The Tyre prophecy

[Agnostic75]

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.

The proof is in the posts, and I can show them to you if you wish.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Absolutely not. Over 1700 years, or over 17 centuries passed from the time that Ezekiel made the prophecy until the fortress was completely destroyed in 1291 A.D. During that amount of time, many small islands became partly, or completely covered with water. Few Christians would use such an absurd argument, and very few oceanographers would find it unusual at all that part of the island was covered with water during that amount of time.

Ezekiel did not say how much of the island would become covered with water. Today, much of it is not covered with water and is covered by modern buildings.

As far as the island fortress being conquered is concerned, it is amazing that you are using that argument again since I easily refuted it at least several times. Surely the majority of naval military historians would say the it was probable that someone would defeat the island fortress by 1291 A.D. In fact, Alexander's general Antigonus defeated the rebuilt fortress in a year and three months, mostly with ships like Alexander did.

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]

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.

No it isn't. Some Bible commentaries discuss the verse at 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,. One commentary says that the verse a metaphor, which is not worth discussing since if the verse is a metaphor, that would not reasonably prove that God inspired the verse.

Another commentary says something similar.

None of the commentaries reasonably proves that God inspired the verse. No matter how you wish to interpret the verse, you cannot reasonably prove that God inspired it.

I have not had a chance to research it. I will do so soon.

Go right ahead, but we have already discussed that verse, and currently, my position is that the verse is not useful for Christians, or skeptics, and that debating it is a waste of time. However, I will discuss the verse with you if you wish.

Please reply to all of my post from today, and the previous two days.

 

[Agnostic75]

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

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

Well of course I demonstrated it, and you know that I did if you read that post. In that post, I quoted the ancient Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, who said that Alexander's general Antigonus conquered the island fortress. Since it took Antigonus a year and three months to defeat the fortress, it must have been mostly, or completely rebuilt, and at the very least largely undamaged.

I also quoted John A. Bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is a distinguished college professor at Biola University, where he is a colleague of William Lane Craig. Bloom believes that God inspired the Tyre prophecy, but he said:

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.

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.

The second paragraph was not in my post 235, but it was in the article by Dr. Bloom that I quoted.

I assume that William Lane Craig would agree with his colleague Dr. Bloom, and some of your own sources, and me, that the prophecy was not fulfilled until 1291 A.D. As even many conservative Christians know, the prophecy is partly about people, but it is also partly about the fortress since it was an important symbol of the power of Tyre, and its total destruction at any time, regardless of who lived there, whether Tyrians, or anyone else, would be a testimony to God's power. Any reasonable person knows that Alexander did not cause all of the kinds, and extent of destruction to the fortress, and the island, that Ezekiel chapter 26 mentions.

What sources have you quoted that say that Alexander destroyed most of the fortress, and cast the rubble into the sea?

It would have been foolish for Alexander to damage the fortress any more than was needed to make a few breaches in the walls since he could have used, and did use the valuable, strategic fortress for his own purposes after he defeated it.

Are you claiming that the fortress was not rebuilt?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Consider the following Scripture from the NIV:

Ezekiel 26

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

Consider the following:

Ezekiel 26:4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.

And I will scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock; a bare smooth rock, which has not any surface of earth upon it. So the Targum,

"I will give her for the smoothness of an open rock.''

Tyre was built upon a rock; and whereas the inhabitants had brought earth thither, and laid it upon it, in order to make gardens and orchards, and plant flowers and trees; this should be all removed, and it should become a bare rock, as it was at first. It denotes the utter destruction of it. It has its name from a word which signifies a rock; See Gill on Isaiah 23:1.

Alexander did not make the island like "a bare smooth rock, which has not any surface of earth upon it." In addition, Alexander did not cause the "utter destruction" of the island.

Ezekiel 26:4 Commentaries: 'They will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock.

Ezekiel 26:4-6. They shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, &c. — The expressions of these verses signify that Tyre should be entirely demolished, and that the place where the city stood should be made as bare as the top of a rock, and that it should be employed to no other use but that of a desolate shore, the drying of the fishermen’s nets. Nebuchadnezzar quite demolished old Tyre, and the stones and rubbish of it were afterward made use of by Alexander, to carry on a causeway from the continent to the island where new Tyre stood, by which means he took that. This latter city is since so decayed, that there are no remains of it left but a few huts belonging to fishermen, who are in the habit of hanging out their nets to dry upon the rocks, as is related by travellers that have been upon the place.

Alexander did not cause the walls of the island fortress to become "entirely demolished," and he did not make the island city look "as bare as the top of a rock," and he did not make the island a place that "should be employed to no other use but that of a desolate shore, the drying of the fishermen’s nets."

Scrape her dust … make her … top of … rock—or, "a bare rock" [Grotius]. The soil which the Tyrians had brought together upon the rock on which they built their city, I will scrape so clean away as to leave no dust, but only the bare rock as it was. An awful contrast to her expectation of filling herself with all the wealth of the East now that Jerusalem has fallen.

Alexander did not scrape the island "so clean away as to leave no dust, but only the bare rock as it was."

I will also scrape her dust from her; I will leave thee nothing, thou shalt be scraped, and brushed, and swept, that not so much as dust shall remain to thee.

And make her like the top of a rock; as bare as was the rock on which thy city is built before wealth, beauty, buildings, and strength was brought to it by man’s industry.

Alexander did not "leave [the island] nothing," and did not leave "not so much as dust" there. In addition, Alexander did not leave the city "as bare as was the rock on which thy city is built before wealth, beauty, buildings, and strength was brought to it by man’s industry."

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

All of the Bible commentaries that I quoted disagree with you.

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 has never been a Phoenician Tyre since Alexander attacked.

If you are right, that means that the prophecy definitely failed since I quoted four Christian Bible commentaries that disagree with you about what "like a bare rock" means, and Alexander certainly did not make the island look anything like a bare rock. He left it largely intact, and it was rebuilt.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Ezekiel 26

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.

Would you like to claim that those Scriptures were fulfilled soon after Alexander defeated the island fortress? That issues that I am interested in are 1) the spreading of nets, 2) not being inhabited, and 3) being covered by water.

The distinguished Christian scholar John A. Bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, and a colleague of William Lane Craig at Biola University disagrees with you, and says that the prophecy was not fulfilled until 1291 A.D.

At Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy or Fallibility of The Old Testament?, your own highly touted source Paul Ferguson, Ph.D., said:

Thus, by taking a close look at Ezekiel’s literary artistry, Newsom has reached the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign is simply one episode out of a continuous succession of nation after nation. She has correctly discerned that Ezekiel is describing a gradual process of one nation after another slowly wearing down Tyre, rather than Nebuchadnezzar doing it all at once. Her insight into this metaphor of waves shows the changes from singular to plural in this passage are not merely random variations, but are intentional and significant to grasping the meaning of the prophecy. It is of note that she is not interested in defending a conservative position for this passage, but is simply showing how the prophet used his metaphors.

Each wave of aggressors took its toll, and little by little Tyre was gradually reduced to matching the observations made by travelers in the 1800s.

Tyre seemed to always rebound from each empire that ruled over it. It became almost a showpiece in the Greco-Roman world. As late as around 400 AD, Jerome wrote in his commentary on Ezekiel that it was “the noblest and most beautiful of the Phoenician cities and an emporium of commerce for almost the whole world” (Porter 1956: 3032).

After the Arab Conquest in AD 638, Deterioration Continued Until Total Destruction in AD 1291

In AD 638 the Arabs conquered the city and her fate began to change. In 1124 it was taken by Crusaders. In AD 1291 the Mameluke Muslims took it and reduced it to ashes. It was the policy of these invaders to make their destruction so severe that Crusaders would not be tempted to ever reoccupy it (Hitti 1997). Tyre for a period of time was all but destitute of inhabitants (Davis and Gehman 1944: 616). In 1517 it became part of the Ottoman (Turkish) empire and fell sway to its incompetent government.

Surely your source Paul Ferguson did not intend for "a continuous succession of nation after nation" to end with Alexander. If you have any doubts about that, you can contact him at [email protected].

Another one of your sources at Bible Evidences - Accuracy of Prophecy also disagrees with you. That source says:

"It wasn't until the 12th century A.D. before the final prophetic chapter was closed on the once great city of Tyre."

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: This post about verse 12 is mainly a repeat of my post
290. The verse is important since it reasonably proves that Alexander's building of the causeway was not a fulfillment of verse 12.

The is not any historical evidence that any of the fortress was breached from the causeway.

Arrian says that Alexander gave up trying to breach the walls that were where the causeway was because of their strength, and went elsewhere around the walls.

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

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 12must 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.

"They," or parties other than Nebuchadnezzar, did not tear down the walls of the mainland settlement since Nebuchadnezzar did that, so quite obviously, "they" tore down part of the walls of the fortress.

You have claimed that even if verse 12 refers only to the island fortress that the prophecy was still fulfilled, but the same argument could be used for anyone else who attacked the fortress during the next 1700 years since anyone who attacked the fortress would have caused parts of the walls to fall into the sea.

 

[1robin]

Absolutely not. Over 1700 years, or over 17 centuries passed from the time that Ezekiel made the prophecy until the fortress was completely destroyed in 1291 A.D. During that amount of time, many small islands became partly, or completely covered with water. Few Christians would use such an absurd argument, and very few oceanographers would find it unusual at all that part of the island was covered with water during that amount of time.

Ezekiel did not say how much of the island would become covered with water. Today, much of it is not covered with water and is covered by modern buildings.

As far as the island fortress being conquered is concerned, it is amazing that you are using that argument again since I easily refuted it at least several times. Surely the majority of naval military historians would say the it was probable that someone would defeat the island fortress by 1291 A.D. In fact, Alexander's general Antigonus defeated the rebuilt fortress in a year and three months, mostly with ships like Alexander did.

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?

I am getting so bored and you are refusing to ever take it up that I am going to simply request you to prove it, instead of wasting time trying to show what was wrong with your reasoning.

1. Please predict any island that currently has a fortress built on it that will sink in the next 1700 years. I do not grant your 1700 year nonsense but will be generous.
2. Or you can predict the next battle your own country which you are a citizen of (not a slave) and which is far more open than these ancient empires ever were. Making it easy by not asking for a single detail just the location of the next battle we fight.
3. Or to be even easier find a single prediction from anyone in history predicting an island with a fortress on it would be utterly destroyed and would eventually be submerged by an earth quake to a meaningful extent (or similar event), and it actually occurring regardless of the time difference. This one is way too easy so I will add a single but very easy requirement. It had to be destroyed by forces that were not obviously at work in the writers lifetime. I doubt even with todays technology it has ever been done.


Three opportunities to do something vastly easier than what Ezekiel did. Don't need convoluted logic, unjustifiable literalness, and no hiding behind what is not impossible. Simply do any one of the very easy things I asked.

 

[Agnostic75]

Absolutely not. Over 1700 years, or over 17 centuries passed from the time that Ezekiel made the prophecy until the fortress was completely destroyed in 1291 A.D. During that amount of time, many small islands became partly, or completely covered with water. Few Christians would use such an absurd argument, and very few oceanographers would find it unusual at all that part of the island was covered with water during that amount of time.

Ezekiel did not say how much of the island would become covered with water. Today, much of it is not covered with water and is covered by modern buildings.

As far as the island fortress being conquered is concerned, it is amazing that you are using that argument again since I easily refuted it at least several times. Surely the majority of naval military historians would say the it was probable that someone would defeat the island fortress by 1291 A.D. In fact, Alexander's general Antigonus defeated the rebuilt fortress in a year and three months, mostly with ships like Alexander did.

I am getting so bored and you are refusing to ever take it up that I am going to simply request you to prove it, instead of wasting time trying to show what was wrong with your reasoning.

1. Please predict any island that currently has a fortress built on it that will sink in the next 1700 years. I do not grant your 1700 year nonsense but will be generous.

But in my post 252, I provided modern archaeological research that shows that most of the island is not underwater, and is covered by modern dwellings. You know that, and yet you still claim that the island sunk. I also quoted a Christian who went to Tyre decades ago and saw for himself that most of the island is not underwater, and is covered by modern dwellings. It is I who am bored since you repeated one of your bogus arguments that I have already replied to.

You can contact the Lebanese embassy and find out for yourself that what I said is true.

You did not provide reasonable evidence that the majority of the island is underwater. Even if the majority of the island was underwater, that would not necessarily mean that God inspired the Tyre prophecy. You posted the following diagram from a website at http://sophismata.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/the-siege-of-tyre:

http://sophismata.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tyre_332bc_tyre_today.jpg?w=510

However, consider the following diagram from the same article that is just before what I just posted:

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

According to that diagram, today, the island is about the same size as it was in 332 B.C.

Few historians who are experts in military history, and few laymen other than some conservative Christian laymen, would consider it to be unusual that a single fortress on a small island was completely destroyed within 1700 years, whether or not anyone predicted that it would be destroyed within that amount of time.

Few oceanographers, and few laymen other than some conservative Christian laymen, would consider it to be unusual that maybe a fifth of a small island would become covered by water within 1700 years.

2. Or you can predict the next battle your own country which you are a citizen of (not a slave) and which is far more open than these ancient empires ever were. Making it easy by not asking for a single detail just the location of the next battle we fight.

It is amazing that even though I have easily refuted those arguments a number of times, you are still using them. Consider the following from my post 234:

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

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

Not at all. It is certainly reasonable to assume that the Hebrews, including Ezekiel, hated Tyre, and that such being the case, it would not have been a threat to Nebuchadnezzar if Ezekiel had learned by ordinary means about his plans to attack the mainland settlement.

We cannot know to what extent Ezekiel might have been accepted, and befriended by some of the Babylonians, and what they might have told him about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement. In addition, Ezekiel might have overheard some people discussing the plans.

Months of military preparations took place in Babylon before Nebuchadnezzar went to Tyre. The preparations would have been observed by many people, and would have been discussed by many people. No one living today could possibly reliably estimate how many Babylonians knew about the plans.

The writer of a blog at http://500questions.wordpress.com/20...re-ezekiel-26/ says:

"Ezekiel knew that Babylon had already conquered the Assyrians (612 BC), and was about to deal a final blow to Jerusalem
(587 BC). He also knew Babylon was in the process of incorporating most of the Eastern Mediterranean. Tyre, with its wealth and strategic ports, was an obvious target."

Those arguments are reasonable.

Your claim that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement from God is based upon hypotheticals.

3. Or to be even easier find a single prediction from anyone in history predicting an island with a fortress on it would be utterly destroyed.......

That is an utterly absurd argument. Whether or not the Tyre prophecy was inspired by God does not have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not anyone else predicted that an island with a fortress on it would be destroyed, but whether or not such an event was so unusual that God must have inspired Ezekiel to write about it, and it was not that unusual, certainly not within 1700 years.

.......and would eventually be submerged by an earthquake to a meaningful extent (or similar event).......

Yet again, most of the island is not underwater, and is covered by modern dwellings.

.......and it actually occurring regardless of the time difference.

What time difference?

This one is way too easy so I will add a single but very easy requirement. It had to be destroyed by forces that were not obviously at work in the writer's lifetime.

Yes, it is very easy, but easy for me, not for you since it was not unusual that the fortress was finally destroyed within about 1700 years.

I doubt even with today's technology it has ever been done.

If what has ever been done?

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]

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

Ezekiel 26:19 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."

Consider the following regarding that verse:

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,

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.''

Please note:

"perhaps it is to be taken in a figurative sense"

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.

Please note:

"appropriate metaphor"

(19) Bring up the deep upon thee.—With Ezekiel 26:19 begins the closing section of this prophecy, and in it the other parts are summed up and emphasised. The figurative language by which the overwhelming of Tyre is here described is again appropriate to her natural situation.

Please note:

"figurative language"

Ezekiel 26:19-21. Thus saith the Lord, When I shall make thee a desolate city — When I shall fulfil these predictions, and make thee what I now threaten to make thee; like the cities that are not inhabited — Whose walls are broken down, and whose streets are all solitary. When I shall bring up the deep upon thee — This may be understood either figuratively of Nebuchadnezzar’s army, or literally of the sea overflowing and covering a great part of the ancient seat of the city.......

Please note:

"This may be understood either figuratively.......or literally......."

You have interpreted verse 19 literally, but a number of Bible commentaries interpret it metaphorically, or figuratively, and one says that is could be interpreted either way. If Ezekiel intended for the verse to be interpreted metaphorically, there was nothing unusual about a single fortress on a small island being completely destroyed within 1700 years.

If Ezekiel intended for the verse to be interpreted literally, he did not say how much of the island would be covered by water. Historically, many islets, and small islands have become partly, or completely covered by water, but there is not any credible historical evidence that the majority of the island was ever covered by water.

The article that you quoted says:

"In addition to the military campaigns against the city, at least two major earthquakes pummeled the city, one of which 'ruined the wall surrounding the city' (p. 115).......In 1837, another earthquake pounded the remains of the city so that the streets were filled with debris from fallen houses to such a degree that they were impassable (p. 128)."

Nothing there says, or implies that the earthquakes caused a lot of, or any of the island to become covered by water.

We were discussing the island, but what you quoted was about the mainland settlement, not the island. Following are the two paragraphs preceding the paragraph that you quoted:

"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."

What you quoted is not pertinent to our discussions about the island being covered by water since what you quoted was actually part of an argument that says that "it could be the case that the bulk of Ezekiel’s prophecy dealt with the mainland city of Tyre." Regarding "the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea," the author of the article was referring to the mainland settlement, not to the island. If you wish, you can contact the author and find out for yourself that I am right.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[1robin]

But in my post 252, I provided modern archaeological research that shows that most of the island is not underwater, and is covered by modern dwellings. You know that, and yet you still claim that the island sunk. I also quoted a Christian who went to Tyre decades ago and saw for himself that most of the island is not underwater, and is covered by modern dwellings. It is I who am bored since you repeated one of your bogus arguments that I have already replied to.

You can contact the Lebanese embassy and find out for yourself that what I said is true.

You did not provide reasonable evidence that the majority of the island is underwater. Even if the majority of the island was underwater, that would not necessarily mean that God inspired the Tyre prophecy. You posted the following diagram from a website at The Siege of Tyre | Sophismata



However, consider the following diagram from the same article that is just before what I just posted:

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

According to that diagram, today, the island is about the same size as it was in 332 B.C.

Few historians who are experts in military history, and few laymen other than some conservative Christian laymen, would consider it to be unusual that a single fortress on a small island was completely destroyed within 1700 years, whether or not anyone predicted that it would be destroyed within that amount of time.

Few oceanographers, and few laymen other than some conservative Christian laymen, would consider it to be unusual that maybe a fifth of a small island would become covered by water within 1700 years.



It is amazing that even though I have easily refuted those arguments a number of times, you are still using them. Consider the following from my post 234:







Those arguments are reasonable.

Your claim that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement from God is based upon hypotheticals.



That is an utterly absurd argument. Whether or not the Tyre prophecy was inspired by God does not have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not anyone else predicted that an island with a fortress on it would be destroyed, but whether or not such an event was so unusual that God must have inspired Ezekiel to write about it, and it was not that unusual, certainly not within 1700 years.



Yet again, most of the island is not underwater, and is covered by modern dwellings.



What time difference?



Yes, it is very easy, but easy for me, not for you since it was not unusual that the fortress was finally destroyed within about 1700 years.




If what has ever been done?

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?

So despite the prodigious use of words your answer to every challenge by which you could have easily demonstrated what you claim was:

1. Nope, you can't do it.
2. Nope, you can't do it.
3. Nope, you can't do it.

Three strikes your out.

You could not do exactly what you said Ezekiel had done despite the fact I made it infinitely easier. I did not require you to supply anything but the most basic prediction. Not dozens of details that Ezekiel did. You had the advantage of technology Ezekiel would not have dreamed of, I allowed you to use anyone of the tens of billions of people that have come before us that were not biblical figures, I allowed you to use the earliest prediction you could find even it was fulfilled only yesterday. You did not even try. I actually think by sheer luck and chance you might have found one that was right by accident, but you did not.


So despite having tens of billions of chances to do something far far less demanding you produced zero. If you could not find a single example of what you claim Ezekiel did then whatever your arguments are no longer matter.

I will however address two points.

1. God is not a hypothetical. Hypotheticals are entities invented without justification to explain a thing. I have more justification for positing God as an explanation than I do for dark matter explaining the binding of galaxies.
2. Anything that disguises it's self as something else has a very important difference from what it pretends to be. It isn't what it pretends to be and given enough data and methods for examining it the truth will surely come clear. Satan may fool some for a bit but God has given us ways to see what his true nature is. Satan does not gain anything if he permanently assumed God's role. If he is darkness pretending to be light then his darkness must break through at points or he is doing himself no good. For example hundreds (maybe thousands) of kids who have played with a Ouija board. It requires a person to request a spirit guide. In countless cases these spirits bring help and true knowledge with them, so the person desires them and trusts them. Once fully established in virtually every case these spirits start tearing apart the persons life and will attempt to destroy them in the end.
3. The prophecy only requires that the fortress by heavily damaged and a significant portion of the island become submerged. It was. Today the island is largely silk that accumulated on top of rubble. At this time I don't think it possible to know accurately what percentage of the old is present. We have to go to historical records to find out and they agree with what I said and I have provided some of them.

I also recommend you look up the philosophy of composition. A thing that always performs the role of X is X. If Y is Y it must at some point act like Y and betray that it is not X.

 

[Agnostic75]

So despite the prodigious use of words your answer to every challenge by which you could have easily demonstrated what you claim was:

1. Nope, you can't do it.
2. Nope, you can't do it.
3. Nope, you can't do it.

Three strikes your out.

You could not do exactly what you said Ezekiel had done despite the fact I made it infinitely easier. I did not require you to supply anything but the most basic prediction.

We already discussed that, and I adequately refuted what you said. You said:

Or to be even easier find a single prediction from anyone in history predicting an island with a fortress on it would be utterly destroyed.......

I replied:

That is an utterly absurd argument. Whether or not the Tyre prophecy was inspired by God does not have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not anyone else predicted that an island with a fortress on it would be destroyed, but whether or not such an event was so unusual that God must have inspired Ezekiel to write about it, and it was not that unusual, certainly not within 1700 years.

What I said is true.

You claimed that I could not do what Ezekiel did, but hundreds, or thousands of people who lived in Babylon could easily have said what Ezekiel said about Nebuchadnezzar since it was common knowledge to many people. The fact that Ezekiel was a slave does not reasonably prove that he did not have access to information about Nebuchadnezzar's plans, whether first hand, by talking with other people, or by overhearing other people. Many of the preparations for the attacks happened inside the city of Babylon, and would have been seen by many people.

Regarding the final destruction of the fortress in 1291 A.D., few people of Ezekiel's time would have bothered to predict that it would be completely destroyed within 1700 years since such a possibility would not have been unusual within 1700 years. If Ezekiel had said that the fortress would be destroyed within 1700 years, surely very few people of his time, or of any time in the future, would have been impressed with a prediction like that, but that is essentially what Ezekiel predicted since he did not put a time limit on the prophecy, and even some of your own sources say that the prophecy was not completely fulfilled until 1291 A.D. and so did John A. Bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is a colleague of William Lane Craig at Biola University. Many more conservative Christians know that Ezekiel predicted that the fortress would be damaged far more than Alexander damaged it.

Surely very few military historians would be impressed with a prediction that the island fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years. I assume that most military historians would say that that was probable, or at the very least reasonably possible.

What I am able to predict today is irrelevant. All that matters is what people of Ezekiel's time, and geographic area, could have done merely by guessing if they had wanted to. If I had lived during Ezekiel's time, I would not have had any good reasons to predict that the fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years. If everyone who had seen the fortress had been asked whether or not they believed that it would be largely destroyed within 1700 years, I assume that many people would have said "yes." People who would have said "yes" would have been correct merely by guessing.

So, even though you claimed that I am not able to predict what Ezekiel predicted, I just showed you that many other people of his time would easily have been able to predict what he predicted. The only difference was that they did not have the interest to do so and write it down.

It is plausible if not probable that Ezekiel believed that the fortress would be completely destroyed long before 1291 A.D. You claimed that the time limit was only until Alexander defeated the fortress, but as I told you, if that is true, the prophecy definitely failed since at that time, the island did not look anything like a bare rock, and was useful for far more things than just the spreading of fishing nets since it was rebuilt. You basically said that after Alexander defeated the fortress, for a time it was useful only for the spreading of fishing nets, but no historical evidence supports that theory. As Arrian shows, Alexander left the fortress largely intact, and only a few breaches were made in the walls, and no breaches were made from the causeway.

I discussed the term "a bare rock" in detail in my post 306, and I showed that you do not know what you are talking about regarding that term. I quoted four Christian Bible commentaries that clearly imply that the term means far more damage than Alexander caused to the fortress.

Obviously, fishing nets were used at the mainland settlement, and at the island settlement before, and after Alexander went to Tyre, so Ezekiel must have meant that the island would become a place that was only suitable for the spreading of fishing nets. That probably did not happen until 1291 A.D. It certainly did not happen during Alexander's lifetime.

 

[1robin]

We already discussed that, and I adequately refuted what you said. You said:



I replied:



What I said is true.

You claimed that I could not do what Ezekiel did, but hundreds, or thousands of people who lived in Babylon could easily have said what Ezekiel said about Nebuchadnezzar since it was common knowledge to many people. The fact that Ezekiel was a slave does not reasonably prove that he did not have access to information about Nebuchadnezzar's plans, whether first hand, by talking with other people, or by overhearing other people. Many of the preparations for the attacks happened inside the city of Babylon, and would have been seen by many people.

Regarding the final destruction of the fortress in 1291 A.D., few people of Ezekiel's time would have bothered to predict that it would be completely destroyed within 1700 years since such a possibility would not have been unusual within 1700 years. If Ezekiel had said that the fortress would be destroyed within 1700 years, surely very few people of his time, or of any time in the future, would have been impressed with a prediction like that, but that is essentially what Ezekiel predicted since he did not put a time limit on the prophecy, and even some of your own sources say that the prophecy was not completely fulfilled until 1291 A.D. and so did John A. Bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is a colleague of William Lane Craig at Biola University. Many more conservative Christians know that Ezekiel predicted that the fortress would be damaged far more than Alexander damaged it.

Surely very few military historians would be impressed with a prediction that the island fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years. I assume that most military historians would say that that was probable, or at the very least reasonably possible.

What I am able to predict today is irrelevant. All that matters is what people of Ezekiel's time, and geographic area, could have done merely by guessing if they had wanted to. If I had lived during Ezekiel's time, I would not have had any good reasons to predict that the fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years. If everyone who had seen the fortress had been asked whether or not they believed that it would be largely destroyed within 1700 years, I assume that many people would have said "yes." People who would have said "yes" would have been correct merely by guessing.

So, even though you claimed that I am not able to predict what Ezekiel predicted, I just showed you that many other people of his time would easily have been able to predict what he predicted. The only difference was that they did not have the interest to do so and write it down.

It is plausible if not probable that Ezekiel believed that the fortress would be completely destroyed long before 1291 A.D. You claimed that the time limit was only until Alexander defeated the fortress, but as I told you, if that is true, the prophecy definitely failed since at that time, the island did not look anything like a bare rock, and was useful for far more things than just the spreading of fishing nets since it was rebuilt. You basically said that after Alexander defeated the fortress, for a time it was useful only for the spreading of fishing nets, but no historical evidence supports that theory. As Arrian shows, Alexander left the fortress largely intact, and only a few breaches were made in the walls, and no breaches were made from the causeway.

I discussed the term "a bare rock" in detail in my post 306, and I showed that you do not know what you are talking about regarding that term. I quoted four Christian Bible commentaries that clearly imply that the term means far more damage than Alexander caused to the fortress.

Obviously, fishing nets were used at the mainland settlement, and at the island settlement before, and after Alexander went to Tyre, so Ezekiel must have meant that the island would become a place that was only suitable for the spreading of fishing nets. That probably did not happen until 1291 A.D. It certainly did not happen during Alexander's lifetime.

You did not refute anything. The only thing that would have is for you to supply what was requested. You did not. No matter what you think Ezekiel predicted my request was far easier. So not doing so is evidence your theory about how he did so cannot be substantiated at all, even using billions of people as a source.

You said Ezekiel did X by method Y. I said do an infinitely easier task by method Y using as many Y's as has ever existed. You did not, so you failed to demonstrate Ezekiel did X by using Y. I hear an over weight lady warming up some where.

So you cannot do an infinitely easier version given almost inexhaustible chances so I will look at what else you said but am out of time. I actually thought you could have done what I asked by dumb luck. Guess Ezekiel was just dumb-luckier, huh?

 

[Agnostic75]

You did not refute anything. The only thing that would have is for you to supply what was requested. You did not. No matter what you think Ezekiel predicted my request was far easier. So not doing so is evidence your theory about how he did so cannot be substantiated at all, even using billions of people as a source.

You said Ezekiel did X by method Y. I said do an infinitely easier task by method Y using as many Y's as has ever existed. You did not, so you failed to demonstrate Ezekiel did X by using Y. I hear an over weight lady warming up some where.

So you cannot do an infinitely easier version given almost inexhaustible chances so I will look at what else you said but am out of time. I actually thought you could have done what I asked by dumb luck. Guess Ezekiel was just dumb-luckier, huh?

On the contrary, I easily refuted your arguments. I said:

"What I am able to predict today is irrelevant. All that matters is what people of Ezekiel's time, and geographic area, could have done merely by guessing if they had wanted to. If I had lived during Ezekiel's time, I would not have had any good reasons to predict that the fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years. If everyone who had seen the fortress had been asked whether or not they believed that it would be largely destroyed within 1700 years, I assume that many people would have said 'yes.' People who would have said 'yes' would have been correct merely by guessing."

The only reason that many people other than Ezekiel did not write down that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the mainland settlement is because they had no reason to write down what was obvious to hundreds, or thousands of people.

The only reason that many people other than Ezekiel did not write down that the fortress would be largely destroyed, by implication within 1700 years, is because they had no reason to do so.

All that I need to do is to reasonably prove that many people other than Ezekiel, who lived in his time, and geographic area had the capacity to predict what he predicted if they were interested in doing so, and I did that.

Surely many if not the majority of military historians would say that it was reasonably possible that the island fortress would be largely destroyed over 1700 years. The extensive destruction that Ezekiel predicted did not all come true until 1291 A.D. Even some of your own sources said that.

You could not do exactly what you said Ezekiel had done despite the fact I made it infinitely easier. I did not require you to supply anything but the most basic prediction. Not dozens of details that Ezekiel did. You had the advantage of technology Ezekiel would not have dreamed of, I allowed you to use anyone of the tens of billions of people that have come before us that were not biblical figures, I allowed you to use the earliest prediction you could find even it was fulfilled only yesterday. You did not even try. I actually think by sheer luck and chance you might have found one that was right by accident, but you did not.

You have lost what little credibility that you had with those utterly absurd, and irrelevant arguments. First of all, no prediction that I could make today would be relevant to the ancient island fortress of Tyre since there are not any conditions today that are similar to the conditions of the ancient fortress of Tyre.

Second, I did far better than make a basic prediction since I reasonably proved that lots of people of Ezekiel's time, and geographic area, had the capacity to predict what he predicted if they were interested in doing so.

Third, regarding "dozens of details," there is not one single detail in chapter 26 that reasonably proves that God inspires the Tyre prophecy. In my next post, I will discuss all of the verses in chapter 26.

1. Please predict any island that currently has a fortress built on it that will sink in the next 1700 years. I do not grant your 1700 year nonsense but will be generous.

2. Or you can predict the next battle your own country which you are a citizen of (not a slave) and which is far more open than these ancient empires ever were. Making it easy by not asking for a single detail just the location of the next battle we fight.

3. Or to be even easier find a single prediction from anyone in history predicting an island with a fortress on it would be utterly destroyed and would eventually be submerged by an earth quake to a meaningful extent (or similar event), and it actually occurring regardless of the time difference. This one is way too easy so I will add a single but very easy requirement. It had to be destroyed by forces that were not obviously at work in the writer's lifetime. I doubt even with today's technology it has ever been done.

That is utterly absurd even for you. Regarding item 1, you do not have to grant 1700 years since even some conservative Christians do, including some of your own sources, and John A. Bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is a colleague of William Lane Craig at Biola University. I think that Craig would agree with Bloom that the prophecy was not completely fulfilled until 1291 A.D. If you are right, the prophecy definitely failed since after Alexander defeated the island fortress, the island did not look anything like a bare rock, and was useful for far more things than just the spreading of fishing nets since it was rebuilt.

It would quite obviously be absurd for anyone living today to predict that an island that currently has a fortress on it would sink during the next 1700 years. There is not any credible evidence that the majority of the island fortress has been covered by water since the time of Ezekiel. In one of my previous posts, I quoted some Christian Bible commentaries that say that verse 19 is a metaphor, so you obviously do not have any idea what you are talking about since you do not even have arguments that are widely accepted by Bible commentaries.

Regarding item 2, the only battle that Ezekiel mentioned was the battle where Nebuchadnezzar would attack the mainland settlement, and hundreds, or thousands of people knew about that.

Regarding item 3, few people in history had any interest in writing down predictions of the destruction of an island fortress, especially within a time period of 1700 years.

Regarding earthquakes, the source that you mentioned did not say, or imply that earthquakes covered most of, or any of the island with water, and you did not provide any historical, or scientific evidence that says that earthquakes covered most of, or any of the island with water.

You said:

"It had to be destroyed by forces that were not obviously at work in the writer's lifetime. I doubt even with today's technology it has ever been done."

That does not make any sense since a time frame of 1700 years quite obviously implies that the island fortress would be destroyed by forces that were not at work during Ezekiel's lifetime. Other than Nebuchadnezzar, the forces that Ezekiel mentioned were many nations, and water. There was nothing unusual about many nations attacking the island fortress, and water is not an issue since there is not any credible evidence that most of the island was ever covered by water, and since some Bible commentaries say that verse 19 is a metaphor.

You have made many blunders in this thread that I did not mention in this post, and in my next post. For example, when I first mentioned Arrian, you said that the website that I quoted was run by idiots even though I had quoted Wikipedia as saying that Arrian is the most widely respected ancient source on Alexander. You said:

"I got the person you mentioned confused with either Diodorus or Perdiccas. I will have to review Arrian before I can comment further."

I replied:

"You couldn't have meant Diodorus since he lived during the first century A.D. Perdiccas was one of Alexander's generals. Since when was he widely known for writing what Alexander wanted to hear, if he wrote anything at all about Alexander? I checked a number of Internet references about Perdiccas, and I could not find where he wrote anything about Alexander, or anyone else."

You were either more confused than you thought you were, or you deliberately made up a bogus argument since you did not have a good rebuttal for what I quoted from Arrian. I discussed this issue in my post 209.

You said that the only reason that Alexander attacked the island fortress was because the Tyrians hung his messengers, but I told you that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers.

You said that Carthaginians founded Tyre, but Tyrians founded Carthage, and a number of other cities on the Mediterranean, and Carthage paid tribute to Tyre for many years.

You mentioned the Phoenician empire a number of times, but the Tyre prophecy is only about Tyre, not about any of the other independent Phoenician city-states.

You said that it doesn't matter if verse 12 refers only to the island fortress, but it matters a great deal to the many conservative Christians who claim that Alexander's building of the causeway fulfilled part of verse 12.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: In this post, I will show that there are not any verses in Ezekiel, chapter 26 that are impressive, and that reasonably prove that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

There is no need to discuss verses 1-2.

Verse 3 is not an issue since by the time that Ezekiel wrote the prophecy, at least several nations had attacked Tyre, and since historically, it has been common for some nations to be attacked by many other nations.

Regarding verse 4, some Christians say that it refers to both settlements, and other Christians claim that it refers only to the mainland settlement. My position is that it refers only to the island fortress since the different entity, the daughters, are mentioned two verses later in verse 6, and because verse 4 uses the pronoun "they," which you claim always means parties other than, and more than Nebuchadnezzar. Many nations did not tear down the walls of the mainland settlement since Nebuchadnezzar did that. So, it is probable that verse 4 refers only to the island fortress.

There is obviously nothing unusual about the verse since it was plausible if not probable that someone would largely damage the walls of the fortress within 1700 years.

Even some of your own sources disagree with your claim that the prophecy ended with Alexander's defeat of the island fortress, and so does John A. bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is a colleague of William Lane Craig at Biola University. I would not be surprised is Craig agrees with Bloom about all of the prophecy not being fulfilled until 1291 A.D. when the fortress was completely destroyed.

I told you that if you are right, the prophecy definitely failed since at that time, the island did not look anything like a bare rock, and was useful for far more things than just the spreading of fishing nets since it was rebuilt. You basically said that after Alexander defeated the fortress, for a time it was useful only for the spreading of fishing nets, but no historical evidence supports that theory. As Arrian shows, and as Dr. John A. Bloom concurs, Alexander left the fortress largely intact, and Arrian shows that only a few breaches were made in the walls, and no breaches were made from the causeway.

I discussed the term "a bare rock" in detail in my post 306, and I showed that you do not know what you are talking about regarding that term. I quoted four Christian Bible commentaries that clearly imply that the term means far more damage than Alexander caused to the fortress.

Obviously, fishing nets were used at the mainland settlement, and at the island settlement before, and after Alexander went to Tyre, so Ezekiel must have meant that the island would become a place that was only suitable for the spreading of fishing nets. That probably did not happen until 1291 A.D. It certainly did not happen during Alexander's lifetime.

Verse 5 mentions the spreading of nets. Obviously, fishing nets were used at the mainland settlement, and at the island settlement before, and after Alexander went to Tyre, so Ezekiel must have meant that the island would become a place that was only suitable for the spreading of fishing nets. That probably did not happen until 1291 A.D. It certainly did not happen during Alexander's lifetime.

There is no need to discuss verse 6.

Verses 7-11 refer only to Nebuchadnezzar. There is nothing unusual about the verses. Hundreds, or thousands of people knew in advance that Nebuchadnezzar was going to attack the mainland settlement. A good percentage of those people probably believed that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the settlement. That was a good bet since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king, and had a large empire.

The details in verses 7-11 are typical of the terms that many other people would have used if they had written about how they believed that Nebuchadnezzar would damage the mainland settlement. When Nebuchadnezzar left for Tyre, it is probable that some Babylonians discussed the damage that they believed Nebuchadnezzar would do to the mainland settlement in terms similar to the terms that Ezekiel used.

Regarding verse 12, many conservative Christians claim that the verse refers to both settlements, or only to the mainland settlement, and that Alexander fulfilled part of the verse when he built the causeway. However, the verse refers only to the island fortress, so Alexander's building of the causeway with debris from the mainland settlement did not fulfill part of the verse.

I refer you to my post 307 for further details regarding verse 12.

There is no need to discuss verse 13.

Verse 14 mentions "a bare rock," "fishnets," and "never be rebuilt." I have already discussed fishnets, and a bare rock. Regarding "never be rebuilt," the island fortress was rebuilt, probably completely rebuilt, and was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D. The mainland settlement was largely rebuilt, and flourished for centuries. The rebuilt settlements did not achieve their former glory, but few, if any ancient kingdoms kept their glory for 1700 years.

There is no need to discuss verses 15-18.

Verse 19 mentions "a city laid waste, like cities that are not inhabited," "when I bring up the deep over you," and "the great waters cover you."

Some Christians say that the verse is a metaphor. If Ezekiel intended for the verse to be interpreted literally, there was nothing unusual about a city being laid waste within 1700 years, and as far as we know, the island had always been inhabited since Tyre was founded, and there is not any credible evidence that most of the island has been underwater since the time of Ezekiel.

The building of the causeway is one of the main reasons why the majority of the island has never been covered by water since Ezekiel's time.

You mentioned earthquakes, but as I told you, there is not any historical evidence that earthquakes covered most of, or any of the island with water. In addition, Ezekiel did not say anything about earthquakes.

Some Bible commentaries at 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 discuss the verse. One commentary says that the verse a metaphor, which is not worth discussing since if the verse is a metaphor, that would not reasonably prove that God inspired the verse.

Another commentary says something similar.

None of the commentaries reasonably proves that God inspired the verse. No matter how you wish to interpret the verse, you cannot reasonably prove that God inspired it.

There is no need to discuss verses 20-21.

I have reasonably proven that nothing in Ezekiel, chapter 26 reasonably proves that God inspired it.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: A Christian website at "Tyre" by Robert I Bradshaw has lots of important dates for the history of Tyre. Two earthquakes are mentioned, one in 502 A.D., and one in 551 A.D., both of which occurred over 800 years after your bogus theory that the Tyre prophecy ended right after Alexander defeated the island fortress. Didn't you know that when you claimed that earthquakes damaged the island, and covered parts of it with water that they would have to occur before Alexander left Tyre in order for that to be useful for your arguments? Nebuchadnezzar left Tyre in 573 B.C. Alexander left Tyre in 332 B.C. According to your time frame, that only left 241years for earthquakes to happen and be useful for your arguments. That was just one of your many blunders.

I have not found any evidence that either of those earthquakes covered part of the island with water.

Please reply to my previous two posts.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: You said:

You could not do exactly what you said Ezekiel had done despite the fact I made it infinitely easier. I did not require you to supply anything but the most basic prediction. Not dozens of details that Ezekiel did. You had the advantage of technology Ezekiel would not have dreamed of, I allowed you to use anyone of the tens of billions of people that have come before us that were not biblical figures, I allowed you to use the earliest prediction you could find even it was fulfilled only yesterday. You did not even try. I actually think by sheer luck and chance you might have found one that was right by accident, but you did not.

In part of my reply, I said:

You have lost what little credibility that you had with those utterly absurd, and irrelevant arguments. First of all, no prediction that I could make today would be relevant to the ancient island fortress of Tyre since there are not any conditions today that are similar to the conditions of the ancient fortress of Tyre.

Since I read what you said quickly, I misunderstood what you meant. I thought that you wanted me to make a prediction, but you wanted me to find a prediction that had already been made. Well, lots of people made some accurate stock market predictions that were much less obvious than anything that Ezekiel said in chapter 26.

You ought to know that many people who have made accurate predictions that are impressive had no motivations to write down their predictions. A lack of predictions similar to the predictions that Ezekiel made only shows that very few people had any motivations to write down predictions about Tyre's future.

In one of my previous posts, I said that the main issue is not predictions that were made, but people's capacity to make predictions, and their motivations for doing so. If everyone who lived during Ezekiel's time, and in his geographic area, had been paid a lot of money to write predictions about the future of Tyre, surely many of them would have predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the mainland settlement, which was common knowledge, and if they had been asked to guess whether or not the island fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years, it is probable that some of them would have said yes.

Please reply to my previous three posts.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: You said:



In part of my reply, I said:



Since I read what you said quickly, I misunderstood what you meant. I thought that you wanted me to make a prediction, but you wanted me to find a prediction that had already been made. Well, lots of people made some accurate stock market predictions that were much less obvious than anything that Ezekiel said in chapter 26.

You ought to know that many people who have made accurate predictions that are impressive had no motivations to write down their predictions. A lack of predictions similar to the predictions that Ezekiel made only shows that very few people had any motivations to write down predictions about Tyre's future.

In one of my previous posts, I said that the main issue is not predictions that were made, but people's capacity to make predictions, and their motivations for doing so. If everyone who lived during Ezekiel's time, and in his geographic area, had been paid a lot of money to write predictions about the future of Tyre, surely many of them would have predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the mainland settlement, which was common knowledge, and if they had been asked to guess whether or not the island fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years, it is probable that some of them would have said yes.

Please reply to my previous three posts.

You are not getting out of this. You said Ezekiel either had foreknowledge gained by natural means despite being a slave in a huge empire or that he made predictions that would come true in a time frame that would satisfy the intent of the prophecy as a whole. So if that was true then I ought to be able to make the request that you provide other examples of this. I even made the details much simpler and less specific to make it easier, and allowed you to use any prediction ever made by anyone who lacked indications of its immediate occurrence. You object on several unjustifiable grounds.

1. That conditions are not the same as in Ezekiel's day. Wrong we have earthquakes, we have wars, we have flood's, islands still sink gravity has not been suspended or plate tectonics revoked. That would not matter anyway because you could have used anyone in histories predictions of an island sinking.

2. You say that people predict stock markets but they are predictions based on massive trends studied over years they are an example of what I said could not be done. Namely a prediction without any currently known indications like an island sinking in a hundred years from now, not one that is on top of a vent sinking a month from now. Besides stocks have only two options and both frequently occur. They go up or down, half of all predictions would be right regardless. That is not a parallel and you well know it.

3. You say others have made similar predictions. Where are they? You did not give an example. The most famous is Nostradamus and they are so arbitrary and generalized I could fit most into a hundred events. The same people and same standards that utterly reject him show biblical prophecy as valid. Who else do you refer to Casey, Baha'u'llah, who?

4. You object that they would not have written them down. True if they were not inspired. I don't write mine down because God did not give them to me. However if someone actually had the power to predict similar events regardless of it's source there is every motivation to do so. Book deals, TV, notoriety are but the start.

So your not off the hook by any means and I ain't budging until you back up what you claim. I was extremely generous in my terms and just by probability I bet I could do it and if you do I will drop this line of argumentation but not until then.

 

[Agnostic75]

You are not getting out of this. You said Ezekiel either had foreknowledge gained by natural means despite being a slave in a huge empire.......

I assume that very few ancient historians, or ancient military historians would say that it is not plausible that some slaves in Babylon knew that Nebuchadnezzar was going to attack the mainland settlement.

"A huge empire" does not necessarily mean that it is not plausible that some slaves in Babylon knew that Nebuchadnezzar was going to attack the mainland settlement.

You will never get anywhere with your approach without the support of a good deal of scholarship, and you do not have it. You have not quoted even one scholarly source that says, or implies that it is not plausible that some slaves in Babylon knew that Nebuchadnezzar was going to attack the mainland settlement. You are making arguments that would be typical only of some conservative Christian apologists, and even some of them would not use your arguments.

.......or that he made predictions that would come true in a time frame that would satisfy the intent of the prophecy as a whole.

What time frame are you referring to? Even some of your own sources say that the prophecy was not completely fulfilled until 1291 A.D.

 

[Agnostic75]

So if that was true then I ought to be able to make the request that you provide other examples of this. I even made the details much simpler and less specific to make it easier, and allowed you to use any prediction ever made by anyone who lacked indications of its immediate occurrence. You object on several unjustifiable grounds.

I already adequately refuted that. I said:

What I am able to predict today is irrelevant. All that matters is what people of Ezekiel's time, and geographic area, could have done merely by guessing if they had wanted to. If I had lived during Ezekiel's time, I would not have had any good reasons to predict that the fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years. If everyone who had seen the fortress had been asked whether or not they believed that it would be largely destroyed within 1700 years, I assume that some people would have said "yes." People who would have said "yes" would have been correct merely by guessing.

The only reason that many people other than Ezekiel did not write down that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the mainland settlement is because they had no reason to write down what was obvious to hundreds, or thousands of people.

The only reason that many people other than Ezekiel did not write down that the fortress would be largely destroyed, by implication within 1700 years, is because they had no reason to do so.

All that I need to do is to reasonably prove that many people other than Ezekiel, who lived in his time, and geographic area had the capacity to predict what he predicted if they were interested in doing so, and I did that.

Surely many if not the majority of military historians would say that it was reasonably possible that the island fortress would be largely destroyed over 1700 years. The extensive destruction that Ezekiel predicted did not all come true until 1291 A.D. Even some of your own sources said that.

Please note:

"All that I need to do is to reasonably prove that many people other than Ezekiel, who lived in his time, and geographic area had the capacity to predict what he predicted if they were interested in doing so, and I did that."

1. That conditions are not the same as in Ezekiel's day. Wrong we have earthquakes, we have wars, we have flood's, islands still sink gravity has not been suspended or plate tectonics revoked. That would not matter anyway because you could have used anyone in histories predictions of an island sinking.

You have accused me a number of times in various threads of repeating my arguments, and you are repeating arguments that I have adequately refuted more than once. In my post 314, I said:

Regarding earthquakes, the source that you mentioned did not say, or imply that earthquakes covered most of, or any of the island with water, and you did not provide any historical, or scientific evidence that says that earthquakes covered most of, or any of the island with water.

In my post 316, I said:

A Christian website at "Tyre" by Robert I Bradshaw has lots of important dates for the history of Tyre. Two earthquakes are mentioned, one in 502 A.D., and one in 551 A.D., both of which occurred over 800 years after your bogus theory that the Tyre prophecy ended right after Alexander defeated the island fortress. Didn't you know that when you claimed that earthquakes damaged the island, and covered parts of it with water that they would had to have occurred before Alexander left Tyre in order for that to be useful for your arguments? Nebuchadnezzar left Tyre in 573 B.C. Alexander left Tyre in 332 B.C. According to your time frame, that only left 241 years for earthquakes to happen and be useful for your arguments. That was just one of your many blunders.

What were the dates of the earthquakes that you were referring to?

In my post 312, I said:

You claimed that the time limit was only until Alexander defeated the fortress, but as I told you, if that is true, the prophecy definitely failed since at that time, the island did not look anything like a bare rock, and was useful for far more things than just the spreading of fishing nets since it was rebuilt. You basically said that after Alexander defeated the fortress, for a time it was useful only for the spreading of fishing nets, but no historical evidence supports that theory. As Arrian shows, Alexander left the fortress largely intact, and only a few breaches were made in the walls, and no breaches were made from the causeway.

Do you still claim that the prophecy was fulfilled just after Alexander defeated the island fortress?

In my post 304, I said:

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."

Some Bible commentaries at 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, discuss the verse. One commentary says that the verse a metaphor, which is not worth discussing since if the verse is a metaphor, that would not reasonably prove that God inspired the verse.

Another commentary says something similar.

Apparently, you did not even read what the Bible commentaries say. Here it is:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

"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

"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 at least one Bible commentary says that the verse is a metaphor, and another is not reasonably certain one way or the other.

At any rate, there is little doubt that earthquakes did not severely damage the island before Alexander left Tyre, which means that according to your bogus time frame, earthquakes are not an issue, and neither is the issue of the majority of the island becoming covered by water. In addition, you have not provided any credible evidence that earthquakes ever caused the majority of the island to become covered by water, but it wouldn't matter if you did unless you could reasonably prove that verse 19 is not a metaphor, and I doubt that you could.

Quite naturally, the building of the causeway would have made the island less likely to become largely covered by water, which makes it understandable that even one of your own sources shows that today, the former island is about the same size as the ancient island was.