The Tyre prophecy

[1robin]

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, and you have not said anything that reasonably proves that it is not plausible that parts of the prophecy were not written after the facts. It is well-known that in debates, plausibility is all that is needed to support a position, not probability. It is very well-known that one of the most important things that prophecy advocates need to do at the very start of a discussion about a prophecy is to reasonably prove that it was written before the events.

Not when the earliest authority and the one with by far the most access claimed it to be written by him and at a certain date. In historical studies contemporary claims are valid until a sufficient level of evidence exists to over turn it. You are having sever burden confusion here.

1. Faith requires enough evidence to permit belief unless certain evidence must be denied.
2. History requires that the earliest source is the best until you have sufficient evidence to over turn it. It also is not a prove or fail burden. It simply takes a set of evidence and examines the strength of differing explanations. Is this better than that or how good is that.

There is no proof of fail, or plausible deniability standard in either of them, ever.

Since Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings," it is easily plausible that he expected Nebuchadnezzar to defeat Tyre.

No it is not. Because the plural pronouns should have applied to what he did then instead of only applying to what he plus another actually did. It also does not make sense for Ezekiel to say that he would not have enough wealth to pay his men if he thought he would take the Fortress where all the vast amounts of money existed. Please see both of these links because you are ignoring stuff faster that I can post it.

This one is great for the pronoun shift issue and the role of who is to do what.
Ezekiel's Tyre Prophecy Defended

This one covers the probability concerning getting that stuff right by accident. I do not claim it is anything other than a ballpark figure that shows only what end of the pool we are talking about.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]TYRE PROPHECY PROBABILITY[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Ken DeMyer[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](Investigator 111, 2006 November)[/FONT]


[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]In his book Science Speaks Professor Peter W. Stoner defended various Bible prophecies vis a vis their odds of fullfillment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The book was reviewed by the American Scientific Affiliation who found "The mathematical analysis included is based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound and Professor Stoner has applied these principles in a proper and convincing way." (Forward to Science Speaks)[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]He looks at prophecies concerning Bible cities/places (Tyre, Samaria, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jerusalem, Moab, Amon, Jericho, etc). The book was made well known by Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict which is a well known Christian apologetic. Now what made Professor Stoner's work convincing to me is that he assigns odds of certain aspects of a prophecy being fulfilled in order to come up with a probability for the whole prophecy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]For example, I cite this excerpt from Science Speaks concerning the Tyre prophecy: [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]What chance did Ezekiel have of knowing that Nebuchadnezzar would, in his conquering of Tyre, not completely fulfill the prophecy of destruction, but other nations would later come in and complete the fulfillment? The indications in the time of Ezekiel certainly were that when Nebuchadnezzar took a city he was quite capable of completing the destruction himself, so the estimate was placed at one in five...[/FONT] [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]What chance did Ezekiel have of knowing that Tyre would be made flat like the top of a rock, after it was conquered? How many cities have been made flat like the top of a rock after being conquered? The sites of nearly all ancient cities are marked by mounds of accumulated debris. I do not know of any other city where the ruins have been so completely cleared away, so the estimate of one in five hundred was chosen...[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The chance then of Ezekiel writing this prophecy from his own knowledge, and having it all come true, is 1 in 3 x 5 x 500 x 10 x 10 x 5 x 20. This is 1 in 75,000,000.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](From the online version of Science Speaks. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]www.geocities.com/stonerdon/science_speaks.html#c8 ) [/FONT]


[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]If readers wish to see how Professor Stoner arrived at his 1 in 75,000,000 figure I recommend looking at the online book or obtaining a print copy.[/FONT] [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]By the way according to Evidence that Demands a Verdict the new city of Tyre (fishing village I believe) is not built on the old city of Tyre but is built nearby.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]To my knowledge no skeptic has challenged Professor Stoner's work in terms of trying to refute his probability reasoning. Given that Josh McDowell made Professor Stoner's work well known I don't think the skeptics have a good excuse for not tackling it. [/FONT]




[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]WHAT LIES BEHIND[/SIZE] [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]BIBLICAL PROPHECY?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]John H Williams[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](Investigator 117, 2007 November)[/FONT]



[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]In Investigator 111, Ken DeMeyer offered "Tyre Prophecy Probability", and it raises the issue of the chancy business of prediction.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]An article in The Australian (25/10/06) referred to one of the world's best-known demographers, Paul Ehrlich, the author of The Population Bomb (1968). During the 1970s I ‘taught' some of his ‘predictions', given as startlingly dramatic warnings of scary doomsday scenarios, a guaranteed way to attract attention and sell a lot of books! [/FONT]

• [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]In the 1970/80s, hundreds of millions would starve to death.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]USA's population would decline and life expectancy would drop to 42 years by 1990, due to "pesticide usage."[/FONT]
• [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Population growth would overtake food and minerals.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]England (UK?) wouldn't exist by 2000 (now 60.2 million)![/FONT]

Tyre Prophecy Probability

 

[Agnostic75]

Ezekiel’s prophetic message is one of the easiest to place in an accurate time frame.

Absolutely not. You have not provided any evidence at all that reasonably proves Ezekiel wrote what he said about Nebuchadnezzar before the invasion. Even if he did, so what since all that that would reasonably prove is that Ezekiel expected Nebuchadnezzar to defeat Tyre, which would have been a good guess at the time. It certainly was a good guess for Nebuchadnezzar, and his generals, or he would not have tried to defeat Tyre. It is much more important whether or not the "many nations" part of the prophecy was written, and it is plausible that it was written after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

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

You are wasting your time since none of that reasonably proves that the "many nations" part of the prophecy was not written after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

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.

 

[1robin]

Absolutely not. You have not provided any evidence at all that reasonably proves Ezekiel wrote what he said about Nebuchadnezzar before the invasion. Even if he did, so what since all that that would reasonably prove is that Ezekiel expected Nebuchadnezzar to defeat Tyre, which would have been a good guess at the time. It certainly was a good guess for Nebuchadnezzar, and his generals, or he would not have tried to defeat Tyre. It is much more important whether or not the "many nations" part of the prophecy was written, and it is plausible that it was written after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

And for the 3rd time. I do not have to prove anything. I have the faith position and it's burdens only. You are not ever reading my posts are you?

You are wasting your time since none of that reasonably proves that the "many nations" part of the prophecy was not written after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

See above.

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.

See above. You MUST prove your evidence that he did not write it is better than the evidence that he did. Good luck. You have extreme burden confusion. Plausible deniability standards do not exist in historical claims. Your entire work is still before you. All this stuff is a detour.

There is also no way you even skimmed those links and what they claimed.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

See above. You MUST prove your evidence that he did not write it is better than the evidence that he did.

No, plausibility. not proof. I already easily showed that it is plausible that 1) Ezekiel knew about the invasion in advance, possibly from spies, or made a logical guess because of Nebuchadnezzar's impressive reputation as a conqueror, that 2) Ezekiel expected Nebuchadnezzar to defeat Tyre, and that 3) the "many nations" part of the prophecy was added after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

Good luck. You have extreme burden confusion.

Not at all, I gave my reasons, and you have not directly replied to what I said.

Plausible deniability standards do not exist in historical claims.

On the contrary, they have to since proof is seldom possible.

I said:

"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."

That is why the "many nations" part of the prophecy was plausibly, or probably added after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre. Probalby is a better word. I only used plausibly in order to be generous.

 

[1robin]

No, plausibility. not proof. I already easily showed that it is plausible that 1) Ezekiel knew about the invasion in advance, possibly from spies, or made a logical guess because of Nebuchadnezzar's impressive reputation as a conqueror, that 2) Ezekiel expected Nebuchadnezzar to defeat Tyre, and that 3) the "many nations" part of the prophecy was added after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

Plausibility is not the criteria any historical claim is officially resolved to. This ain't myth busters. An infinite number of things are plausible. You must show your claim is based on better evidence than mine.

Not at all, I gave my reasons, and you have not directly replied to what I said.

Because what you stated is based on flawed standards and burdens. I am sure atheists have strained every cell in their body to cough up some evidence to suggest every letter in the Bible is wrong. You must show your conclusions is based on better evidence and reasoning than mine. Showing it possible does nothing.

On the contrary, they have to since proof is seldom possible.

I said:

"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."

That is why the "many nations" part of the prophecy was plausibly, or probably added after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

This is incorrect. A historical claim is never ever defeated by claiming another one is not impossible. I can construct plausible alternatives to every accepted historical claim there is. I do not do so because that is not how historical claims are resolved. Your hypothesis MUST be better than mine, not just theoretically possible (and I even doubt it was).

Historical claims are evaluated to probability. If X has a higher degree of reliability that Y then we go with X. We do not go with X because it is possible. Unless that is if a non-theist uses it to contend with God. In that case the rules that apply everywhere else are null and void (or so they wish anyway).

 

[Agnostic75]

I said:

"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."

That is why the "many nations" part of the prophecy was plausibly, or probably added after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

This is incorrect. A historical claim is never ever defeated by claiming another one is not impossible. I can construct plausible alternatives to every accepted historical claim there is. I do not do so because that is not how historical claims are resolved. Your hypothesis MUST be better than mine, not just theoretically possible (and I even doubt it was).

Historical claims are evaluated to probability. If X has a higher degree of reliability that Y then we go with X. We do not go with X because it is possible. Unless that is if a non-theist uses it to contend with God. In that case the rules that apply everywhere else are null and void (or so they wish anyway).

First of all, a higher probability does not necessarily mean evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, so you need a lot better evidence than what you have provided so far. Obviously, an argument can be better than another argument is, but still not be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Second, I provided evidence that my arguments are better than yours are. I said:

"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. That is why the 'many nations' part of the prophecy was plausibly, or probably added after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre."

You have not said anything that reasonably proves that your arguments are better than those arguments are. If you think that you can refute those arguments, please do so, and please be specific and stop refusing to directly reply to what I say.

At least a large percentage of Christian prophecy advocates accept the Tyre prophecy, and all other prophecies by faith, not because all individuals prophecies can stand on their own merits without being associated with any other prophecies. The Tyre prophecy cannot stand on its own merits. As I have shown, even if some of it is dated around the time of Ezekiel, that does not necessarily mean that all of it is, especially the part about "many nations." That part was probably added after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre for reasons that I have already stated.

If you wish, now I can start a new thread on the book of Daniel, and another one on Isaiah chapter 53. Both issues will require extensive debating, much more so than this thread. Or, if you wish. we can waste some more time in this thread, and you can continue to claim that you won the debate when you didn't.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[1robin]

First of all, a higher probability does not necessarily mean evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, so you need a lot better evidence than what you have provided so far. Obviously, an argument can be better than another argument is, but still not be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Would you please stop with this reasonable proof or reasonable doubt criteria. It does not apply to historical or theological claims. I have told you this at least 4 times and even gave what the burden actually is about 4 times. Yet every post uses the same inapplicable burdens to judge by.

Second, I provided evidence that my arguments are better than yours are. I said:

"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. That is why the 'many nations' part of the prophecy was plausibly, or probably added after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre."

That argument has been completely refuted several times. I will post it once more but this redundancy thing is ridiculous.

1. The chance the pronoun shifts would assign only the acts Nebuchadnezzar accomplished with a singular, and what it took more people to accomplish with a plural, by accident is mathematically absurd. There is at best a 1 in several ten thousands chance you can be right.
2. Ezekiel said Nebuchadnezzar would not receive enough loot to pay his troops. The fortress Island was covered in money. He knew that his singular Nebuchadnezzar would not take the Island. That is why he predicted he would be allowed to sack Egypt.

Given those two things there is no possibility (or virtually none) that your claim is right. I even gave a link that dealt in detail with that specific claim. You are not reading my posts or links are you?

You have not said anything that reasonably proves that your arguments are better than those arguments are. If you think that you can refute those arguments, please do so, and please be specific and stop refusing to directly reply to what I say.

I just did. All the evidence is on my side. You have none on yours. The only thing you have is speculation with no reason, and silence. I have given links to the evidence for when and by who it was written. I have given links and posted numerous times why the pronoun shifts can't be accidental, plus links to far more exhaustive studies into other factors that show Ezekiel meant more than one force for certain actions. One being that Ezekiel knew the Babylonian army did not have siege equipment that could take the island. Even Alexander's massive siege engines took forever to get through it walls. Another being cultural language use. Another being that he said Nebuchadnezzar would not get much money from his expedition even though Tyre was a filthy rich place. It just goes on and on and on.

At least a large percentage of Christian prophecy advocates accept the Tyre prophecy, and all other prophecies by faith, not because all individuals prophecies can stand on their own merits without being associated with any other prophecies. The Tyre prophecy cannot stand on its own merits. As I have shown, even if some of it is dated around the time of Ezekiel, that does not necessarily mean that all of it is, especially the part about "many nations." That part was probably added after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre for reasons that I have already stated.

I do not care what you think other peoples motivations are. This prophecy stands on its own merits. So far you have not given a BETTER interpretation of the prophecy. It has been 100% speculation and the absurd demand that unless I prove your wrong you are right. That is not how this works and there are teams of Christian archeologists all over the holy land digging for the truth. They are some of the most skeptical people of any faith. For example the most skeptical people on earth about supernatural events are the Catholics. Even when secular doctors start to believe that demons might be involved the Catholics still have batteries of tests before the case can even be submitted for consideration in Rome.

If you wish, now I can start a new thread on the book of Daniel, and another one on Isaiah chapter 53. Both issues will require extensive debating, much more so than this thread. Or, if you wish. we can waste some more time in this thread, and you can continue to claim that you won the debate when you didn't.

You have not gotten anywhere here yet. I don't want new threads where false burdens and speculations are used to contend with evidence. We have not yet scratched the surface of Tyre because the very foundations of your arguments are invalid. You are not right until I prove you wrong. I have come very close to doing so anyway. Historical claims are not evaluated by a reasonable proof standard. We can't construct a building because your foundations are crumbling. I see little evidence your reading my posts, or that you have looked into the links.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Let's start over, and take each issue one at a time. What evidence do you have that Ezekiel needed God's help in order to know that Nebuchadnezzar would attack Tyre? Many people would have known about the invasion months in advance.

Since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king, surely Ezekiel was not the only person who predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack, and seriously damage Tyre.

What evidence do you have that Ezekiel did not write what he wrote about Nebuchadnezzar after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre?

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Let's start over, and take each issue one at a time. What evidence do you have that Ezekiel needed God's help in order to know that Nebuchadnezzar would attack Tyre? Many people would have known about the invasion months in advance.

Since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king, surely Ezekiel was not the only person who predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack, and seriously damage Tyre.

What evidence do you have that Ezekiel did not write what he wrote about Nebuchadnezzar after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre?

I am all kinds of hung up today so I will be brief.

1. Even these days with internet, reporters imbedded in a leaders back pocket, and spy satellites I would bet you cannot tell me what nation will attack what nation next that is not currently fighting.
2. Even if Ezekiel did not need God's help to know he would attack the region of Tyre he would have to have it to get every singular action applied to him exactly right, and every pluralistic action done by him plus another leader.
3. I gave you a very rough estimate made using the probability he could have gotten all those predictions right by chance. I think it was 1 in hundreds of thousands and even if you took out for the unlikely fact that he as a captive knew the Kings plans you would still have 1 in tens of thousands and I thought the math at that site was very generous.
4. If that prophecy only stated that Nebuchadnezzar would attack a city in the Tyre region I would not have thought it too remarkable. I would grant it could have been possible for Ezekiel to have over heard plans of some sort. It is the additional predictions that turn an interesting prediction into something that without God would have been a logical impossibility.

I can grant (just guessing) a 50/50 chance Ezekiel could have know Nebuchadnezzar's intention to attack Tyre. I think that is a reasonable and conservative conclusion. If it stopped there it would be nothing more than interesting. It's the rest that is astonishing.

I know of no other documents written before the attack that predicted it but there very well may be some.

Ezekiel's prophecy is one of the most easy to date using historical markers, referenced dating goal posts, and purpose.

Predictive prophecy stands as one of the most viable proofs of the Bible’s divine inspiration. Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the city of Tyre provides an excellent example of such evidence.
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

I noticed you said one thing at a time and then asked about three subjects.
Another thing. Let's pretend there is reasonable evidence knew a few general details in advance. That does nothing to explain how he knew the exact conditions and events that would end Tyre's great power in the region and nothing to effect the other 2499 prophecies in the Bible. Even being hyper skeptical will not allow the dismissal of that much rich and predictive detail.

 

[Agnostic75]

1. Even these days with internet, reporters imbedded in a leaders back pocket, and spy satellites I would bet you cannot tell me what nation will attack what nation next that is not currently fighting.

But many people knew about the attack before it happened. In addition, spies could have told Ezekiel about the plan. Further, Ezekiel could have written about the attack after it happened.

2. Even if Ezekiel did not need God's help to know he would attack the region of Tyre he would have to have it to get every singular action applied to him exactly right, and every pluralistic action done by him plus another leader.

First of all, Ezekiel's comments that Nebuchadnezzar would go down all of the streets of Tyre and cause extensive damage was not at all unusual since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful conqueror. Second, Ezekiel could have written about the attacks after Nebuchadnezzar gave up and went home.

As far as other leaders are concerned, history shows that many nations have often attacked many other nations.

3. I gave you a very rough estimate made using the probability he could have gotten all those predictions right by chance. I think it was 1 in hundreds of thousands and even if you took out for the unlikely fact that he as a captive knew the Kings plans you would still have 1 in tens of thousands and I thought the math at that site was very generous.

That is absurd. First of all, you cannot claim that anything is a prediction unless you can first reasonably prove that it was made before the facts. Some of Ezekiel 26 could have been made before the facts, some could have been made after the facts, and some could have been changer years later. Second, there is nothing at all unusual at all about anyone predicting that Nebuchadnezzar would attack Tyre since hundreds of people would have known about it months in advance. Third, historically, since many nations have often attacked many other nations, there is nothing at all unusual about the mention of many nations.

4. If that prophecy only stated that Nebuchadnezzar would attack a city in the Tyre region I would not have thought it too remarkable. I would grant it could have been possible for Ezekiel to have over heard plans of some sort. It is the additional predictions that turn an interesting prediction into something that without God would have been a logical impossibility.

Not at all. For example, verse 14 says:

"And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God."

There is nothing there that indicates divine inspiration. Parts of the mainland settlement were rebuilt. The island fortress could easily have been rebuilt if there had been the interest, and the money, at any subsequent time. A good number of former kingdoms were never rebuilt to anyone near their former greatness.

Great kingdoms rising and falling is just normal history, and Ezekiel did not put any time limits on his predictions.

I know of no other documents written before the attack that predicted it but there very well may be some.

That is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not God inspired the prophecy. In addition, you have not reasonably proven that all of the predictions were made before the facts, and that none of the original prophecy was changed.

Ezekiel's prophecy is one of the most easy to date using historical markers, referenced dating goal posts, and purpose.

You have already admitted that dating is not an issue regarding Nebuchadnezzar's involvement. There is nothing at all unusual about anyone predicting, before, or after the facts, that many nations would attack another nation, and that eventually, the other nation would be defeated.

Predictive prophecy stands as one of the most viable proofs of the Bible’s divine inspiration. Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the city of Tyre provides an excellent example of such evidence.

Not at all. Prophecy is one of the best reasons why people should reject the Bible. There are numerous examples of this regarding many prophecies, including the book of Daniel, which has lots of excellent evidence that is was not written by one person, and in one century. I will start a new thread on the book of Daniel soon. Many historians question its authenticity.

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]
[URL]https://www.apologeticspress.org/apc...3&article=1790[/URL]

None of that reasonably proves that God inspired the prophecy, and what you discussed is mere secular history. The book of Acts also has some secular history that is probably true, but that has nothing to do with divine inspiration.

Please reply to my most recent three posts in the thread on homosexuality, and please reply to my post #3931 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/117299-right-religion-394.html#post3570510 at the General Religious Debates forum.

 

[Agnostic75]

Even these days with internet, reporters imbedded in a leaders back pocket, and spy satellites I would bet you cannot tell me what nation will attack what nation next that is not currently fighting.

But many people knew about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack Tyre months before it happened, and Ezekiel, and many other people, could easily have learned about it by ordinary means. In addition, it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel wrote about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks against Tyre after the fact.

Even if Ezekiel did not need God's help to know he would attack the region of Tyre he would have to have it to get every singular action applied to him exactly right, and every pluralistic action done by him plus another leader.

That is ridiculous. Without any prophecies about Tyre at all, it was a given that eventually, many nations would attack Tyre, or any other nation. Only Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned by name, and many people other than Ezekiel knew about the attacks before they happened. Regarding the details of the attacks, that could have been written after the facts. Even if they were written before the facts, since Nebuchadnezzar was a great conqueror, and Ezekiel called him a "king of kings," it was a reasonable guess at the time that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar, and his advisers, certainly thought that it was a reasonable guess, and so did many other people in the region.

I gave you a very rough estimate made using the probability he could have gotten all those predictions right by chance. I think it was 1 in hundreds of thousands and even if you took out for the unlikely fact that he as a captive knew the Kings plans you would still have 1 in tens of thousands and I thought the math at that site was very generous.

It is truly amazing that you try to get away with such absurd claims. The odds are at least 50-50 that Ezekiel could have learned about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks in advance by ordinary means. The odds are at least 90% that at some time in history, many nations would attack Tyre, and that eventually, it would be defeated. Much of mainland Tyre was rebuilt, and many people still live there. Tyre was not rebuilt to its former glory, but some empires were not rebuilt at all, so the claim that Tyre would not be rebuilt is not an issue.

If that prophecy only stated that Nebuchadnezzar would attack a city in the Tyre region I would not have thought it too remarkable. I would grant it could have been possible for Ezekiel to have over heard plans of some sort. It is the additional predictions that turn an interesting prediction into something that without God would have been a logical impossibility.

Not at all. For example, Ezekiel 26:14 says:

"And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God."

There is nothing there that indicates divine inspiration. Parts of the mainland settlement were rebuilt. The island fortress could easily have been rebuilt if there had been the interest, and the money, at any subsequent time. A good number of former kingdoms were never rebuilt to anyone near their former greatness.

Great kingdoms rising and falling is just normal history, and Ezekiel did not put any time limits on his predictions.

Ezekiel's prophecy is one of the most easy to date using historical markers, referenced dating goal posts, and purpose.

Predictive prophecy stands as one of the most viable proofs of the Bible’s divine inspiration. Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the city of Tyre provides an excellent example of such evidence.

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

Dating when the prophecy was written is one of the main issues, certainly not when the events happened. When King Johoiachin did something does not have anything at all to do with whether or not God inspired the Tyre prophecy, and when the prophecy was written. Many Bible characters existed, but that does not have anything at all to do with whether or not God inspired the Bible. Many religious books mix probably accurate secular history with false supernatural claims.

And of course, you cannot reasonably prove that evil supernatural beings did not inspire the Bible. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but since Paul was a mere imperfect, fallible human, an evil supernatural being with enough power could easily have deceived him. So all that you really have is faith. You said that the Bible says that God gives Christians the ability to discern the truth, but you cannot reasonably prove that Satan did not inspire that Scripture.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Tyre was an Assyrian hub, it was a valuable asset to be attacked and potentially conquered. It wouldn't take a prophecy for people to know that a man bent on conquering the known world would not go for it.

 

[1robin]

Tyre was an Assyrian hub, it was a valuable asset to be attacked and potentially conquered. It wouldn't take a prophecy for people to know that a man bent on conquering the known world would not go for it.

That prophecy contains 90% details of what and who would do what and what the results would be. If the Tyre prophecy only stated that Babylon's king would attack Tyre it would at best be a passing interest. It is the exhaustive detail hat takes it to a miraculous level. The probability just his main predictions would come true even with inside information have been put at 1 in tens of thousands. The other 90% (plus the other prophecies that tie into it) of the prophecy must be evaluated if a relevant appraisal is to be made or desired.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That prophecy contains 90% details of what and who would do what and what the results would be. If the Tyre prophecy only stated that Babylon's king would attack Tyre it would at best be a passing interest. It is the exhaustive detail hat takes it to a miraculous level. The probability just his main predictions would come true even with inside information have been put at 1 in tens of thousands. The other 90% (plus the other prophecies that tie into it) of the prophecy must be evaluated if a relevant appraisal is to be made or desired.

Right if you agree on several premises

1. The prophecy was written before it occurred

2. The Prophecy speaks of multiple attacks (which is not agreed upon), rather than one by King Neb.

 

[1robin]

But many people knew about the attack before it happened. In addition, spies could have told Ezekiel about the plan. Further, Ezekiel could have written about the attack after it happened.

No one knew about the 90% of the prophecy that concerned details of the attack and I doubt a Hebrew captive knew about the attacks intended target but he could have. Ezekiel could have written about it afterwards but every test that can be applied to Ezekiel puts it reliably before the attack. Hypotheticals without any evidence and contradictory to the evidence are not an argument.

First of all, Ezekiel's comments that Nebuchadnezzar would go down all of the streets of Tyre and cause extensive damage was not at all unusual since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful conqueror. Second, Ezekiel could have written about the attacks after Nebuchadnezzar gave up and went home.

That is not what the evidence suggests. In every way the document can be dated it points to being completed about a year before the first campaign. Of course he could have known the destruction would be major but he could not have known dozens of details like he fact the most powerful army of Earth could not take the Island but would destroy some of it's towers using siege ramps or that he would not find enough money to pay his troops and attack Egypt to acquire it, etc... If we were to need to discuss everything that is not impossible we would never get a tiny fraction of that done. You do not contend with established claims with "maybe's and possibly's). You do so with evidence not hypotheticals.

As far as other leaders are concerned, history shows that many nations have often attacked many other nations.

History has never shown a perfect shift in pronouns in a prediction between what each nation would accomplish and it come true. He di not say that nations will attack other nations. He said who would do what and in fact he just keeps going through what would happen to Alexander's army once he died and just keeps rolling the details out there. There is no parallel to the Bible's prophecy in history.

That is absurd. First of all, you cannot claim that anything is a prediction unless you can first reasonably prove that it was made before the facts. Some of Ezekiel 26 could have been made before the facts, some could have been made after the facts, and some could have been changer years later. Second, there is nothing at all unusual at all about anyone predicting that Nebuchadnezzar would attack Tyre since hundreds of people would have known about it months in advance. Third, historically, since many nations have often attacked many other nations, there is nothing at all unusual about the mention of many nations.

Good grief. Look at what you did here so far.

1. You supposed and hypothesized (in fact that is all you did) about maybe Ezekiel wrote this then and that later, etc...
2. You did this even though you had to contradict all the evidence there is, and you have none at all.
3. Then you turn around and say I can't claim prediction about a prophecy unless I can prove it came at a certain date.
a. Nothing in history is ever proven. It is determined to a probability. This is your false burdens on steroids again.
b. All the evidence is on my side.

When I start seeing a complete reliance on double standards, hypotheticals, and false burdens I conclude the person has no actual case but instead has a preference in search of a justification.

I supplied the rough estimates using probabilistic calculus and statistical method that concluded the probability he would have been right about the details as 1 in tens of thousands. You can't do it for similar events. I can't do it, even though I am a veteran and work in the defense industry. Professional historians and military planners can't even do it about their own battles. No one without God can even come close to what Ezekiel did if all of it is actually evaluated instead of cherry picked.

Not at all. For example, verse 14 says:

"And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God."

There is nothing there that indicates divine inspiration. Parts of the mainland settlement were rebuilt. The island fortress could easily have been rebuilt if there had been the interest, and the money, at any subsequent time. A good number of former kingdoms were never rebuilt to anyone near their former greatness.

Yes there is but I noticed you only used one of the dozens of predictions and apparently thought that meant you had disproven them all.

That prophecy is not against a building, cardinal points, or geography. It was against the Phoenician people who lived in Tyre. It was the city they had built that would never be rebuilt. It was not any other building constructed later by another culture. As I have said until I am exhausted. The prediction uses it, that, and you in reference to what would not be rebuilt. You will not be rebuilt, it will not be and so on. Phoenicia never rebuilt the city. In fact the Phoenicians were from Carthage and not only were they on their way out from that moment but the entire Carthaginian empire began to crumble from the time of these attacks. In Babylon's day, and even in Alexander's Carthage was a huge empire and a very old and rich one. If I had been there I would have predicted Tyre would have been back to full functionality in a year or two. It was one of the strongest and rickets cities in the ANE. What happened is very bizarre in another way. Fortified cities were the rage at the time because they made the successful attack so costly that it was hard to justify. Back then massive damage was caused only when your army was at high risk. (no cruise missiles). Most of the time starvation or an indirect attack against another place was preferred. The last resort was a formal siege, not designed to destroy a place but subdue it and armies hated them. Babylon did not even have the machines to destroy the Island fortress, Alexander had to construct some of histories biggest and firsts to do so. There was nothing normal about the destruction of Tyre. Alexander almost gave it up twice and had to construct some of the largest equipment and causeways several times over then get the navies of three nations to do what was predicted. It was atypical stuff going on, I do not think Alexander in taking over almost the entire known world at the time ever besieged a city with even a fraction of the effort and equipement he did at Tyre.

Continued:

 

[1robin]

Great kingdoms rising and falling is just normal history, and Ezekiel did not put any time limits on his predictions.

The times and reasons for their falling are not commonly known. It is the detail and abnormal devastation that makes prophecies like this bone chilling. The one way you could prove your argument right is to do so your self. I have asked several times and no response has come, only the repetition of the claim. Predict the next major military conflict that is not ongoing presently and even 25% of the details that Ezekiel did concerning it. Until you do you can't demonstrate what you claim.

That is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not God inspired the prophecy. In addition, you have not reasonably proven that all of the predictions were made before the facts, and that none of the original prophecy was changed.

You asked me a question and I answered it. It was not an argument for God.

You have already admitted that dating is not an issue regarding Nebuchadnezzar's involvement. There is nothing at all unusual about anyone predicting, before, or after the facts, that many nations would attack another nation, and that eventually, the other nation would be defeated.

Yes there is. Ezekiel was not a Babylonian. He was a captive. I think he had it better than the average captive but he was not exactly a general in the Babylonian army. That one claim among dozens has not been used as proof that God did anything. It, considered with the dozens of details right in every was however, do add up to very good evidence who authored that prophecy originally.

Not at all. Prophecy is one of the best reasons why people should reject the Bible. There are numerous examples of this regarding many prophecies, including the book of Daniel, which has lots of excellent evidence that is was not written by one person, and in one century. I will start a new thread on the book of Daniel soon. Many historians question its authenticity.

I have no idea what that means. Prophecy is often used as the best test possible for God's authorship. You can argue for how good the prophecies are but you can't argue with that principle.

None of that reasonably proves that God inspired the prophecy, and what you discussed is mere secular history. The book of Acts also has some secular history that is probably true, but that has nothing to do with divine inspiration.

How many times do we have to go over this reasonable proof claim?

This is what your doing. For everything else you have the standard of reasonability. You will make decisions about anything in the world based of less than reasonable proof if God is not involved. However only in the category of faith is faith not the criteria. For some bizarre reason and against my repeated explanation there are two possibilities for Biblical claims in your opinion. Proven and wrong. That makes no sense. Faith only has intellectual permissibility as a burden. Meaning it makes no claim that conflicts with certain evidence and is a reasonable explanation of the evidence we have. I can even raise the bar and say my claims are the best explanation for the evidence or right at the top, but I actually do not have that burden but adopt it most of the time anyway. Ezekiel's divine source is the best explanation for his prediction when considered as a whole. Proof has nothing to do with anything and you never use hat burden for anything else you ever do.

Please reply to my most recent three posts in the thread on homosexuality, and please reply to my post #3931 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/117299-right-religion-394.html#post3570510 at the General Religious Debates forum.

Sorry, that thread has left me exasperated. I have never seen anything defended so badly but that is not why I gave up on it. I gave up on it because every argument was a version of a basic set of 4 or 5 that were regurgitated over and over. Even more so because no matter how many times I explained why one of the 4 or 5 arguments did not work it would reappear a few posts later. To top all that off and the one that eliminated any doubt was the tired old trick of liberals in using irrationality to insinuate the person who is acting responsibly is immoral some how. That just can't be taken for to long by me. Defending death and calling the person who is defending life an Islamaphobe, homophobe, or against progress is disgusting and intolerable. That last one was not done by you that much so don't take it personally, but I am done with that thread and explained why in it several times.

 

[1robin]

Right if you agree on several premises

1. The prophecy was written before it occurred

That prophecy is one of the easiest to date and all the evidence suggests it was written prior to the battle. We can always demand or desire more evidence but in ancient history we take what we have and all of it supports a prior to the battle time-line.

2. The Prophecy speaks of multiple attacks (which is not agreed upon), rather than one by King Neb.

This one is even easier to demonstrate. Ezekiel switches between pronouns correlated with actions. In every singular pronoun use except for one interpretation of one word in the Targum I believe they are perfectly consistent (somewhere around a dozen of them. In each case a singular was used the action it was connected with was accomplished by the king of Babylon alone. In every case where a plural is used it required Alexander to accomplish it in addition. Some one made a very crude guess at what the chances are he could have gotten them all right based or guessing or dead reckoning. It was 1 in tens of thousands (I provided the methodology in this and another thread. Of course statistics like that are very unreliable but even if off by an entire order of magnitude it still leaves God's inspiration as the best explanation for the pronoun shifts alone. Other things make it more certain but I am pressed for time.

 

[1robin]

Tyre was an Assyrian hub, it was a valuable asset to be attacked and potentially conquered. It wouldn't take a prophecy for people to know that a man bent on conquering the known world would not go for it.

It is irrelevant but I do not think his aim was world domination. He never came close and did not make any effort that even was an attempt at it during this campaign. Tyre was a Phoenician city, that meant going against it was to go against the mighty Carthaginian empire who controlled the sea for many years. It was about the worst target possible, at least to attempt early on (Heavy investment if any hope of monetary return was desired). He did not even have any siege equipment that could hope to take the fortress. It contained one of the most impregnable island fortresses of it's day. He did not get any lot worth mentioning (predicted as well) and he failed completely to take the island. There appears to be no motivation if vengeance is not included.

 

[1robin]

But many people knew about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack Tyre months before it happened, and Ezekiel, and many other people, could easily have learned about it by ordinary means. In addition, it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel wrote about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks against Tyre after the fact.

Exactly how many captive Hebrews would have know the King of Babylon's plans for invasion in detail? Hypotheticals without even an attempt at evidence or proof are not arguments.

That is ridiculous. Without any prophecies about Tyre at all, it was a given that eventually, many nations would attack Tyre, or any other nation. Only Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned by name, and many people other than Ezekiel knew about the attacks before they happened. Regarding the details of the attacks, that could have been written after the facts. Even if they were written before the facts, since Nebuchadnezzar was a great conqueror, and Ezekiel called him a "king of kings," it was a reasonable guess at the time that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar, and his advisers, certainly thought that it was a reasonable guess, and so did many other people in the region.

Even if that was true if it occurred without a just provocation or a thousand years later it would have no relevance to the prophecy. And even if it was true it does not explain the dozens of details that not even the King of Babylon would have known before hand. He did not predict he would defeat Tyre. He predicted he would defeat the daughters (or sisters of Tyre) meaning the mainland settlements. He predicted he would fail to take the island fortress which is exactly what he did fail to do. He also predicted that he would find no loot and then attack Egypt. It gets way to deep to explain away real fast.

It is truly amazing that you try to get away with such absurd claims. The odds are at least 50-50 that Ezekiel could have learned about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks in advance by ordinary means. The odds are at least 90% that at some time in history, many nations would attack Tyre, and that eventually, it would be defeated. Much of mainland Tyre was rebuilt, and many people still live there. Tyre was not rebuilt to its former glory, but some empires were not rebuilt at all, so the claim that Tyre would not be rebuilt is not an issue.

No they were not 50-50 and you based that on exactly nothing. I however granted the 50-50 thing just to demonstrate it makes no difference even if true. That is one of dozens of predictions about Tyre and the one you brought up is the only one even Nebuchadnezzar could have had prior knowledge of. The rest are impossible to hand wave away which is probably why you are attempting to use it to get rid of the dozens of additional predictions no one could have known. How many people and buildings occupy land around the old city is irrelevant. God predicted the Phoenicians would never rebuild Tyre not that another culture would not throw up some buildings there. They and their city were cursed not the coordinates or the geography.


Not at all. For example, Ezekiel 26:14 says:

"And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God."

There is nothing there that indicates divine inspiration. Parts of the mainland settlement were rebuilt. The island fortress could easily have been rebuilt if there had been the interest, and the money, at any subsequent time. A good number of former kingdoms were never rebuilt to anyone near their former greatness.

Great kingdoms rising and falling is just normal history, and Ezekiel did not put any time limits on his predictions.

Repeat. Why in the heck do only you do this?

Dating when the prophecy was written is one of the main issues, certainly not when the events happened. When King Johoiachin did something does not have anything at all to do with whether or not God inspired the Tyre prophecy, and when the prophecy was written. Many Bible characters existed, but that does not have anything at all to do with whether or not God inspired the Bible. Many religious books mix probably accurate secular history with false supernatural claims.

It is one of the easiest to date.

And of course, you cannot reasonably prove that evil supernatural beings did not inspire the Bible. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but since Paul was a mere imperfect, fallible human, an evil supernatural being with enough power could easily have deceived him. So all that you really have is faith. You said that the Bible says that God gives Christians the ability to discern the truth, but you cannot reasonably prove that Satan did not inspire that Scripture.

I have no need to prove anything nor can any historical claim or most of the decisions you make rely on proof. Repeat anyway.