The Tyre prophecy

[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.

Do you realize that "reasonable" is a completely subjective term?

 

[1robin]

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.

I am not responding to any more self delusions about your accomplishments or my motivations. You had your chance and did not even challenge my argument IMO, and it is based on my opinion whether I participate in a debate or not.

 

[1robin]

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

Argument 1

I see you label only argument one yet you below refer to argument 2-4. Something has gone horribly wrong here.

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.

Have I ever said the prophecy concerned an earthquake? The EARTHQUAKE was the mere mechanism in a story that is primarily about agency. It is irrelevant, only the fact that much of what was dry land was just as predicted covered by water. You must be really desperate to contend with incidental mechanisms instead of the prophecy.

You misinterpreted your source. The previous two paragraphs say:



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.

There are at least 4 terribly misunderstood things in those statements.

1. There is no connection between the mainland exclusively and the verse you quoted. It is aimed at a people not geography. It is a general prediction and not specific to any one location. As long as some portion of what those people had built was later submerged the prediction was true.
2. You seem to suggest I misunderstood that verse by applying it to the island and/or the causeway. Yet you then went on to interpret it the exact same way in your next statement.
3. The verse says absolutely nothing about Tyre being uninhabited except in the context of the Phoenicians. You just can't or will not understand the prophecy was against people and only the city they had built. To be true it would only have to have been devoid of people for a small period of time as all eternity is not covered by the prophecy except in relation to the city the Phoenicians had built.
4. I doubt that you have enough information by which to know that Tyre has never experienced a day which it was unpopulated, nor any justification in taking apocalyptic trash talk as arbitrarily as you wish. That being said this is the first point with any teeth at all you have brought up in this debate and I will investigate it a bit further. I am only referring to the uninhabited part, the part about what the water covered was meaningless.

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.

That verse only says what Ezekiel intended to say. At this point it is only what proper hermeneutics and exegesis allow that is relevant. You are left with two possibilities here. This is merely a continuation of the waves metaphor which had nothing to do with water or that there is no amount which is indicated and so the below witness account is more than enough to justify the belief the prediction came true.

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

It is far more plausible that the prophecy is valid than that these two very very similar events occurred and yet it was not true. By far and away most of the islands that were dry 4000 years ago are still dry so Ezekiel always seems to defy the odds for his guessing.

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:



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?

It would not matter where the rubble was to come from. Rubble from both sites is at the bottom of the sea. Your confusing the fact we have a much fuller description of one event with the other events not having occurred. There is currently rubble from the mainland and the island at the bottom of the sea. It is true regardless of how you interpret it.

Regarding item 2, nothing that King Nebuchadnezzar did was miraculous

. Where did I claim it was? I said the prediction was miraculous not what was occurred. To know the details of a thing before hand is miraculous even if nothing I that occurred was. It was extraordinary (which is one reason to think the prediction miraculous) but nothing he did was miraculous it's self. You spend a lot of time arguing against straw men.

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

It is also noted that very very few were predicted in detail before hand. Especially ones that took improbable acts to accomplish.

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.

For the one hundredth time the prophecy only deals with the city the Phoenicians built and occupied. It uses pronouns like "you", "it", "they" when talking about it's not being rebuilt. God was not mad at the island but the people. Repeating a canard does not make it true or more relevant.

BTW you still rose to my challenge. You even as a citizen cannot predict our own next battle much less it's details. Until you do no prior natural knowledge explanation is justifiable.

 

[1robin]

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.

I have never had any burden for the totality of the island to be submerged. You have invented this burden despite my denials and then countered it. Straw-men are not persuasive.

It was not a source that was attempting to justify the prophecy so did not go beyond what it's goal was. It was merely another piece of evidence consistent with the prophecy. It was not meant as a stand alone proof, just another piece of the puzzle. You have elevated it to a status it did not come within. Another straw man.

The third statement was an explanation of the mechanism and had nothing to do with prophecy except as being consistent with it. You again have elevated it's intention well beyond the way it was given.

 

[1robin]

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."



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

I do not understand the "as soon as" argument.

What happened to Tyre between Alexander and Nebuchadnezzar is not important. I only need to show that the Phoenician city was destroyed to never be rebuilt by them. Your quotes are only relevant if I claimed Nebuchadnezzar alone accomplished this. I nor Ezekiel even hinted that was the case.

 

[1robin]

Consider the following Scriptures:



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.

You keep coughing up arbitrary amounts of damage or water coverage which you cannot justify. You also seemed to have switched gears entirely from claiming of course the city was totally destroyed to of course the fortress was not severely damaged. Which is it?

The things we do know are these:

1. This was not an ordinary battle for Alexander. The Tyrian's had insulted him severely and he visited on them retribution as well defeat. He routinely was merciful to his enemies (especially the civilian populations). This was a departure from the norm.
2. He not only brought in a navy but 3 plus not only a causeway but 3. The siege was extremely protracted and severe by any standards. They angered him even further by attacking his tent and destroying two causeways after much effort at building them.
3. That his siege equipment was mostly unprecedented in it's capacity to inflict structural damage. He did not build the largest siege towers ever built nor equip squadrons with the first ever ship rams to merely defeat them. He systematically reduced the place to rubble.

You are right to believe this was not the usual course, you are wrong not to let the evidence convince you of he fact that it occurred anyway. He even subjugated or killed the entire population with few exceptions. None of this was normal, that is why predicting it requires more than lucky guesses.

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

Another straw man. I have never claimed there was. It was in the detailed predictions about the destruction where natural explanations fail not the battles themselves. They were merely improbable.

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.

Which part of hat are you in denial concerning?

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:



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

My primary claim is that God inspired the prophecy. Any disagreement after this point is secondary and irrelevant. Of course Christians have disagreements about the most divisive 750,000 words ever written. In what way is that help to you? If two reports go to a game and disagree on the score. Is it evidence that one or both are wrong about the score but that a game occurred or is it evidence games do not exist?

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.

Alexander could have (and did) get past the walls by using his towers alone. His ships were apparently punitive or overkill.

Arrian says:



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.



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.

In what way is an island that has a defensive wall around it's perimeter a good place to dry nets. The contrast is between an island with a historically impregnable fortress on it being reduced to a place that was only suited for drying nets. That is an extremely bold prediction regardless whether a net was dried somewhere in the same vicinity at some time in the past. You are completely missing the point of the prophecy and are oscillating between extreme literalism, relative amounts, and generalities as it suits you. BTW while it is not among my views I have several times allowed that many include the Muslims conquest of the rebuilt Tyre as fulfillment so the prophecy would be true even if it required them to complete it.

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.

This is exactly what is wrong with everything you say here. It was not the fortress that was to be a spoil, as that would be meaningless to anyone. It was talking about what the city contained and it's influence over trade. Not that it would have been untrue the other way around because buildings all along that coast have foundations that include Tyrian stones. It simply is not the point of the story, your interpretations are not even coherent. These is another straw man avalanche.

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.

I do not see any specific time connected with that prediction but it would be remarkable to predict any legendarily strong fortress would yield to the drying of nets at anytime. Why don't you try it? Tell me what modern fortification that has never seen a successful attack will give way to being only fit for some mundane occupation. Will fort Knox ever be used to butcher cows? Will Stalingrad give way to only the flying of kites (and it is not even a fort)? Will the US's doomsday bunker system be used to store paint?

Most of these points you make I have no agreement on but find it would not matter anyway, even if I grant them I find it does not hurt my position. So do not think I am agreeing with you, just saving time by pointing out your statements are distinctions without relevant difference.

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.

Yes there are. You have with a very few exceptions constructed straw-men and have not even been able to tear many of these creations down. Your cheering of efforts so poor is starting to appear compulsory.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am not responding to any more self delusions about your accomplishments or my motivations. You had your chance and did not even challenge my argument IMO, and it is based on my opinion whether I participate in a debate or not.

I certain did challenge your main arguments, and you did not reply to my replies in the main thread on homosexuality, and in the thread about indisputable evidence for the existence of God. If you wish, I can give you post numbers for my replies to your arguments in both of those threads.

 

[1robin]

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.

I have straightened out your (apparently intentional) misconception countless times in the past and this will be the third time today. The entire prophecy concerns the Phoenicians and their city. There never been a Phoenician Tyre since Alexander attacked. You can fix ignorance but not willful denial of fact.

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

You have given me so many occasions for complaint that I will take this one as an occasion for a compliment. I like how you state "consider X". I might even use it.

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.

I could not intentionally create a more obvious of artificially confusing the obvious and complicating the simplistic. This is pathetic. The verse you quote states emphatically that the agents are they (in this case meaning Nebuchadnezzar plus at least one other attacker). What it can not possibly mean (whether prophecy or simply guesswork) is that it refers to he acts of one person. I do not see how anything could be any clearer nor an interpretation more obviously flawed. This cannot be genuine. They never ever refers to one person in this context. We have been over these pronoun issues countless times. If you cannot see something this obvious even after it has been explained over and over and over what hope is that that your bias will permit any resolution at all beyond your wishes?

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.

I have no idea what your saying here. You can find long prophecies and very short ones, emphatic ones and very cryptic ones, analogous ones and literal ones. I do not get your conclusion so can't disagree with it but your premise is not sound. These prophecies are about independent events and circumstances. You might can get word usage or some very very general patterns from them (however only if there is a God would that be true) but not what it seems you have done.

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.

Since you mentioned nothing that violated the prophecy I have no need to reply.

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



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.



I agree, and that is partly why verse 12 refers only to the island fortress.

Please reply to my previous four posts.

This was a word for word repeat of the first claim you made in he same post. How do you do this?

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Have I ever said the prophecy concerned an earthquake? The EARTHQUAKE was the mere mechanism in a story that is primarily about agency. It is irrelevant, only the fact that much of what was dry land was just as predicted covered by water.

Ezekiel 19 says:

"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."

Today, much of what was dry land is not covered by water. During Alexander's lifetime, much of the island was probably not covered by water. It is not possible to know what Ezekiel meant about how much of the island would be covered by water, but it doesn't matter since many small islets, atolls, and islands, have been partly, or completely covered by water.

That verse only says what Ezekiel intended to say. At this point it is only what proper hermeneutics and exegesis allow that is relevant. You are left with two possibilities here. This is merely a continuation of the waves metaphor which had nothing to do with water or that there is no amount which is indicated and so the below witness account is more than enough to justify the belief the prediction came true.

There is nothing about the prediction about water covering the island that reasonably proves that God inspired that part of the prophecy, or any other part of the prophecy.

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

It is far more plausible that the prophecy is valid than that these two very very similar events occurred and yet it was not true. By far and away most of the islands that were dry 4,000 years ago are still dry so Ezekiel always seems to defy the odds for his guessing.

Sidon does not have anything to do with the Tyre prophecy.

What similar events are you referring to?

We were discussing the island, not the mainland settlement. What you quoted does not have anything to do with the island as far as that article is concerned. Here are the two preceding paragraphs:

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 was about the mainland settlement, not about the island.
There is nothing miraculous about the mainland settlement becoming covered by water. Actually, since the mainland settlement was a group of suburbs, no one knows where all of it used to be. Lots of it might be covered by water, but if so, there is not anything that is miraculous about that. From the time that Ezekiel wrote the Tyre prophecy unitl 1291 A.D., to when the fortress was completely destroyed, was over 1700 years. Surely during that time a number of places around the Mediterranean shoreline became partly, or completely covered by water.

Ezekiel might have intended for verse 19 to apply only to the island.

1. There is no connection between the mainland exclusively and the verse you quoted. It is aimed at a people not geography. It is a general prediction and not specific to any one location. As long as some portion of what those people had built was later submerged the prediction was true.

2. You seem to suggest I misunderstood that verse by applying it to the island and/or the causeway. Yet you then went on to interpret it the exact same way in your next statement.

3. The verse says absolutely nothing about Tyre being uninhabited except in the context of the Phoenicians. You just can't or will not understand the prophecy was against people and only the city they had built. To be true it would only have to have been devoid of people for a small period of time as all eternity is not covered by the prophecy except in relation to the city the Phoenicians had built.

4. I doubt that you have enough information by which to know that Tyre has never experienced a day which it was unpopulated, nor any justification in taking apocalyptic trash talk as arbitrarily as you wish. That being said this is the first point with any teeth at all you have brought up in this debate and I will investigate it a bit further. I am only referring to the uninhabited part, the part about what the water covered was meaningless.

Regarding item 1, you cannot provide reasonable evidence that Ezekiel did not intend for the verse to apply only to the island. It is reasonable to assume that Ezekiel intended for verse 19 to apply only to the island since that is where most of the power, and prestige was, and it was where most of the wealth was when Alexander got to Tyre.

Regarding the article that you quoted, the writer of that article was definitely referring only to the mainland settlement as the two previous paragraphs in the article prove.

The Tyre prophecy is definitely partly about a place, and the walls that Ezekiel mentioned were not just about a people since walls are made of stone.

Regarding item 2, you are still confused since we had been discussing the island becoming covered with water, and you quoted an article where what you quoted was about the mainland settlement, not about the island.

Regarding item 3, it is not possible to know what Ezekiel meant. Consider the following:

Ezekiel 26:19 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you,

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 19. - When I shall bring up the sea. The picture of desolation is completed. The sea washes over the bare rock that was once covered with the palaces of the merchant-princes.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

For thus saith the Lord God,.... Both to the terror of Tyre, and for the comfort of his people:

when I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; whose trade is ruined, whose inhabitants are destroyed, and whose walls are broken down, and become a mere waste and desert; where no person or anything of value are to be seen:

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

"when I shall bring up against them an army of people, who are many as the waters of the deep, and many people shall cover thee; see Revelation 17:15.''

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

19. great waters—appropriate metaphor of the Babylonian hosts, which literally, by breaking down insular Tyre's ramparts, caused the sea to "cover" part of her.

So even the Christian writers of some Bible commentaries are not certain what the verse means, and contrary to what you claimed, all three commentaries refer to a place, not just to people. You claimed that the prophecy does not refer to anything that happened after Alexander defeated the island fortress, but even many conservative Christian experts disagree with that.

Regarding item 4, it is true I do not know that the island has never been uninhabited since Ezekiel wrote the Tyre prophecy, but it is not up to me to provide reasonable evidence that it has not been uninhabited. I just assumed that it was inhabited from when Ezekiel made the prophecy until at least 1291 when the island fortress was completely destroyed, and even then, the island might have still been inhabited.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Following are my partly revised arguments regarding verse 12:

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible says:

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.

In your post 21, you said:

They is the meat of the issue. That prophecy switches between they, he, it, and them etc... 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 since all of the verse refers to "they," or parties other than Nebuchadnezzar. "They," or parties other than Nebuchadnezzar, would tear down the walls of the island fortress, and cast the rubble into the water.

Since Nebuchadnezzar did not get loot, and did not cast any rubble from the mainland settlement, or the island fortress into the water, verse 12 cannot partly refer to him.

The walls that the verse mentions has to refer only to the walls of the island fortress since that is where most of the riches, loot, and merchandise were. You have said that the mainland settlement also had a lot of wealth. That is true, but probably not nearly as much as the island settlement had. When Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement, by that time, most of the wealth from the mainland settlement had been taken to the island, so verse 12 must only refer to the island.

Only "they," or parties other than Nebuchadnezzar, would tear down the walls of the island fortress since Nebuchadnezzar did not do that, so verse 12 has to refer only to the island fortress.

Verses 6-11 discuss what Nebuchadnezzar would do, not verse 12.

 

[Agnostic75]

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?

It would not matter where the rubble was to come from.

It does matter is you are making a case that the building of the causeway fulfilled part of the prophecy. Verse 12 refers only to the island, and there was not anything miraculous about some of the stones failing into the water when Alexander attacked the fortress, and that would have happened no matter who attacked the fortress.

Rubble from both sites is at the bottom of the sea.

Verse 12 does not say, or imply anything about the mainland settlement.

Your confusing the fact we have a much fuller description of one event with the other events not having occurred.

What one event, and what other events?

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

Where did I claim it was? I said the prediction was miraculous not what was occurred.

That is what I meant. What about what the prophecy says about Nebuchadnezzar is miraculous, or unusual, and was not known, or suspected by many other people?

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

It is also noted that very very few were predicted in detail before hand. Especially ones that took improbable acts to accomplish.

Which details are you referring to?

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.

For the one hundredth time the prophecy only deals with the city the Phoenicians built and occupied. It uses pronouns like "you", "it", "they" when talking about it's not being rebuilt. God was not mad at the island but the people. Repeating a canard does not make it true or more relevant.

You have mentioned Phoenicia many times, but the Tyre prophecy in only about Tyre, not about any of the other independent Phoenician city-states.

You claimed that Tyre was founded by Carthage, but Carthage was founded by Tyre.

The Tyre prophecy is partly about people, but it is obviously also about a place, and about stone walls.

You said that Alexander leveled the fortress, but no reliable ancient, or modern sources say that. Even some conservative Christian sources disagree with you, and even one of your own sources disagrees with you.

BTW you still rose to my challenge. You even as a citizen cannot predict our own next battle much less it's details. Until you do no prior natural knowledge explanation is justifiable.

But you have not mentioned any details that reasonably prove that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but how could Paul have known that? As I have told you before, you cannot reasonably prove that God is not an evil imposter. If that is the case, an evil God could predict the future just as easily as a good God could. If God is an imposter, how would you be able to reasonably know that?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am not responding to any more self delusions about your accomplishments or my motivations. You had your chance and did not even challenge my argument IMO, and it is based on my opinion whether I participate in a debate or not.

I certainly did challenge your main arguments, and you did not reply to my replies in the main thread on homosexuality, and in the thread about indisputable evidence for the existence of God. If you wish, I can give you post numbers for my replies to your arguments in both of those threads, and I proved that you made at least two composition fallacies since nowhere near all homosexuals cause increases in suffering, and do not need to practice abstinence, which was your absurd recommendation for all homosexuals.

 

[Agnostic75]

You also seemed to have switched gears entirely from claiming of course the city was totally destroyed to of course the fortress was not severely damaged. Which is it?

You know very well that I said that Alexander did not severely damage the fortress, that it was rebuilt after Alexander defeated it, and that it was finally completely destroyed in 1291 A.D.

The things we do know are these:

1. This was not an ordinary battle for Alexander.

So what? What does that have to do with whether or not God inspired the prophecy? Many battles in history were unexpected, and improbable, and not ordinary. Who in the world has made a widely accepted definition for a battle that was ordinary?

The Tyrian's had insulted him severely and he visited on them retribution as well defeat. He routinely was merciful to his enemies (especially the civilian populations). This was a departure from the norm.

So what? What does that have to do with whether or not God inspired the prophecy?

If Alexander had not defeated the island fortress, someone else would probably have eventually defeated it. In fact, that is what his general Antigonus did, and he primarily used ships just like Alexander did.

2. He not only brought in a navy but 3 plus not only a causeway but 3.

Same as before.

The siege was extremely protracted and severe by any standards. They angered him even further by attacking his tent and destroying two causeways after much effort at building them.

Same as before. In addition, your arguments are absurd because it took Antigonus months longer to defeat the island fortress than it took Alexander, and Antigonus did not have to spend time building the causeway. So, any successful defeat of the island fortress would probably have been protracted and severe. Further, many military battles in history were protracted, and severe.

Even some of, or most of your own sources do not use those absurd arguments.

3. That his siege equipment was mostly unprecedented in it's capacity to inflict structural damage.

As I said:

"If Alexander had not defeated the island fortress, someone else would probably have eventually defeated it. In fact, that is what his general Antigonus did, and he primarily used ships just like Alexander did."

You said that Alexander entered the fortress through the causeway, but Arrian says that he entered it through a ship.

He did not build the largest siege towers ever built nor equip squadrons with the first ever ship rams to merely defeat them. He systematically reduced the place to rubble.

You still have not provided any credible modern, or ancient source that agrees with your claim that Alexander leveled the fortress, and I have quoted some conservative Christians who say that Alexander did not level the fortress.

Arrian does not say, or imply that the fortress, was leveled. In fact, he says that the entire wall where the causeway was was damaged very little, and that that was why Alexander went elsewhere to breach the fortress.

He even subjugated or killed the entire population with few exceptions. None of this was normal, that is why predicting it requires more than lucky guesses.

Verse 6 says:

"And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the Lord."

Verse 8 says:

"He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee."

Neither of those verses says, or implies anything about how many people would be killed, and neither says, or implies anything about slavery. That obviously means that it is irrelevant how many people Alexander killed, and enslaved.

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

Another straw man. I have never claimed there was. It was in the detailed predictions about the destruction where natural explanations fail not the battles themselves. They were merely improbable.

What I meant was that none of the prophecy was miraculous. Surely many people other than Ezekiel knew about Nebuchadnezzar's plan to attack the mainland settlement, and expected him to severely damage it, which would not have been an unreasonable guess for anyone to make since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king, and already had a large empire, and Tyre had a lot of wealth.

If Alexander had not defeated the island fortress, someone else would probably have eventually defeated it, which is as I said what his general Antigonus did.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Alexander could have (and did) get past the walls by using his towers alone. His ships were apparently punitive or overkill.

An article at Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre quotes Arrian's detailed description of the battle. Arrian essentially agrees with what I said, which was:

"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."

The ships were not punitive or overkill since all of the battering rams that breached the fortress were on ships, and no breaches were made from the causeway. You either did not read the article, or did not understand it. Even some conservative Christians, including some conservative Christian scholars, understand what I said, and what Arrian says, and agree with what I said.

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 Alexander was not able to breach the fortress from the causeway because of the strength of that wall, and breached the fortress elsewhere, and the walls were first breached from a ship.

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. In their anger the Macedonians turned on everything, annoyed at the time wasted on the siege and also because the Tyrians had captured some of them as they were sailing from Sidon, and marched them up onto the wall where they could be seen from the camp and killed them and hurled them into the sea. About 8000 Tyrians died, and in that attack the Macedonian losses consisted of Admetus who was first to capture the wall, showing himself a brave man, and with him about 20 of the royal guards; in the whole siege about 400 men died.

All of that was accomplished from ships, not from the causeway, or at least Arrian does not say, or imply otherwise.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

This is exactly what is wrong with everything you say here. It was not the fortress that was to be a spoil, as that would be meaningless to anyone.

On the contrary, the island fortress is definitely an important part of the Tyre prophecy, and without it for protection, Tyre would never have become as powerful and wealthy as it became. Tyre would not have become a spoil if the fortress had not been defeated, and wealth could not have been stored, and protected without it.

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.

I do not see any specific time connected with that prediction.......

I agree. That also means that there was not a specific time frame for the complete destruction of the fortress, which occurred in 1291 A.D.

.......but it would be remarkable to predict any legendarily strong fortress would yield to the drying of nets at anytime.

Your arguments are quite odd since you know that it has been common for coastal communities to catch fish with fishing nets for thousands of years all over the world.

Surely it is probable that nets were used to catch fish at the island, and at the mainland, before, and after Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement, so Ezekiel must have meant that the island fortress would one day not be useful for much more than the drying of nets. There is not any credible historical evidence that Alexander damaged the fortress so severely that it became useful primarily for the spreading of nets.

Please reply to the rest of my posts on this page, and to my two most recent posts on the previous page.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

I certain did challenge your main arguments, and you did not reply to my replies in the main thread on homosexuality, and in the thread about indisputable evidence for the existence of God. If you wish, I can give you post numbers for my replies to your arguments in both of those threads.

I do not remember any missed posts in the Homosexuality thread but I am certainly not wasting any more time in it looking for them. As for these other threads I might very well have missed them. I have exhaustively explained the constraints on my time at the moment. You cannot demand any more than that. I did not say you do not think you challenged me, I said I do not agree beyond the few concessions I made to what I thought were good points.

 

[1robin]

Ezekiel 19 says:

"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."

This is the best claim you have made IMO. I have not had a chance to research it. I will do so soon.

Today, much of what was dry land is not covered by water. During Alexander's lifetime, much of the island was probably not covered by water. It is not possible to know what Ezekiel meant about how much of the island would be covered by water, but it doesn't matter since many small islets, atolls, and islands, have been partly, or completely covered by water.

Do you know what convergent confirmation is? It is where two things are so similar that everyone starts looking for agency. That prediction even using your arbitrary literal filter is still so close to the actual facts that chance is a poor explanation. Please tell me which island fortress will sink next. Can't do it. Of course no one can. However I am no longer using your filter.

1. Apocalyptic language was meant to convey the general scale of events. Not in any culture who used it was it ever intended to give you a hyper literal blow by blow technically perfect birds eye view of every event in exhaustive detail. For example cut off means to destroy political influence. To utterly destroy means to render military influence virtually impotent. etc...
2. The dry land that exist today is in large part not the island that existed then.
3. It's watery language is connected to symbolism used in the whole bible. Waves indicate (or often do) indicate armies. The lapping of waves points toward multiple attacks. Flooding can mean to be overwhelmed by military might. So it is easy to see both a semi-literal and a allegorical intention here.
4. That specific verse is most often interpreted to mean something else entirely as well as it's semi literal meaning. It likely implies that death and subjugation will overwhelm the Phoenicians. Many verses use a flood to indicate death.
5. The mere fact that an island that had never before known to sink or be conquered was predicted to be both and both occurred is more than enough to indicate agency, not chance.

There is nothing about the prediction about water covering the island that reasonably proves that God inspired that part of the prophecy, or any other part of the prophecy.

If you mean that an earthquake is not miraculous I agree. If you mean that predicting what it produced along with a host of other details is not miraculous, I strongly disagree.

Sidon does not have anything to do with the Tyre prophecy.

For crying out loud that word merely appeared in a secular account of a visit to the area. Not he, the source, nor I ever indicated or even hinted that Sidon's involvement was predicted. It was merely included to provide a geographical marker to indicate where Tyre was. You know what I just can't do this right now. I will get back to this spinning of wheels soon.