This is exactly what Ezekiel 29:17ff states. There is no contradiction.

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

4. 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.

Regarding item 1, as I have told you a number of times, the rubble was to come from the island fortress, not from the mainland settlement. Would you like me to give you the post number of one of my posts where I discussed that issue?

Regarding item 2, nothing that King Nebuchadnezzar did was miraculous.

Regarding item 3, it is common knowledge that many ancient kingdoms were defeated by a number of nations.

Regarding item 4, it is common knowledge that many ancient cities, and kingdoms, were never rebuilt, but the island fortress was rebuilt after Alexander defeated it, and the mainland settlement was largely rebuilt after Nebuchadnezzar defeated it, and flourished for centuries. Neither settlement achieved its former glory, but they were rebuilt.

 

[Agnostic75]

Katzenstein describes some of the marine archaeological research of the massive harbor installations that are now under water (1997: 11–17).

Aubet mentions that Tyre lay at the center of a line of reefs that made up the harbor, which are now under water. This has been due to erosion, human intervention and a rise in the sea level over the past 300 years.

Alexander’s mole also interrupted water currents, and some of the structures from that mole are now under water (Aubet 1993: 153). When excavations are undertaken, it is as if the Tyre of Ezekiel’s day never existed (Gibson and Negev 2001: 519, 520).

Regarding the first paragraph, the harbor installations were only part of the island. Although much of the ancient harbors are underwater, much of the island is not underwater, and is covered by modern dwellings.

Regarding the second paragraph, again, that only deals with the harbors, not with the rest of the island.

Regarding the third paragraph, it is irrelevant since Ezekiel never said, or implied anything about a causeway being built from the mainland to the island.

 

[Agnostic75]

A New Look at Ezekiel's Prophecy on Tyre - Good News Magazine

What part of hat am I to "consider". The part about Tyre's mainland being rebuilt as soon as destroyed is not true.

The Christian source did not say "as soon as." He said:

"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."

The source also said:

"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."

What is more, even if it was true that person would never know because it is a common complaint of archeologists that "nothing" of the mainland city of Tyre can be found. It was mostly wooden and would have rotted away long ago then been buried or at least rearranged by modern construction. I do not think a single significant structure has ever been found of the mainland city of that period. If anything has been it was not much.

But the article discusses the island fortress, not the mainland settlement.

 

[Agnostic75]

This will come down to your absurd notion of what "like a bare rock" means. Your taking a literal approach that could never ever come true (probably because it could not come true) no biblical specialist does this, it is unjustifiable.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Ezekiel 26

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."

19 For thus saith the Lord God; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee.

Verses 5, and 19, imply that verse 4 means greater destruction to the island fortress than Alexander caused. Due to the strategic importance of the island, it would have been ridiculous for Alexander to level it as you claimed. A brilliant military tactician like him would never have leveled the fortress.

Regardless, there was nothing miraculous about the fortress being destroyed within about 1800 years from when the Tyre prophecy was made.

Tyre was build on solid rock. Alexander systematically dismantled the fortress leaving a place used for spreading nets. The destruction was immense and virtually total.

On the contrary, no credible historical sources make that claim, and you have not posted any credible historical sources that claim, as you did, that Alexander leveled the fortress.

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.

Dr. Bloom believes that God inspired the Tyre prophecy, but he disagrees with your claim that Alexander leveled the island fortress.

You can read Arrian's detailed description of the battle at Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre. Nothing that Arrian says, or implies, suggests that Alexander leveled the fortress.

The only major damage to the walls was from battering rams, not from catapults. Apparently, Alexander's forces only needed to make a few breaches to the walls, and quickly defeated the Tyrians once they got inside the walls.

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 towards Sidon. 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.

So one wall was not damaged to any extent worthy of mention, which easily disproves you false, and undocumented claim that Alexander leveled the fortress.

You claimed that Alexander got on one of the walls from the causeway, but he did that from a ship. No siege engines on the causeway caused any significant damage to that part of the fortress.

Regarding the spreading of fishing nets, since nets were spread at the island before, during, and after Alexander defeated the island fortress, Ezekiel must have meant that the island would not be of value for anything other than the spreading of nets. Alexander did not accomplish that, and as even some Christian sources say, the fortress was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D.

You're confusing a prediction you invented that Tyre would only ever be a place to spread nets with the actual prediction that for a time the place where the fortress was would be used for spreading nets. BTW this has never been used by me as a strong prophetic indication but just that the prediction and reality are consistent. On it's own that prediction would make a very weak prophecy but not included with another dozen or more details that took place.

Surely nets were used, and spread at the island before Alexander defeated the fortress, so the fortress could not for a time become a place for the spreading of nets when it was already a place for the spreading of nets.

Ezekiel 26:5 says:

"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."

Surely Alexander did not cause the island fortress to become a spoil to the nations since he left much of the fortress undamaged, and it was rebuilt.

So, regarding the spreading of nets, Ezekiel must have meant that the island would eventually become a place that was only suitable for the spreading of nets. That definitely did not happen during Alexander's lifetime, and that would be expected if the island became mostly covered by water, and became uninhabited, as Ezekiel claimed, but neither of those things happened.

There are not any "dozen or more details" that indicate that God inspired the Tyre prophecy. I have discussed your bogus evidence with you many times, and I will be happy to discuss it with again you if you wish. What you are essentially doing is claiming that a number of individual bogus claims are valid when they are included in a group. That is utterly absurd since it is obvious that any number of individually bogus claims are still bogus when they are included in a group.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

We have.......a rough time frame.......

Obviously not since after Alexander defeated the fortress, it was rebuilt, and was occupied by various parties, and was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D.

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.

It is never strictly tied to the island. It seems to be a general result of it's primary actions. It was.

On the contrary, verse 12 refers only to the island. Consider the following:

Ezekiel 26:12

They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise; they shall break down your walls and destroy your fine houses. Your stones and timber and soil they shall cast into the water.

The verse makes the following three claims:

1. They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise.
2. They shall break down your walls and destroy your fine houses.
3. Your stones and timber and soil they shall cast into the water.

Items 1 and 2 refer only to the island settlement because 1) the pronoun "they" indicates parties other than Nebuchadnezzar, and 2) most of the riches, loot, and merchandise were on the island, not the mainland.

Regarding item 3, Exodus 15:4 says "Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea." Mark 9:42 says "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." Luke 17:2 says "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

Please note that in all three cases, something, or someone was cast into the sea, and that was it. Nothing more was said, or implied. That is consistent with my theory since it postulates that the conqueror of the island fortress would unceremoniously cast the remains of the island fortress, which by far had the most power, and prestige, into the sea, and that would have been it, with nothing more said, or implied, certainly not the building of a causeway from the mainland to the island. You are trying to make the texts say what they do not say, and they definitely do not say, or imply that any of the rubble would come from the mainland settlement.

We have.......a rough time frame.......

Obviously not since after Alexander defeated the fortress, it was rebuilt, and was occupied by various parties, and was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D.

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.

It is never strictly tied to the island. It seems to be a general result of it's primary actions. It was.

On the contrary, verse 12 refers only to the island. Consider the following:

Ezekiel 26:12

They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise; they shall break down your walls and destroy your fine houses. Your stones and timber and soil they shall cast into the water.

The verse makes the following three claims:

1. They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise.
2. They shall break down your walls and destroy your fine houses.
3. Your stones and timber and soil they shall cast into the water.

All three claims refer only to the island fortress since the pronoun "they" indicates parties other than Nebuchadnezzar, and since most of the riches, loot, and merchandise were on the island, not the mainland, and since Nebuchadnezzar did not cast any of the rubble from the mainland settlement into the sea.

The verse implies that the walls refer only to the walls of the island fortress since the walls would obviously be where the riches, loot, and merchandise were, which were mainly at the island.

Regarding item 3, Exodus 15:4 says "Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea." Mark 9:42 says "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." Luke 17:2 says "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

Please note that in all three cases, something, or someone was cast into the sea, and that was it. Nothing more was said, or implied. That is consistent with my theory since it postulates that the conqueror of the island fortress would unceremoniously cast the remains of the island fortress, which by far had the most power, and prestige, into the sea, and that would have been it, with nothing more said, or implied, certainly not the building of a causeway from the mainland to the island. You are trying to make the texts say what they do not say, and they definitely do not say, or imply that any of the rubble would come from the mainland settlement, and they imply that the rubble would come from the island fortress.

Since items 1 and 2 refer only to the island fortress, it is reasonable to assume that item 3 also refers only to the island fortress.

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 partly why verse 12 refers only to the island fortress.

Please reply to my previous four posts.