The Tyre prophecy

[1robin]

Nebuchadnezzar most certainly did not do exactly what Ezekiel for the reasons that I already stated. I said:

Yes he did and your reasons are not true.

How about actually replying to all of what I said?

No or at least not until you bring them forward one at a time. You did not read my links and I said that was fine. I have addressed everything you stated twice in other threads and will do so again if you will bring them up a few at a time. Your tactic is to throw everything you can at the wall and hope something sticks. Whether it does or not you will copy a whole new load of stuff or repeat the same ineffectual load over and over. I am exhausted with this and no one interested in resolution debates this way. No one.

After all, in the thread on homosexuality, which is a very long thread, you usually reply to everything that I say.

I have not responded to everything in the homosexuality forum, but it was new to me and so I did cover much of it, this is not and I have done so twice already. I will even do so again but not in bulk form.

What pronouns are you talking about? I think that I have access to two skeptic Bible scholars who I can consult about whatever you say
about pronouns.

Oh brother, If you do not know then you have not studied the prophecy very much. 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 need to accomplish what it stated. It uses the singular in every single case where only what Nebuchadnezzar accomplished what was mentioned. The odds against this are astronomical unless it meant more than Nebuchadnezzar in certain cases. Not the King if Kings misunderstanding, not chance, nothing explains this except detailed intent. This is why it must be done slow and thoroughly instead of copying a bunch of stuff from someone else that is unfamiliar to the one doing it.

You said that the Tyre prophecy is complex, but it is quite simple to understand if it is assumed that the "many nations" part of the prophecy was added after it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar was not going to defeat Tyre.

Apparently not. See above, and that was the simplest part.

Even if Nebuchadnezzar did what Ezekiel said that he, and many nations would do, since all kingdoms eventually fall, and since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful conqueror, it obviously would not have taken any divine knowledge to accurately predict what Ezekiel predicted. I know that you will eventually discuss "the spreading of nets," and "like a bare rock," but you will not get anywhere with those arguments either.

He did not and that was the point. I can not even get into the gates before your misunderstandings are clouding up everything. He did not do what was required of any plurality in that prophecy. If you do not understand where he and they are used there is no reason to get into apocalyptical language use or chiastic structures. Your wanting to do calculus and partial differential equations when arithmetic is not even comprehended.

I do not wish to discuss the book of Daniel in this thread. I only mentioned it since it is an excellent example of a book that was not written only by the claimed author, and could not possibly have been written by only one man. If you wish, I will start a new thread on the book of Daniel. It only takes one false prophecy to call all other Bible prophecies into question.

That is a different issue and I we are still at go in the issue under discussion apparently.

Then we can move on to Isaiah chapter 53 in another new thread that I could start. I can easily predict in advance that you will not get anywhere debating Bible prophecy, and will not convince one single skeptic that there are any divinely inspired Bible prophecies. Some of the best arguments about Isaiah 53 are made by Jewish scholars, and Jewish amateurs. William Lane Craig has written some articles about Bible prophecy, but as far as I know, he seldom, or never debates it in public. If that is the case, that would indicate that he knows that it would be a difficult topic for him to debate with certain skeptic experts.

You have far more on your plate that you obviously can adequately deal with. This throwing everything you can copy at something is not a meaningful or helpful debate tactic and no one actually interested in the truth would do so.

If you want lets deal with the pronoun issues and who is to do what in the prophecy. If you want to go on when the first step is still misunderstood I am not interested.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The prophecy against Tyre was that it would be torn down by Nebuchadnezzar. It was not, despite a three year siege Nebud, had to back away from the mainland. It was not until Alexander the Great that it was finally taken apart, though it does exist today, as does Jericho, though the walls no longer do (Jesus mentions Jericho in the story of the Good Samiratan and at one point is said to have visited Tyre). Was it a failed prophecy who knows? That requires being able to read and understand Hebrew well enough to see if the immediacy (indicated by the use of Nebuchadnezzar), is seen in the entire of the prophecy. Taking one part is not going to be sufficient.

That being said....The issue with prophecies is that you have to accurately date the articles which claim them. Anything can look like a prophecy when written after the fact.

 

[1robin]

I am not asking you to discuss the book of Daniel now, although I will at least tell you that John J. Collins, who is one the leading, if not the leading scholar on the book of Daniel in the world, dates it to around 165 B.C. I can eventually start a new thread on that topic.

Youre not asking it, you are doing it. Apparently you are still having problems with step one in Ezekiel's prophecy. Lets get that straightened out before William lane Craig and Isaiah are butchered.

The Tyre prophecy could easily have been written by more than one author, and it could have been revised later after it became obvious that Nebuchadnezzar would not defeat Tyre. With the potential of multiple authors over several centuries, all kinds of scenarios are reasonably possible.

Is the ease of something evidence. There is not a whole lot of evidence of who wrote it but all of it is in Ezekiel's favor.

Of course, you are wasting your time discussing any Bible prophecy since I told you at another forum that if good, and evil supernatural beings exists, no mere fallible, imperfect human would be able to tell which ones are which, and which ones are the most powerful. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and deceives many people, but Paul could not have known which supernatural beings are which, or even that any good supernatural beings exist. You said that God has provided Christians with ways to tell who is who, but that is simply ridiculous since that would only be true if 1) good supernatural beings exist, and 2) if good supernatural beings are more powerful than evil supernatural beings are. You have not reasonably proven either one of those claims.

This has nothing to do with prophecy at all. You appear to not be interested in resolution, evidence, or reason. All I see is someone who thinks volume substitutes for truth. No one who seriously desires resolution does this.

The Scriptures that God has provided Christians to tell the difference between good and evil supernatural beings could just as easily have been inspired by evil supernatural beings as by God, and as I said, there might not be any good supernatural beings.

This is a repeat and has nothing to do with the thread.

So, no matter how long you spend debating Bible prophecies, I will always have a valid argument against them since evil supernatural beings who have enough power could easily predict the future, and deceive many people. If you refuse to discuss this issue, that is fine, but my arguments will still be valid.

So I see that before you even understand the first part of the first prophecy we have discussed you have stated that even if they are all true it means nothing. What are you so scared of? It appears that you are deathly afraid that if a constant barrage of anything (no matter how good or bad) is not maintained in God's direction you could accidentally get some of God on you and that is so undesirable that any effort is necessitated to prevent it. Is there any chance you can discuss any one part or two of the prophecy in question in a prophecy thread?

 

[1robin]

Of course you are right about this. But nevertheless I would like to hear how some of the defenders of this prophecy defend it.



Yes I suppose that Satan, or some other evil supernatural entity could have inspired accurate predictions, but I don't think that is the case here. And I suppose that Satan could have inspired false prophecies as well. But I see no need to resort to any supernatural explanations for anything I see in the Bible.

Not one thing here makes sense. Not one thing here is known by the one making it. It is not even consistent. Nor is it where it needs to be to be answered. I have answered this before. I will do so again, and I am certain it will be asked after that point for eternity no matter how many answers are given. I will do so anyway yet again if placed in the proper thread. This is a prophecy thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

I do not wish to discuss the book of Daniel in this thread. I only mentioned it since it is an excellent example of a book that was not written only by the claimed author, and could not possibly have been written by only one man. If you wish, I will start a new thread on the book of Daniel. It only takes one false prophecy to call all other Bible prophecies into question.

That is a different issue and I we are still at go in the issue under discussion apparently.

Of course, and I have told you that we can discuss the book of Daniel in the future, as well as Isaiah 53:5. Both of those topics are excellent examples of why no Bible prophecy is valid. The book of Daniel is perhaps one of the very best examples of questionable Bible prophecies.

Of course, you are wasting your time discussing any Bible prophecy since I told you at another forum that if good, and evil supernatural beings exists, no mere fallible, imperfect human would be able to tell which ones are which, and which ones are the most powerful. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and deceives many people, but Paul could not have known which supernatural beings are which, or even that any good supernatural beings exist. You said that God has provided Christians with ways to tell who is who, but that is simply ridiculous since that would only be true if 1) good supernatural beings exist, and 2) if good supernatural beings are more powerful than evil supernatural beings are. You have not reasonably proven either one of those claims.

This has nothing to do with prophecy at all.

On the contrary, if good, and evil supernatural beings exist, and evil supernatural beings are more powerful than good supernatural beings are, they could easily have inspired everything in the Bible, or whatever parts of it they wanted to inspire.

In what thread, and forum would you like to discuss this issue?

Even if Nebuchadnezzar did what Ezekiel said that he, and many nations would do, since all kingdoms eventually fall, and since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful conqueror, it obviously would not have taken any divine knowledge to accurately predict what Ezekiel predicted. I know that you will eventually discuss "the spreading of nets," and "like a bare rock," but you will not get anywhere with those arguments either.

He did not and that was the point.

Consider the following:

1. Since Nebuchadnezzar was a known conqueror, and Tyre was a rich nation, it was an easy guess that he would eventually attack Tyre. In addition, since such an invasion would have taken a lot of time and preparation, many people would have known about it in advance.

2. The mention of "many nations" is nothing unusual since many nations often attack many other nations.

3. No one knows how many people wrote the prophecy, and when.

4. Since all ancient kingdoms have eventually fallen, there was nothing unusual about Tyre eventually being conquered.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my previous post.

 

[1robin]

Of course, and I have told you that we can discuss the book of Daniel in the future, as well as Isaiah 53:5. Both of those topics are excellent examples of why no Bible prophecy is valid. The book of Daniel is perhaps one of the very best examples of questionable Bible prophecies.

Well, I thought I had lost you. No, those are examples where you think that. It has not and almost certainly cannot be shown to be true.

On the contrary, if good, and evil supernatural beings exist, and evil supernatural beings are more powerful than good supernatural beings are, they could easily have inspired everything in the Bible, or whatever parts of it they wanted to inspire.

In what thread, and forum would you like to discuss this issue?

Prophecy is used for two primary things. To predict what will occur in eschatology and to prove a supernatural source exists. Those would both still be true even if they were written by bad beings. However since they involve a consistent and benevolent plan of operation any reasonable person can easily conclude they are from a benevolent being.

Consider the following:

1. Since Nebuchadnezzar was a known conqueror, and Tyre was a rich nation, it was an easy guess that he would eventually attack Tyre. In addition, since such an invasion would have taken a lot of time and preparation, many people would have known about it in advance.

We are known conquerors and the Earth is filled with rich cities. I will give you 10 guesses as to what city we attack next. However your work has just begun. You must show a number of details about that attack concerning us and whatever city you pick.

I have seen the historical probability estimates for just the primary claims in that prophecy and it credited the attack its self with a one in five chance so they were very conservative. The numbers worked out to 1 chance in hundreds of thousands to get just the primary claims right by guessing.

2. The mention of "many nations" is nothing unusual since many nations often attack many other nations.

No it isn't. However every single time it took more that Nebuchadnezzar to accomplish something it employed a plural. Whenever Nebuchadnezzar alone did X it used a singular. This was true over at least a dozen claims. The chance that would happen and Alexander just happened to cooperate are basically zero. The author knew exactly what was going to be done by one king and what would take more than one in every case.

3. No one knows how many people wrote the prophecy, and when.

All the evidence adds up to Ezekiel alone and about 25 years before the first invasion. You confuse disagreement with ambiguity. There is almost never 100% agreement about anything. We go with the best evidence we have (or we do unless God is involved). It is all in Ezekiel's favor.

4. Since all ancient kingdoms have eventually fallen, there was nothing unusual about Tyre eventually being conquered.

That is not true. There still exists languages from them, bodies of men who share a cultural link to them, music that came from them. There is currently no Phoenician anything. The civilization has been completely eradicated as a distinct culture. However that was above and beyond what was predicted. The Phoenicians in Tyre were from Carthage. Carthage ruled the seas and had a huge empire. They were rich and powerful. Tyre was a world class, extremely wealthy, virtually impregnable island fortress. They angered God with comments about Israel. He then stated that one of the strongest and wealthiest fortresses would be wiped off the face of the earth, to the bedrock. Not only that but the Phoenicians would never rebuild it. I might as well predict fort Hood will be scraped from it's foundations, and never rebuilt, and it occur in a few centuries. Tyre was so strong Alexander several times almost gave it up. He was a siege master with some of the largest siege equipment ever built. He failed, failed, and failed again. He finally had to capture a Navy, get another navy rom Macedonia, hire more ships. Equip them with the first known water born siege devices and it still took a while. In fact he would have quit except for one thing. The Phoenicians hung his messengers from the walls. That is also the only thing that made Alexander perform the extreme and complete destruction predicted. He had no intention of doing what Ezekiel said until that freak event occurred. Even more remarkable it meant that Phoenicia could not rebuild it again. In fact form that point the entire Carthaginian empire began to disappear. Go ahead and do that for any city today. I will give you ten chances and you will fail. I believe Daniel predicted that Babylon would fall and never be rebuilt. That was even worse. Babylon was the most fortified city in history. It was like predicting New York would soon disappear even if it was surrounded by our entire military, and never be rebuilt. The last attempt to rebuild it occurred when Sadam Hussein tried to do so. As is usually the case when God predicts something. That was gulf war I and he failed. Combine these with over 2000 additional ones and you get almost proof (in fact it is proof of the supernatural at least).


So far this has been a slight skirmish. When are you going to really open up on Tyre.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my previous post.

I did. You have been MIA for a while. It takes a minute for me to get back to your posts.

 

[Agnostic75]

No, those are examples where you think that. It has not and almost certainly cannot be shown to be true.

On the contrary, you cannot reasonably prove that the book of Daniel was inspired by God, and was written by one person, in a single century, and you cannot reasonably prove at Isaiah 53:5 refers to Jesus.

Prophecy is used for two primary things. To predict what will occur in eschatology and to prove a supernatural source exists. Those would both still be true even if they were written by bad beings. However since they involve a consistent and benevolent plan of operation any reasonable person can easily conclude they are from a benevolent being.

Not at all since a powerful evil supernatural being could easily mimic being good as a means to deceive people. Second Corinthians 11:13-15 say:

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

Matthew 24:24 says:

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

It is an absurd notion that powerful evil supernatural beings are not able to be consistent and benevolent since by definition, evil beings with enough power are able to do anything that they want to do.

The main issue is which group of supernatural beings is the most powerful, and no mere human could reasonably know that, or even that any good supernatural beings exist.

We are known conquerors and the Earth is filled with rich cities. I will give you 10 guesses as to what city we attack next. However your work has just begun. You must show a number of details about that attack concerning us and whatever city you pick.

I have seen the historical probability estimates for just the primary claims in that prophecy and it credited the attack its self with a one in five chance so they were very conservative. The numbers worked out to 1 chance in hundreds of thousands to get just the primary claims right by guessing.

No it isn't. However every single time it took more that Nebuchadnezzar to accomplish something it employed a plural. Whenever Nebuchadnezzar alone did X it used a singular. This was true over at least a dozen claims. The chance that would happen and Alexander just happened to cooperate are basically zero. The author knew exactly what was going to be done by one king and what would take more than one in every case.

All the evidence adds up to Ezekiel alone and about 25 years before the first invasion. You confuse disagreement with ambiguity. There is almost never 100% agreement about anything. We go with the best evidence we have (or we do unless God is involved). It is all in Ezekiel's favor.

That is not true. There still exists languages from them, bodies of men who share a cultural link to them, music that came from them. There is currently no Phoenician anything. The civilization has been completely eradicated as a distinct culture. However that was above and beyond what was predicted. The Phoenicians in Tyre were from Carthage. Carthage ruled the seas and had a huge empire. They were rich and powerful. Tyre was a world class, extremely wealthy, virtually impregnable island fortress. They angered God with comments about Israel. He then stated that one of the strongest and wealthiest fortresses would be wiped off the face of the earth, to the bedrock. Not only that but the Phoenicians would never rebuild it. I might as well predict fort Hood will be scraped from it's foundations, and never rebuilt, and it occur in a few centuries. Tyre was so strong Alexander several times almost gave it up. He was a siege master with some of the largest siege equipment ever built. He failed, failed, and failed again. He finally had to capture a Navy, get another navy rom Macedonia, hire more ships. Equip them with the first known water born siege devices and it still took a while. In fact he would have quit except for one thing. The Phoenicians hung his messengers from the walls. That is also the only thing that made Alexander perform the extreme and complete destruction predicted. He had no intention of doing what Ezekiel said until that freak event occurred. Even more remarkable it meant that Phoenicia could not rebuild it again. In fact form that point the entire Carthaginian empire began to disappear. Go ahead and do that for any city today. I will give you ten chances and you will fail. I believe Daniel predicted that Babylon would fall and never be rebuilt. That was even worse. Babylon was the most fortified city in history. It was like predicting New York would soon disappear even if it was surrounded by our entire military, and never be rebuilt. The last attempt to rebuild it occurred when Sadam Hussein tried to do so. As is usually the case when God predicts something. That was gulf war I and he failed. Combine these with over 2000 additional ones and you get almost proof (in fact it is proof of the supernatural at least)

You are wasting your time. All of that is easily invalidated with the argument that you cannot reasonably prove that only Ezekiel wrote the prophecy, and that the author(s) did not write some of it before the events, and some of it after the events. Your arguments only make sense if you make a bunch of guesses, and assumptions.

Tyre had to fall sooner or later, just like all other empires, and kingdoms. Some other kingdoms were not rebuilt. Some of the mainland part of Tyre has been rebuilt.

I will be happy to discuss the Babylon prophecy with you in any thread, including a new thread that I could start. I have debated it a lot, and it is not an example of a fulfilled Bible prophecy. You criticized me for mentioning Daniel, and Isaiah 53:5, but yet you mentioned the Babylon prophecy.

 

[1robin]

The prophecy against Tyre was that it would be torn down by Nebuchadnezzar. It was not, despite a three year siege Nebud, had to back away from the mainland. It was not until Alexander the Great that it was finally taken apart, though it does exist today, as does Jericho, though the walls no longer do (Jesus mentions Jericho in the story of the Good Samiratan and at one point is said to have visited Tyre). Was it a failed prophecy who knows? That requires being able to read and understand Hebrew well enough to see if the immediacy (indicated by the use of Nebuchadnezzar), is seen in the entire of the prophecy. Taking one part is not going to be sufficient.

That being said....The issue with prophecies is that you have to accurately date the articles which claim them. Anything can look like a prophecy when written after the fact.

Every time a new person addresses this I have to start over at the top. You must pay very strict attention to pronoun shifts for the predicted events. Every one Nebuchadnezzar accomplished has a singular pronoun, or his name mentioned directly. Everything that it required more than him to accomplish has a plural associated with it. The probabilities of doing this unintentionally are so absurd as to rule that out. Documents of ancient history only have as much evidence for dating them as they do. It may be less than desired at times. In this case all of it suggests it was written a few decades before the first attack it describes. The historical markers are all correct.

BTW even that prophecy stated that Nebuchadnezzar would not succeed, that God would allow him to sack Egypt shortly after because he would not acquire enough booty at Tyre to even pay his troops. Now Tyre was a rich trading city but all the money was locked in the fortress on the Island. If Ezekiel thought he was to sack the Island why did he say he would acquire little booty and be sent to Egypt to get it?

The prophecy also states over and over that it, they, you, will not be rebuilt. God was mad at the people of Phoenician Tyre. He was not mad a coordinates on a map or the stones. He said they would never rebuild it. What someone a long time later built nearby is irrelevant. God did not judge geography, but a people and their city. It no longer exist nor ever will.

 

[1robin]

On the contrary, you cannot reasonably prove that the book of Daniel was inspired by God, and was written by one person, in a single century, and you cannot reasonably prove at Isaiah 53:5 refers to Jesus.

You keep mentioning Daniel and you keep mentioning (as I have) that is not the issue under discussion. Why? I can debate Daniels authorship and the suffering servant prophecies. I am not going to do so and discuss tyre at the same time.

Not at all since a powerful evil supernatural being could easily mimic being good as a means to deceive people. Second Corinthians 11:13-15 say:

I said the supernatural. I did not state the morality of it.

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

Matthew 24:24 says:

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

You left out many verses and you have mistaken these. It says IF it were possible. The Bible also states they will never be 100% correct. They can fake a bit and maybe even know a bit, but if 100% accurate they are from God.

It is an absurd notion that powerful evil supernatural beings are not able to be consistent and benevolent since by definition, evil beings with enough power are able to do anything that they want to do.

No it is not. God alone is omniscient. Evil beings are created without omniscience. Granting being who do not have omniscience with omniscience is what is absurd here. Nor are they all powerful. Nor are they supreme.

The main issue is which group of supernatural beings is the most powerful, and no mere human could reasonably know that, or even that any good supernatural beings exist.

What does any of this have to do with Tyre?

You are wasting your time. All of that is easily invalidated with the argument that you cannot reasonably prove that only Ezekiel wrote the prophecy, and that the author(s) did not write some of it before the events, and some of it after the events. Your arguments only make sense if you make a bunch of guesses, and assumptions.

No historical claim is ever proven. I have stated this over and over and am getting the impression the lack of understanding is intentional. All historical claims are evaluated by probability given the evidence. All the evidence is on Ezekiel's side but that is not proof, just like Caesar's, Themistocles, Homer, Thucydides, etc.... are not proven. Them only relevant standard is how god is the evidence. For ancient history it is pretty good, for modern history not so goo, for what an atheist demands nothing is good enough if God has any connection to it. Faith does not have a proof burden. Please understand this, it is getting monotonous.

Tyre had to fall sooner or later, just like all other empires, and kingdoms. Some other kingdoms were not rebuilt. Some of the mainland part of Tyre has been rebuilt.

Empires usually fall when in decline. Very few fortress city's fell in their prime, none outside the Bible with the names of their destroyers with the circumstances of their destruction. I gave you a chance to just pick the next city to be destroyed with ten chances and no details needed. I notice you ignored and deleted it.

I will be happy to discuss the Babylon prophecy with you in any thread, including a new thread that I could start. I have debated it a lot, and it is not an example of a fulfilled Bible prophecy. You criticized me for mentioning Daniel, and Isaiah 53:5, but yet you mentioned the Babylon prophecy.

That is fine. Once you do anything with Tyre or give up you can post it next.

Please reply to my two most recent replies to you in a thread at the General Religious Debates forum that is titled "The right religion."

I already have. Man, your insistent.

 

[Agnostic75]

Every time a new person addresses this I have to start over at the top. You must pay very strict attention to pronoun shifts for the predicted events. Every one Nebuchadnezzar accomplished has a singular pronoun, or his name mentioned directly. Everything that it required more than him to accomplish has a plural associated with it. The probabilities of doing this unintentionally are so absurd as to rule that out. Documents of ancient history only have as much evidence for dating them as they do. It may be less than desired at times. In this case all of it suggests it was written a few decades before the first attack it describes. The historical markers are all correct.

BTW even that prophecy stated that Nebuchadnezzar would not succeed, that God would allow him to sack Egypt shortly after because he would not acquire enough booty at Tyre to even pay his troops. Now Tyre was a rich trading city but all the money was locked in the fortress on the Island. If Ezekiel thought he was to sack the Island why did he say he would acquire little booty and be sent to Egypt to get it?

The prophecy also states over and over that it, they, you, will not be rebuilt. God was mad at the people of Phoenician Tyre. He was not mad a coordinates on a map or the stones. He said they would never rebuild it. What someone a long time later built nearby is irrelevant. God did not judge geography, but a people and their city. It no longer exist nor ever will.

That is very basic, and very easy to refute. It would have been easy for Ezekiel to write about Nebuchadnezzar after Nebuchadnezzar invaded Tyre. In addition, it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel expected Nebuchadnezzar to defeat Tyre by himself since he called him a "king of kings," and since he had a great reputation as a successful conqueror, and later added the "many nations" part to the prophecy after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

Parts of the mainland settlement were rebuilt, In my second post, which apparently you did not read, Dr. Richard Carrier said that lots of the mainland settlement was rebuilt, and flourished for many centuries, and still flourishes today.

What someone a long time later built nearby is irrelevant.

But my second post shows that parts of it were rebuilt not long after Alexander conquered it. Even if that had not happened, a number of other ancient cities were not rebuilt, none of which proves anything. Since the rebuilding part of the prophecy does not have a time limit, what someone did a long time later is definitely relevant.

 

[Agnostic75]

You left out many verses and you have mistaken these. It says IF it were possible. The Bible also states they will never be 100% correct. They can fake a bit and maybe even know a bit, but if 100% accurate they are from God.

But if evil supernatural beings were powerful enough, they could obviously do anything that they wanted to do, including doing good things in order to deceive people. In addition, if supernatural beings exist, they might all be evil.

No it is not. God alone is omniscient. Evil beings are created without omniscience. Granting being who do not have omniscience with omniscience is what is absurd here. Nor are they all powerful. Nor are they supreme.

No, if powerful evil supernatural beings exist, there is not way that any mere human would be able to reasonably prove that they are not more powerful than good ones are, or even that any good ones exist.

What does any of this have to do with Tyre?

Obviously, since evil supernatural beings with enough power would be able to predict the future.

Faith does not have a proof burden.

Then one person's faith is as good as another's.

Empires usually fall when in decline. Very few fortress city's fell in their prime, none outside the Bible with the names of their destroyers with the circumstances of their destruction.

Nope, Nebuchadnezzar's involvement could easily have been written after the fact. So could the "many nations" part of prophecy, and there is nothing unusual about many nations being involved in a conquest. There is not obvious connection between the prophecy and Alexander's conquest of the island part of Tyre.

I gave you a chance to just pick the next city to be destroyed with ten chances and no details needed. I notice you ignored and deleted it.

What are you talking about? If the prophecy was written in parts before, and after Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Tyre, that easily explains how it could have easily been written by anyone.

I have seen debates about the Tyre prophecy go on for years, and get nowhere, and this thread will be the same.

 

[1robin]

But if evil supernatural beings were powerful enough, they could obviously do anything that they wanted to do, including doing good things in order to deceive people. In addition, if supernatural beings exist, they might all be evil.

I am dealing with this in the other place you are saying it. It does not belong here.

No, if powerful evil supernatural beings exist, there is not way that any mere human would be able to reasonably prove that they are not more powerful than good ones are, or even that any good ones exist.

See the above. If you are constructing hypothetical supernatural realms then we have left relevance and meaning far behind. Cause and effect only result in one primary, uncaused, personal, omniscient, omnipotent, all powerful, being with only great making chacteristics. All others would be lesser, finite beings. See Craig for great making properties.

Obviously, since evil supernatural beings with enough power would be able to predict the future.

Is there any evidence for these supposed hypothetical beings?

Then one person's faith is as good as another's.

Not when it is wrong. In the end they will not all be treated the same.

Nope, Nebuchadnezzar's involvement could easily have been written after the fact. So could the "many nations" part of prophecy, and there is nothing unusual about many nations being involved in a conquest. There is not obvious connection between the prophecy and Alexander's conquest of the island part of Tyre.

It sure could have. All the evidence suggests it was not. I have covered the many nations thing many times. I am starting to think posting stuff makes no difference, or you are not even reading it.

What are you talking about? If the prophecy was written in parts before, and after Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Tyre, that easily explains how it could have easily been written by anyone.

You must first show the evidence that it was is better than the evidence it was not.

I have seen debates about the Tyre prophecy go on for years, and get nowhere, and this thread will be the same.

When pre-determinations and cognitive dissonance are involved then facts and evidence have no power to dissuade or convince. My job is to present the truth and evidence to the best of my ability. What is done with it is not my business. The best evidence by far suggests the prophecy was written by Ezekiel before the events and predicted more than Nebuchadnezzar's actions concerning Tyre. My job is finished.

 

[Agnostic75]

Is there any evidence for these supposed hypothetical beings?

The Bible says that good, and evil supernatural beings exist. How could the Bible writers have reliably determined that they were inspired by a good supernatural being instead of an evil one?

 

[Agnostic75]

Nope, Nebuchadnezzar's involvement could easily have been written after the fact. So could the "many nations" part of prophecy, and there is nothing unusual about many nations being involved in a conquest. There is not obvious connection between the prophecy and Alexander's conquest of the island part of Tyre.

It sure could have. All the evidence suggests it was not.

What evidence reasonably proves that Ezekiel did not write about Nebuchadnezzar after Nebuchadnezzar invaded Tyre? Even if Ezekiel wrote about Nebuchadnezzar before the invasion, that was merely a good guess since Tyre was a rich city, and since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king.

I have covered the many nations thing many times.

But there is nothing at all that is unusual about many nations attacking another nation. In addition, that part of the prophecy could easily have been added later.

You must first show the evidence that it was is better than the evidence it was not.

Not at all. Logically, all that I need to do is to reasonably prove that it is plausible that parts of the prophecy were written after the facts, and I have done that. Since Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings," it is easily plausible that he expected Nebuchadnezzar to defeat Tyre, and he certainly could plausibly have known about the invasion in advance. Ezekiel mentioned extensive destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, and said that Nebuchadnezzar's army would go down "all" of the streets of Tyre. Such claims easily make a plausible case that Ezekiel expected Nebuchadnezzar to defeat Tyre.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Tyre is a city that still stands, thus the prophecy is invalid. Along with many other's in the Bible, there is nothing to reconcile or debate with sincere honesty. One would have to dance around a bush naked to avoid the failure of this prophecy.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Tyre is a city that still stands, thus the prophecy is invalid. Along with many other's in the Bible, there is nothing to reconcile or debate honestly

Jericho has been rebuilt

The Nile has not run dry

and Egypt is still kicking...however there are no fleshly Edomites left.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Jericho has been rebuilt

The Nile has not run dry

and Egypt is still kicking...however there are no fleshly Edomites left.

This pretty much sums up Biblical prophecies in a nutshell. Sources of water naturally run dry often and nations naturally crumble and they are also naturally rebuilt.

A prophecy must involve a miraculous claim because if not then I am a far better prophet than any supposed prophet in the Bible.

 

[1robin]

What evidence reasonably proves that Ezekiel did not write about Nebuchadnezzar after Nebuchadnezzar invaded Tyre? Even if Ezekiel wrote about Nebuchadnezzar before the invasion, that was merely a good guess since Tyre was a rich city, and since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king.

Faith's burden is not reasonable proof. That is a legal burden. Faith must show that evidence exists for X or that the same source that has been shown reliable for Y has been used for X. It must not contradict reliable evidence. That is it. I have not looked into the evidence in a while. It had purposes that were time sensitive (concerned with things of a well known captivity, internal dating with no reason to deny it, historical markers - for instance he did not mention lasers or the Ming dynasty, etc..... I will copy a few things since it has been a while since I got into this aspect.

Ezekiel’s prophetic message is one of the easiest to place in an accurate time frame. In verse 2 of the first chapter, the prophet noted that his visions and prophecies began “in the fifth year of King Johoiachin’s captivity.” The date for this captivity is virtually unanimously accepted as 597 [SIZE=-1]B.C.[/SIZE] during the second deportation of citizens from Judea to Babylon, which is documented in detail in 2 Kings 24:10-20. Furthermore, not only is the deportation recorded in the biblical account, but the ancient Chaldean records document it as well (Free and Vos, 1992, p. 194). Since Ezekiel’s visions began five years after the deportation, then a firm date of 592 [SIZE=-1]B.C.[/SIZE] can be established for the beginning of his prophecy. The prophet supplies other specific dates such as the seventh year (20:1), the ninth year (24:1), the eleventh year (26:1), and the latest date given as the twenty-seventh year (29:17) [Note: for an outline see Archer, 1974, pp. 368-369].
Due to the firmly established dating system that Ezekiel chose to use for his prophecy, the date of the prophecy regarding the city of Tyre, found in chapter 26, can be accurately established as the eleventh year after 597, which would be 586 [SIZE=-1]B.C.[/SIZE]
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790


An unusual feature of these oracles in Ezekiel is that they are dated, rather than simply being stereotyped and stylized generic judgment speeches. This relates these prophetic oracles to particular historical circumstances, which also explains why so many of them are very specific in terms of historical predictions. Ezekiel was clearly interpreting history as it was unfolding in front of him in light of what he understood about God.
The oracles fall between 588 and 586 BC, with one dated 571 BC. This was an extremely traumatic and pivotal time in Israel’s history. There was a lot happening, but a brief summary will serve our purpose (see The Rise of Babylon and Exile). The Babylonians had consolidated their empire through a series of strong leaders, and were in the process of incorporating most of the Eastern Mediterranean into that empire, with dreams of extending their control into Egypt.
Ezekiel and the Oracles Against Tyre

Life and times of Ezekiel[edit]

The Book of Ezekiel describes itself as the words of the Ezekiel ben-Buzi, a priest living in exile in the city of Babylon between 593 and 571. Most scholars today accept the basic authenticity of the book
But there is nothing at all that is unusual about many nations attacking another nation. In addition, that part of the prophecy could easily have been added later.
The Book of Ezekiel is the third of the Major Prophets in the Tanakh and one of the major prophetic books in the Old Testament, following the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah.[1] According to the book itself, it records seven visions of the prophet Ezekiel, exiled in Babylon, during the 22 years from 593 to 571 BC. The visions, and the book, are structured around three themes: (1) judgment on Israel (chapters 1–24); (2) judgment on the nations (chapters 25–32); (3) and future blessings for Israel (chapters 33–48).[2]
Book of Ezekiel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continued: