The Tyre prophecy

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Agnostic75]

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 known the King of Babylon's plans for invasion in detail?

Captive Hebrews, what in the world are you talking about? Spies of many ethnic origins lived all over the world, and it would only have taken one of them to tell Ezekiel about the attack.

And as I said, "it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel wrote about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks against Tyre after the fact." Even If Ezekiel wrote about the attacks before the fact, there is nothing unusual about that at all since Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings," quite obviously because of Nebuchadnezzar's great reputation as a conqueror. Surely Nebuchadnezzar himself, and his generals, and many other people, expected Nebuchadnezzar to thoroughly destroy Tyre. Any thorough defeat would obviously include the conqueror going down all of the streets of Tyre, and destroying its towers.

Since Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king if kings," and said that Nebuchadnezzar's army would go down all of the streets of Tyre, and tear down its towers, it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel expected Nebuchadnezzar to defeat Tyre, which of course did not happen.

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.

Just provocation does not have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not the Tyre prophecy was divinely inspired. I have already proven that it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel knew about the attacks in advance, or wrote about them after the facts. Historically, many conquerors had no provocation at all, and mainly wanted to expand their empires.

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.

Been there, done that. As I said, "Even If Ezekiel wrote about the attacks before the fact, there is nothing unusual about that at all since Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a 'king of kings,' quite obviously because of Nebuchadnezzar's great reputation as a conqueror. Surely Nebuchadnezzar himself, and his generals, and many other people, expected Nebuchadnezzar to thoroughly destroy Tyre. Any thorough defeat would obviously include the conqueror going down all of the streets of Tyre, and destroying its towers."

He did not predict he would defeat Tyre.

Nor did he need to, nor does any other conqueror need to. At any rate, it is Ezekiel's claims that are the main issue, not Nebuchadnezzar's expectations. Nebuchadnezzar must have had a reasonable expectation of success. You still have not reasonably proven that Ezekiel wrote about the details of the attacks before they happened.

He predicted he would defeat the daughters (or sisters of Tyre) meaning the mainland settlements.

Been there, done that.

He predicted he would fail to take the island fortress which is exactly what he did fail to do.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Ezekiel 26

5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

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

In verse 5, "in the midst of the sea" obviously refers to the island part of Tyre. Ezekiel did predict that the island part of Tyre would be defeated, he just didn't clearly state who would defeat it. It is reasonably possible that Ezekiel expected Nebuchadnezzar to gain control of the island part of Tyre by defeating the mainland part of Tyre.

He also predicted that he would find no loot and then attack Egypt.

But you have not reasonably proven that Ezekiel, or someone else, wrote about that before the facts. It is well-known that before any Bible prophecy is discussed, it must first be reasonably established that it was written before the facts, and was not revised later. And, Ezekiel, or many other people, could easily have learned about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks against Egypt from spies. You could not possibly know who found out what about planned invasions that happened thousands of years ago, how the information was obtained, which prophecies were written before the facts, and which prophecies were revised later.

If what you said about King Jehoiachin was true, and if Ezekiel lived during Jehoichin's reign, that has nothing to do with how Ezekiel found out about Nebuchadnezzar's planned invasion of Tyre, and that would not reasonably establish whether Ezekiel wrote about the invasion before, or after it started.

 

[1robin]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

I am not answering another post of yours until you answer a few questions.

1. Why in the world are you duplicating posts continuously?
2. Why do you repeat the same argument in virtually the same form even after I have given you exhaustive responses (whether right or wrong)?
3. exactly what is my motivation for explaining anything in detail if it is dismissed as fast as I can post it and the same claim made again in a day or two?


I am starting to get the impression you have canned complaints (in the form of arguments) you just copy and paste and are not really interested in a dialogue.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am not answering another post of yours until you answer a few questions.

1. Why in the world are you duplicating posts continuously?

2. Why do you repeat the same argument in virtually the same form even after I have given you exhaustive responses (whether right or wrong)?

3. Exactly what is my motivation for explaining anything in detail if it is dismissed as fast as I can post it and the same claim made again in a day or two?

I am starting to get the impression you have canned complaints (in the form of arguments) you just copy and paste and are not really interested in a dialogue.

Regarding item 1, I frequently repeat my arguments because you frequently refuse to adequately reply to them, such as the arguments that I made in my previous post.

Regarding item 2, you most certainly have not given adequate responses to the arguments that I made in my previous post.

Regarding item 3, it is reasonable to dismiss illogical arguments, and many of your arguments are illogical.

Your entire post did not address any of the Tyre prophecy at all.

I still stand by all of my previous post, and you have not adequately refuted any of it. If you wish, I am willing to start all over again, and discuss one issue at a time in simple fashion. My first claim is that it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel could have learned about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks in advance by ordinary means from spies, or other sources. Do you agree or disagree with that? If you disagree based upon the details of the attack, my reply will be, which I have already made, that Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king, with a large empire, and it was a good guess at the time in the opinions of many people, obviously including Nebuchadnezzar, that he would extensively damage Tyre. In addition, Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of "kings," which implies that he believed that Nebuchadnezzar would extensively damage Tyre.

Why in the world did you make an issue out of the many details of the attacks when any moderately successful, or very successful siege by any great conqueror would quite obviously include such details?

Ezekiel 26:11 says:

"With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground."

What evidence do you have that Nebuchadnezzar's horses went down all of the streets of Tyre?

That verse plausibly indicates that Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would completely destroy Tyre, which did not happen. In addition, since Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings," that is further evidence that it is plausible, if not probable, that Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would completely destroy Tyre.

 

[1robin]

Regarding item 1, I frequently repeat my arguments because you frequently refuse to adequately reply to them, such as the arguments that I made in my previous post.

Regarding item 2, you most certainly have not given adequate responses to the arguments that I made in my previous post.

Regarding item 3, it is reasonable to dismiss illogical arguments, and many of your arguments are illogical.

I knew that some how in some way the treason you keep duplicating posts and even retracting duplications whether for this subject or another, to me or another, was going to be my fault.

Your entire post did not address any of the Tyre prophecy at all.

I have answered at lest ten of your Tyre posts, and have exhaustively covered Tyre in two other threads. What are you talking about?

I still stand by all of my previous post, and you have not adequately refuted any of it. If you wish, I am willing to start all over again, and discuss one issue at a time in simple fashion. My first claim is that it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel could have learned about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks in advance by ordinary means from spies, or other sources. Do you agree or disagree with that? If you disagree based upon the details of the attack, my reply will be, which I have already made, that Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king, with a large empire, and it was a good guess at the time in the opinions of many people, obviously including Nebuchadnezzar, that he would extensively damage Tyre. In addition, Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of "kings," which implies that he believed that Nebuchadnezzar would extensively damage Tyre.

Standing by something regardless, only means you do not care if it wrong or not.

1. At best Ezekiel might have gotten wind of an attack coming at some point. He would not have known about it's details. Even with internet and television you can not tell me the next nation on nation war that will occur nor any details about it. Ezekiel for example would have never known from spies that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to take the island and attack Egypt to pay his men instead. Spies are out as an explanation.
2. It would not have been known he would attempt to take an island without a navy and fail. It was a punitive raid, not an invasion so Ezekiel would have never heard Nebuchadnezzar would demolish the inland city completely nor attack an almost impregnable fortress. Punitive actions are not total.
3. It was not the extent of damage I referred to but the specific types of damage.
a. Ezekiel got every single pronoun shift correct between what Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander did respectively.
b. He would have had no reason to ever suggest Nebuchadnezzar would attempt to wipe out the inland city nor even to besiege the Island fortress yet he did.
c. He would have had no way of knowing that Nebuchadnezzar's great army would fail and have to invade Egypt to pay the troops.
d. He would have had no way to know Tyre would never be rebuilt as a Phoenician city.
e. He had no reason to suspect a punitive raid would result in a siege wall. sieges are the exact things raids are never to engage in. Despite what you said Nebuchadnezzar was not trying to take over the world he was trying to smite his enemies and sieges are costly and fail most of the time. Fortified cities were the king's of warfare at this time period.
f. He had no way to know a king with no navy would end the reign of Maritime's greatest navy.
g. He had no reason to think that it's citizens would all either be killed or captured and only the hanging of Alexander's messengers led it to occur.

Those plus many more reasons are not explained by lucky guesses or an incarcerated enemy of the state being given plans including details no one could have predicted. Whether you will admit it or not your spy, informant, or luck guess theory is disproven.

Why in the world did you make an issue out of the many details of the attacks when any moderately successful, or very successful siege by any great conqueror would quite obviously include such details?

See the above. It was a punitive attack not a conquest. You move fast, strike quick, never siege anything, and never take time to enslave or kill everyone. None of the details I gave could have been predicted or even guessed of a vindication action.

Ezekiel 26:11 says:

"With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground."

This was concerning the daughters of Tyre. In ancient literature daughters of a city are the suburbs so to speak. He predicted the inland settlements would be destroyed. Ezekiel knew that Nebuchadnezzar was not going to siege an island fortress successfully. He had no navy, had no siege equipment that could do the job, and was not intending to sit and spend months besieging anything. He lobbed a few rocks at the island and left.

What evidence do you have that Nebuchadnezzar's horses went down all of the streets of Tyre?

The fact Babylon always used cavalry. They were famous for it. Their attacks was meant to be and was a swift bloody nose. No other troops of the time were better suited for it. Exactly what kind of proof would there be for horses marching through a place over 2000 years ago anyway? It is very safe to believe warfare as it existed and is well known for the period was not suspended in this one case. Questioning this is as absurd as asking what proof there is that bows were used at the little big horn. BTW Babylon also invented chariot warfare as it was used at the time. It was their principle weapon.

That verse plausibly indicates that Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would completely destroy Tyre, which did not happen. In addition, since Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings," that is further evidence that it is plausible, if not probable, that Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would completely destroy Tyre.

No it indicates exactly what I said that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the daughters of Tyre. destroy their mainland cities and tear down their wooden walls. Fortified cities all followed the same pattern. You had an old nucleus that was walled in. It would eventually grow beyond the walls. New and weaker walls would be built around it and the inner walls added to. This occurred over and over so that in the end you had an almost impregnable center with successively weaker walls radiating out. Tyre was a little different. It original city was on an island and was the strongest fortress in the entire region with the exception of Babylon. No nation without a navy, built for speed and movement, and on a punitive mission would have ever been predicted to take a fortress surrounded by water. Even later when an army who specialized in siege operations attempted it they failed twice, before finally constructing the largest siege weapons ever built and using their own navy, one given under threat, and one taken in battle and barely managed it. No Ezekiel did not mean Nebuchadnezzar would take the fortress. No more that you would predict Nigerian Navy could sink the US seventh fleet.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why in the world did you make an issue out of the many details of the attacks when any moderately successful, or very successful siege by any great conqueror would quite obviously include such details?

It was a punitive attack not a conquest.

Around thirteen years of siege (which even many Christian sources agree with) is an example of an intended conquest, not of an intended punitive attack. Ezekiel could easily have believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre since Ezekiel 26 mentions the kinds of extensive damage that would indicate a conquest. For example, the chapter says that Nebuchadnezzar would go down all of the streets of Tyre, and tear down its towers. It also says that Nebuchadnezzar was a king of kings, not just any king. That is easily a plausible, if not probably case that Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre.

What historical evidence is there that Nebuchadnezzar went down all of the streets of Tyre.

You move fast, strike quick, never siege anything, and never take time to enslave or kill everyone. None of the details I gave could have been predicted or even guessed of a vindication action.

Not at all, going down all of the streets of a fortress, and tearing down its towers, over a period of many years, is a siege. Ezekiel's predictions were perfectly normal for anyone who believed that a "king of kings" would have a successful conquest.

You know that you are in trouble, so you are trying to recategorize Nebuchadnezzar's attacks. The Internet if filled with sources, including many Christian sources, and many historical sources, that call Nebuchadnezzar's attacks a siege.

1. At best Ezekiel might have gotten wind of an attack coming at some point. He would not have known about it's details. Even with internet and television you can not tell me the next nation on nation war that will occur nor any details about it. Ezekiel for example would have never known from spies that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to take the island and attack Egypt to pay his men instead. Spies are out as an explanation.

Been there, done that. As I said, the details were quite normal for a believed successful siege. It is quite easy to make a prediction of an attack against a certain country if you know that it will happen, and surely hundreds, if not thousands of people knew about the attacks months in advance. Regarding Egypt, that "prediction" was obviously made after it became obvious that that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre.

Regarding the island, nothing in Ezekiel 26 says that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to defeat the island fortress. If anything, verses four and five of Ezekiel 26 plausibly say that the island fortress would be defeated. Here are verses 4, 5, and 6:

"4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. 5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God: and it shall become a spoil to the nations. 6 And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the Lord."

In verse 5, "the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea" obviously refers to the island fortress, and verses 4 and 5 most certainly indicate the defeat of the island fortress. Verse 6 obviously refers to the mainland fortress.

But even if you are right that Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to defeat the island fortress, considering the great difficultly in defeating it, and past failures, such a prediction would easily have been made by many people other than Ezekiel, obviously including the inhabitants of the island fortress, most of whom certainly believed that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to defeat them.

2. It would not have been known he would attempt to take an island without a navy and fail.

Where does Ezekiel 26 say that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to defeat the island fortress?

It was a punitive raid, not an invasion so Ezekiel would have never heard Nebuchadnezzar would demolish the inland city completely nor attack an almost impregnable fortress. Punitive actions are not total.

I have already adequately refuted your comments about punitive actions. Please quote some scholarly sources who agree with you. I can quote many source, including many Christian sources, that disagree with you.

3. It was not the extent of damage I referred to but the specific types of damage.

Please quote the verses that you are referring to. Tearing down towers is a perfectly normal kind of expected damage. So is going down streets. Regarding "like the top of a rock," which refers to the island fortress," over time, oceans have done plenty of ordinary damage that could fit that description.

a. Ezekiel got every single pronoun shift correct between what Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander did respectively.

On the contrary, Ezekiel did not know anything about what Alexander would do, or he would have said so, just like he mentioned Nebuchadnezzar. Ezekiel never says who "they" are. My word, eventually, ever kingdom eventually falls, so the word "they" does not say anything that is useful.

Regarding pronouns in Ezekiel 26, please read an article by the late Farrell Till at http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/5error96.html. Farrell Till was a skeptic, published for years an online blog on the Bible, and had a Master's degree in English.

b. He would have had no reason to ever suggest Nebuchadnezzar would attempt to wipe out the inland city nor even to besiege the Island fortress yet he did.

On the contrary, you have no way of knowing, thousands of years later, what Ezekiel, or anyone else could have known in advance about Nebuchadnezzar's intentions, and how they could have learned about the attacks.

c. He would have had no way of knowing that Nebuchadnezzar's great army would fail and have to invade Egypt to pay the troops.

Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's intention to attack Egypt after it became obvious that Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

d. He would have had no way to know Tyre would never be rebuilt as a Phoenician city.

As is commonly known, parts of Tyre have been rebuilt, and many ancient cities and kingdoms were never rebuilt.

e. He had no reason to suspect a punitive raid would result in a siege wall. Sieges are the exact things raids are never to engage in. Despite what you said Nebuchadnezzar was not trying to take over the world he was trying to smite his enemies and sieges are costly and fail most of the time. Fortified cities were the king's of warfare at this time period.

One web definition for the word "siege" is "a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside." Nebuchadnezzar's attacks over 13 years easily quality as a siege.

Consider the following from Ezekiel 29 in the NIV:

"17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the Lord came to me: 18 “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign Lord."

That easily proves that Nebuchadnezzar's intentions were to conquer Tyre, not just punish it, and that his intentions did not happen.

f. He had no way to know a king with no navy would end the reign of Maritime's greatest navy.

That is correct since there is not any evidence that Ezekiel knew that the island fortress would eventually be conquered without a navy. Ezekiel 26 does not specifically say anything about how the island fortress would be defeated.

According to a Christian website at http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q31.htm, and some other websites, Alexander in fact used ships from many countries to defeat the island fortress.

g. He had no reason to think that it's citizens would all either be killed or captured and only the hanging of Alexander's messengers led it to occur.

That is correct since Ezekiel 26 does not say anything about all of Tyre's inhabitants being killed. Verse 6 says "And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the Lord." That does not necessarily mean that everyone would be killed, and the verse obviously refers to the mainland settlement, not to the island settlement. A reference in a Wikipedia article at Siege of Tyre (332 BC) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia says that Alexander killed most or all of the inhabitants. No one living today can determine whether or not all of the inhabitants were killed.

An omniscient God could easily make prophecies that are far more impressive than any Bible prophecy, an example being when and where some natural disasters would occur years in advance, month, day, and year. Since a God did not inspire the Bible, it is expected that there are not any such prophecies in the Bible. A God who intended to try to prove his existence would inspire much better prophecies than the prophecies in the Bible.

 

[1robin]

Around thirteen years of siege (which even many Christian sources agree with) is an example of an intended conquest, not of an intended punitive attack. Ezekiel could easily have believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre since Ezekiel 26 mentions the kinds of extensive damage that would indicate a conquest. For example, the chapter says that Nebuchadnezzar would go down all of the streets of Tyre, and tear down its towers. It also says that Nebuchadnezzar was a king of kings, not just any king. That is easily a plausible, if not probably case that Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre.

You do not go against one of the world's most fortified islands with no Navy and no siege engines capable of bringing it down if Conquest is what you are after. I have no idea why this is relevant but there is little evidence to indicate it was anything but a determined but punitive attack. There is no damage that would indicate conquest. A conquest is a military effort to take over and control a place (usually and entire region). It is not a tear up everything and leave exercise. I can grant it more than a raid but not anywhere near a conquest. However I forgot something very important. Nebuchadnezzar knew what would be required to take the fortress as much as anyone would. He knew he would never be able to do it. Only 300 years later and with the largest siege engines ever constructed and three navies did Alexander finally do it.

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.
Ezekiel Tyre prophecy defended

In every place this imagery is used in the bible it means successive attacks spread out over time. It does not mean a sustained siege. It always implies more than one nation and more than one attack.

What historical evidence is there that Nebuchadnezzar went down all of the streets of Tyre.

I do not think there would be any. I certainly would not expect any.

Not at all, going down all of the streets of a fortress, and tearing down its towers, over a period of many years, is a siege. Ezekiel's predictions were perfectly normal for anyone who believed that a "king of kings" would have a successful conquest.

You know that you are in trouble, so you are trying to recategorize Nebuchadnezzar's attacks. The Internet if filled with sources, including many Christian sources, and many historical sources, that call Nebuchadnezzar's attacks a siege.

If I am in trouble I am sure not aware of it. This was one of the top three most fortified cities in the entire region. It was famous for being impregnable. It mandated a Navy that Nebuchadnezzar did not even bother to bring, and siege engines far more advanced than he had. I have no idea what Ezekiel saw but what he described required more than him to accomplish. You can have a siege in a punitive attack. I meant a siege as in one designed to last until the enemy gave up. I see no evidence that was attempted. BY siege the only thing he did was to lob stones at the massive fortifications he had no way of expecting would fall. he damaged them but could never hope to have taken them. This debate is so old I can't remember why you care about punitive attacks versus conquests. What was the point of the distinction?

Been there, done that. As I said, the details were quite normal for a believed successful siege. It is quite easy to make a prediction of an attack against a certain country if you know that it will happen, and surely hundreds, if not thousands of people knew about the attacks months in advance. Regarding Egypt, that "prediction" was obviously made after it became obvious that that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre.

Do you realize that Tyre's fortress was an island at the time. Unless he had soldiers who could walk on water he had no chance of getting across a half mile or more of ocean. Even three hundred years later Alexander had to construct three causeways and two of them were torn up before fairly begun. Alexander's army was ten times as potent as Nebuchadnezzar's and Alexander almost gave it up as pointless. It was only the treatment of his messengers than led hi into a do or die attempt that barely won. It required things no one before them had ever even seen before much less had. Again I can't remember why this was important anyway.

Regarding the island, nothing in Ezekiel 26 says that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to defeat the island fortress. If anything, verses four and five of Ezekiel 26 plausibly say that the island fortress would be defeated. Here are verses 4, 5, and 6:

Yes it does. The city was rich yet he recorded he would not even get enough loot to pay his troops. That is because he knew as everyone did that Tyre would take it's treasures to the island upon being attacked and no one without a navy and huge siege engines could ever breech it. Also every pronoun associated with the islands destruction is either a plural or refers to God who instigated the numerous events.

"4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. 5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God: and it shall become a spoil to the nations. 6 And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the Lord."

There you have it. They and I are associated with the islands destruction. Not one pairing of he and the island is mentioned.

In verse 5, "the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea" obviously refers to the island fortress, and verses 4 and 5 most certainly indicate the defeat of the island fortress. Verse 6 obviously refers to the mainland fortress.

And all of these are paired with they and I not he.

But even if you are right that Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to defeat the island fortress, considering the great difficultly in defeating it, and past failures, such a prediction would easily have been made by many people other than Ezekiel, obviously including the inhabitants of the island fortress, most of whom certainly believed that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to defeat them.

This one I could grant if it was all that the prophecy contained. However when he gets so many details he could not have guessed at right before hand it is lunacy to suggest this one came by natural means. By granting it I mean it was possible. Unless a student of war with access to his plans however it would be unlikely.

Where does Ezekiel 26 say that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to defeat the island fortress?

In two ways. By suggesting he would not get the loot everyone knew would be taken to the island and by his never linking "he" with the islands total destruction.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

I have already adequately refuted your comments about punitive actions. Please quote some scholarly sources who agree with you. I can quote many source, including many Christian sources, that disagree with you.

NO you have not. You have suggested it was more than a raid in which I can agree. Nothing about this suggests conquest or the intent to ever conquer the island at all by Nebuchadnezzar. I make no firm claim what was in his mind beyond the fact that he never could have ever thought he could take the island.

So is going down streets. Regarding "like the top of a rock," which refers to the island fortress," over time, oceans have done plenty of ordinary damage that could fit that description.

The streets are associated with the daughters of Tyre. Daughters mean the mainland suburbs. Towers are generally used to refer to several things (none of them a fortress proper). According to drawings and graphic representations. Tyre had erected towers in the water half way between the Island and the main land. He could reach those and tore a few up. Oceans do not make the top of a rock a bare rock unless humans have left the place. It would still take hundreds and maybe thousands of years of total neglect. Oceans is the worst possible interpretation especially since none of the other described events is natural. Especially given that one of the attackers actually did do this in general. Alexander unlike typical sieges chose to destroy the place all together. He literally had to invent tactics never seen to do this.

On the contrary, Ezekiel did not know anything about what Alexander would do, or he would have said so, just like he mentioned Nebuchadnezzar. Ezekiel never says who "they" are. My word, eventually, ever kingdom eventually falls, so the word "they" does not say anything that is useful.

This gets into the nature of visions which is not accessible to us. Many visions in the bible are representative, some are detailed, some are allegorical, some are very cryptic and vague. I can agree that he did not know Alexander's name but when every pronoun lines up exactly with my interpretation the probabilities are just far to grate to ignore. BTW some interpretations make the Islamic conquests necessary to validate it. Either way it would be true but I do not agree with their take.

Regarding pronouns in Ezekiel 26, please read an article by the late Farrell Till at http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/5error96.html. Farrell Till was a skeptic, published for years an online blog on the Bible, and had a Master's degree in English.

I read the first third and got lost. His pronoun problems did not seem to be problems to me, and his idea that the proclamation that "you will never be rebuilt" applied to any city built by another people somewhere near that spot at some point is just simply ridiculous. Can you post the best claims that site contained.

On the contrary, you have no way of knowing, thousands of years later, what Ezekiel, or anyone else could have known in advance about Nebuchadnezzar's intentions, and how they could have learned about the attacks.

There is very little "known" for certain about any of this. I made the best fit conclusion given the evidence. It may be wrong but given what we know it is the best fit conclusion.

Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's intention to attack Egypt after it became obvious that Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

Now how in the world do you know that. That entire prophecy bears every mark of being written before the attack. It is less evidence than I would prefer but it all points the same direction.

As is commonly known, parts of Tyre have been rebuilt, and many ancient cities and kingdoms were never rebuilt.

But never rebuilt by he people about whom the prophecy was made. God was not mad a the coordinates, the sand, or the island. He was mad at the inhabitants and it was they about whom the prophecy was made. That is why he says "you" and "it" will never be rebuilt. In fact the whole Phoenician/Carthaginian empire started to self destruct from that moment and no longer exists. Those people never rebuilt that city. This is almost never the case concerning sieges. Usually the city is not destroyed completely (especially island fortresses) and are rebuilt immediately by the same defeated people.

One web definition for the word "siege" is "a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside." Nebuchadnezzar's attacks over 13 years easily quality as a siege.

I think that you have misunderstood. I meant a siege that was intended to reduce the target. Nebuchadnezzar's couldn't have been. He was not capable of doing so. BTW where is the evidence for the 13 years claim?

Consider the following from Ezekiel 29 in the NIV:

"17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the Lord came to me: 18 “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign Lord."

That easily proves that Nebuchadnezzar's intentions were to conquer Tyre, not just punish it, and that his intentions did not happen.

In what way? The word conquer nor a single synonym appears in that verse. You do realize every head made bald and every shoulder made bare is a reference to his army not Tyre's people don't you. It was a common expression concerning hat armor does when worn constantly.

Your verse always stuck me as odd in it's final sentence, so I looked it up. This is what it should have been.

•20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

That is correct since there is not any evidence that Ezekiel knew that the island fortress would eventually be conquered without a navy. Ezekiel 26 does not specifically say anything about how the island fortress would be defeated.

According to a Christian website at Wasn't Nebuchadnezzar supposed to completely destroy Tyre?, and some other websites, Alexander in fact used ships from many countries to defeat the island fortress.

Something got confused here. I said that your thinking Ezekiel knew these events from natural means makes it even more certain that he would not have predicted the fall of the island to a man with no Navy. He would have to have known supernaturally a later force with a Navy (actually 3) would come along and finally destroy it. You must explain either how he would think Nebuchadnezzar would defeat an island with no Navy or how by natural means he knew Alexander would come along with 3 navies using siege engines no one had heard of and based on unusual events decide to level the whole fortress. Neither have a reasonable natural explanation.

That is correct since Ezekiel 26 does not say anything about all of Tyre's inhabitants being killed. Verse 6 says "And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the Lord." That does not necessarily mean that everyone would be killed, and the verse obviously refers to the mainland settlement, not to the island settlement. A reference in a Wikipedia article at Siege of Tyre (332 BC) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia says that Alexander killed most or all of the inhabitants. No one living today can determine whether or not all of the inhabitants were killed.

Right using natural means or playing the odds he should have said nothing about total destruction. yet he mentions things that could only occur if the army and citizens were completely devastated like the entire garrison going to the ground. You can't reduce a fortress to dust without destroying the entire capacity of the enemy to resist. I never said anything about prediction that every single human would die. I meant that they were left without any recognizable means to resist. They were utterly destroyed means to be rendered completely impotent to resist. You can not do that by doing only what is specifically claimed about Nebuchadnezzar. He had no capacity to scrape the rock the fortress was on bare and make it only suitable for spreading nets.

An omniscient God could easily make prophecies that are far more impressive than any Bible prophecy, an example being when and where some natural disasters would occur years in advance, month, day, and year. Since a God did not inspire the Bible, it is expected that there are not any such prophecies in the Bible. A God who intended to try to prove his existence would inspire much better prophecies than the prophecies in the Bible.

You have no reason to demand more detailed ones. I think God supplies exactly what would convince an unbiased heart and you have no reason to demand more evidence especially if you spend all your time trying to dismiss what evidence you are given. We have been through that before. That mentality actually contains two fallacies and just ignores the billions with faith who have even less evidence than you.

Btw where you been anyway? I forgot about you.

 

[Agnostic75]

You do not go against one of the world's most fortified islands with no Navy and no siege engines capable of bringing it down if Conquest is what you are after.

On the contrary, you could not possibly know what Nebuchadnezzar's intentions were. It is easily probable, and at the very least plausible, that Nebuchadnezzar wanted to defeat the mainland settlement since Ezekiel 29 says that he "fought a hard campaign against Tyre," "every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw, and "yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre." So a reward was desired, and expected by Nebuchadnezzar, but obviously did not happen. If you were right that that attacks were intended to be punitive, Nebuchadnezzar would have gotten his intended reward, but he didn't since he wanted to conquer the mainland settlement. Surely the mainland settlement alone was worth trying to conquer, or Nebuchadnezzar would not have tried to conquer it. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar intended to defeat the mainland settlement, and use that as leverage to get tribute from the island settlement. He also might have had some long plans to use navies from other countries to defeat the island settlement.

Everyone [knew] that Tyre would take it's treasures to the island upon being attacked.......

Even if that is true, Nebuchadnezzar wanted to defeat the mainland settlement since he wanted a reward, which he did not get.

.......no one without a navy and huge siege engines could ever breech it.

Of course, but that does not mean that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

Also every pronoun associated with the islands destruction is either a plural or refers to God who instigated the numerous events.

But Ezekiel 26 does not say, or even imply, how, and when the island fortress would eventually be destroyed. Even amateurs in history know that the island fortress would eventually be defeated since that is what has happened to all ancient empires. Surely the eventual defeat of the island fortress was eventually inevitable, and yet you claim that it took divine prophecy to predict the obvious.

The word conquer nor a single synonym appears in that verse [in Ezekiel 29].

Nor does it have to considering that the verse says that Nebuchadnezzar wanted a reward that he did not get.

You do realize every head made bald and every shoulder made bare is a reference to his army not Tyre's people don't you?

I surely do, and did not imply otherwise. That happened because Nebuchadnezzar did not get his expected reward, which was the conquest of the mainland settlement.

Ezekiel could easily have learned about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks by ordinary means, and surely many people knew about the attacks in advance by ordinary means, or Ezekiel could have merely written the prophecy when Nebuchadnezzar got to Tyre.

In every place this imagery is used in the Bible it means successive attacks spread out over time. It does not mean a sustained siege. It always implies more than one nation and more than one attack.

Well of course the defeat of both settlements would be spread out over time, which was obvious to anyone living back then since both settlements had been unsuccessfully attacked before, but regarding the mainland settlement, the Bible itself shows in Ezekiel 29 that Nebuchadnezzar wanted the reward of defeating it, and Ezekiel plausibly if not probably implies it in chapter 26 with the following:

"7 For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. 8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. 9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. 10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. 11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground."

All of those verse clearly refer to Nebuchadnezzar, not to many nations. The terms in verses 9-11 are typical of what a person would use if they believed that a great conqueror would successfully attack a city. How else would you describe attacks that you believed would be successful?

That is correct since there is not any evidence that Ezekiel knew that the island fortress would eventually be conquered without a navy. Ezekiel 26 does not specifically say anything about how the island fortress would be defeated.

According to a Christian website......., Alexander in fact used ships from many countries to defeat the island fortress.

Something got confused here. I said that your thinking Ezekiel knew these events from natural means makes it even more certain that he would not have predicted the fall of the island to a man with no Navy.

But Ezekiel did not say, or imply anything about how, or when the island fortress would be defeated, meaning that your mention of a navy is irrelevant.

He would had to have known supernaturally a later force with a Navy (actually 3) would come along and finally destroy it.[/quote]

Obviously not since Ezekiel never mentions how, or when the island fortress would be defeated. At the time that Ezekiel wrote the prophecy, it is probable that he, and everyone else, expected that when the island fortress was eventually defeated, navies would have to be used, which is what happened.

You must explain either how he would think Nebuchadnezzar would defeat an island with no Navy.......

But as secular history, and the Bible, show,l Nebuchadnezzar only attacked the mainland settlement, so you are not making any sense.

.......or how by natural means he knew Alexander would come along with 3 navies.......

Ezekiel 26 never says, or implies anything about Alexander, or about navies, although common sense indicates that navies would partly be involved.

.......using siege engines no one had heard of and based on unusual events decide to level the whole fortress. Neither have a reasonable natural explanation.

Where does Ezekiel 26 say anything about siege engines no one had heard of, and unusual events?

 

[Agnostic75]

Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's intention to attack Egypt after it became obvious that Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre.

Now how in the world do you know that?

How do you know otherwise? Were you there?

That entire prophecy bears every mark of being written before the attack.

Possibly. If so, it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about the attacks in advance by ordinary means, just like at least hundreds of other people surely did. It is impossible for anyone living today to have valid historical evidence regarding how Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's intended attacks on Tyre, and Egypt.

You have suggested it was more than a raid in which I can agree. Nothing about this suggests conquest or the intent to ever conquer the island at all by Nebuchadnezzar.

But now you are agreeing with me since I agree with Ezekiel 26, and secular history, which show that Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement, not the island.

I make no firm claim what was in his mind beyond the fact that he never could have ever thought he could take the island.

But I agree that it was quite reasonable that since Nebuchadnezzar did not have a navy, he did not intend to conquer the island fortress. Since Ezekiel never said, or implied anything about navies, I do not have any idea why you ever mentioned navies. Maybe you got the idea from a conservative Christian website whose author also did not have any idea what he was talking about. Even the average sixth grader could deduce that Nebuchadnezzar, who had no navy, had no intention, or way, of successfully defeating the island fortress. When Ezekiel 29 says that Nebuchadnezzar did not get the reward that he wanted, that obviously refers to the mainland settlement, so it did not make any sense at all for you to discuss navies as far as Nebuchadnezzar's involvement is concerned.

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." That does not make any case that helps you. No one living today has any idea what Ezekiel meant by "like the top of a rock." What does the top of a rock look like? If the island fortress had been abandoned before Alexander destroyed it, by this time, meaning by 2013, ordinary oceanic conditions would have largely destroyed it. "Like the top of a rock" is much too vague to be of use to conservative Christians, which is largely why even many conservative Christian Bible scholars do not debate the Tyre prophecy even if they believe that God inspired it.

Logically, the island fortress would eventually have been defeated by someone since that has happened to all ancient empires, so Ezekiel did not predict anything unusual about the island. A combination of extensive destruction by an eventual conqueror, and ordinary oceanic conditions over time, would have been an easy guess for many people of Ezekiel's time. What else would anyone expect to eventually happen to the island fortress, surely not endless existence, and endless prosperity.

Right using natural means or playing the odds he should have said nothing about total destruction, yet he mentions things that could only occur if the army and citizens were completely devastated like the entire garrison going to the ground. You can't reduce a fortress to dust without destroying the entire capacity of the enemy to resist. I never said anything about prediction that every single human would die. I meant that they were left without any recognizable means to resist. They were utterly destroyed means to be rendered completely impotent to resist. You can not do that by doing only what is specifically claimed about Nebuchadnezzar. He had no capacity to scrape the rock the fortress was on bare and make it only suitable for spreading nets.

Well of course Nebuchadnezzar did not have the capacity to destroy the island settlement, and I most certainly have never said otherwise. Ezekiel only mentions Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel chapter 26 regarding his attacks on the mainland settlement, so why do you keep trying to associate Nebuchadnezzar with anything about the island fortress? Quite obviously, Nebuchadnezzar did not even completely destroy the mainland settlement, let alone the island fortress.

One web definition for the word "siege" is "a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside." Nebuchadnezzar's attacks over 13 years easily quality as a siege.

I think that you have misunderstood. I meant a siege that was intended to reduce the target. Nebuchadnezzar's couldn't have been. He was not capable of doing so. BTW where is the evidence for the 13 years claim?

What do you mean by "reduce the target"?

Surely Nebuchadnezzar intended to, and wanted to defeat the mainland settlement. That is why he spent 13 years trying to do so. The mainland settlement ended up getting severely damaged, and paid tribute to him, but as Ezekiel 29 shows, he did not get his intended reward, which had to have been the conquest of the mainland settlement since if widespread punitive actions were his only intent, he achieved that, and got his reward if that was his only intent, which it wasn't.

It is a reasonable assumption that Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the mainland settlement, partly because of the widespread damage that he predicted in Ezekiel chapter 26, which would be typical of a conquest, and because he called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings." Nebuchadnezzar had a very impressive reputation as a conqueror, and it was a good bet at that time that he would defeat the mainland settlement. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that "the second and greatest king of the Chaldean dynasty of Babylonia (reigned c. 605–c. 561 bc). He was known for his military might, the splendour of his capital, Babylon, and his important part in Jewish history."

It is doubtful that Ezekiel would have predicted that a very powerful "king of kings" would go down all of the city's streets, set engines of war against its walls, enter into its gates, bring its garrisons to the ground, break down its walls, and destroy its houses if he did not believe that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer the city.

The Internet has many examples of the 13 year siege from Christian, and skeptic websites, including the skeptic website that I just quoted. You can easily find many other examples yourself.

Nothing you have ever said has intimidated me.

That is debatable, but it is a fact that thousands of skeptic scholars in many fields could easily intimidate you, and that is why you have refused to debate any of them. You are nowhere near a scholar in any field of Christian apologetics. You are not even a gifted amateur in any field of Christian apologetics. I have come across many gifted amateurs during the past ten years, both Christian, and skeptic, any you do not know anywhere near what any of them know, and never will. You are merely a dabber who has no idea what his academic limitations are.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[LightTraveler]

It's time for our religious thinking to get beyond belief in magic, I think.

The whole messiah-prophecy business, for example. Imagine what a better world it would be if we would all just set that aside.

Many have, and yet....the world is still not a better place. Your secularism is something that only contributes to holocausts around the world, though it's not the root cause of it. What's the root cause? The existence of secret societies like the freemasons.

Ah yes, CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!! Deal with it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Many have, and yet....the world is still not a better place.

Of course it's a better place. If you disagree, try going back and living your life 500 years ago.

Your secularism is something that only contributes to holocausts around the world, though it's not the root cause of it. What's the root cause? The existence of secret societies like the freemasons.

Huh?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

How do you get better that 2500 correct predictions?

No, there are not any Bible predictions that were inspired by God. Even if there were, God could be an evil God who is masquerading as a good God. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but Paul had no way to know whether or not it is God who is masquerading as an angel of light.

Simple, easy to understand explanations for Ezekiel, chapter 26, are as follows:

Versus 1 and 2 are not worth debating.

Verses 3-5 say that many nations will attack Tyre. That is not at all helpful to any of your arguments since historically, it has been quite common for many nations to attack other nations, and since prior to Ezekiel's prophecy, some nations had already attacked Tyre. In addition, verses 3-5 are not helpful to you since Ezekiel does not mention any of the nations by name.

It is reasonably possible that Ezekiel initially wrote what he said about many nations, and months, or years later, added the rest of chapter 26 when he found out by ordinary means that Nebuchadnezzar was going to invade Tyre. Surely hundreds of people knew about the attacks in advance. It is a virtual given that at least some people outside of Babylon knew about the attacks in advance, and told some other people about the attacks, who further told some other people about the attacks. No one living today could possibly know how many, and which people outside of Babylon knew about the attacks in advance.

Versus 6-12 clearly refer to Nebuchadnezzar, and there is no indication that any verse in the chapter after verse 5 refers to anyone except Nebuchadnezzar. The word "they" is used three times in verse 12, and there is not any indication that it refers to anyone other than Nebuchadnezzar and his forces. Verse 7 mentions Nebuchadnezzar's "horsemen, and companies, and much people." It is probable, and at the very least plausible that the word "they" in verse 12 refers to Nebuchadnezzar's "horsemen, and companies, and much people" in verse 7.

It is probable that Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the mainland settlement for the following reasons:

1. Ezekiel's descriptions of the extensive damage that Nebuchadnezzar would cause are terms that would typically be used by someone to describe what they believed would be a successful conquest.

2. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that Nebuchadnezzar II was "the second and greatest king of the Chaldean dynasty of Babylonia. He was known for his military might, the splendour of his capital, Babylon, and his important part in Jewish history."

3. Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings."

4. Ezekiel 29 says that Nebuchadnezzar did not get his reward. The reward had to be the conquest of the mainland settlement. If Nebuchadnezzar had only intended to punish the mainland settlement as you claimed, not conquer it, he would have gotten the reward that he wanted, but he didn't.

Verse 13 is not worth debating.

Verse 14 is about "like the top of a rock." That verse is much too vague to be of any use to you. No one living today knows what Ezekiel meant by "like the top of a rock." You cannot adequately debate something that you cannot even define. Logic indicates that with an unlimited time frame, the island fortress would probably be largely destroyed by people, and by ordinary oceanic activity. If "like the top of a rock" refers to the mainland settlement, that does not help you either since, as I said, "No one living today knows what Ezekiel meant by 'like the top of a rock.'"

As is commonly known, parts of Tyre have been rebuilt, and many ancient cities and kingdoms were never rebuilt.

But never rebuilt by the people about whom the prophecy was made. God was not mad at the coordinates, the sand, or the island. He was mad at the inhabitants and it was they about whom the prophecy was made. That is why he says "you" and "it" will never be rebuilt. In fact the whole Phoenician/Carthaginian empire started to self destruct from that moment and no longer exists. Those people never rebuilt that city. This is almost never the case concerning sieges. Usually the city is not destroyed completely (especially island fortresses) and are rebuilt immediately by the same defeated people.

An article at Bible prophecies and myth says:

History records that Nebuchadrezzar did attack and destroy Tyre’s mainland suburbs, but could not destroy the island part of city, even after a thirteen year siege (586-573 B.C.E.). The outcome was that Tyre reached a compromise agreement with Nebuchadrezzar to pay tribute and accept Babylonian authority while Tyre resumed its trade and rebuilt its mainland parts. Despite the prophecy, historical records show that Tyre was rebuilt several times and that the city existed during the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods and the centuries that followed, but in the end it did not achieve its former wealth and power. The New Testament even has numerous references to Tyre’s existence during the time of Jesus and Paul (e.g. Matthew 15:21, Acts 21:3). Modern day Tyre is built on and about the ruins of the ancient Phoenician city and its successors, and is currently the fourth largest city in Lebanon.

Dr. Richard Carrier is a well-known skeptic scholar. He has a Ph.D. in ancient history, and knows a lot about science. In my post #2 in this thread, I quoted him as follows:

.......the city of Tyre was rebuilt immediately after Alexander's attack, and remained a powerhouse of trade for the next two thousand years. Was it ever a "bare rock"? I doubt it--and we have no evidence that it was.

What we see here is that Newman is so entirely wrong it is astonishing that his colleagues even let this inept chapter remain in the book. Was Tyre ever destroyed? No. It prospered under the successors of Alexander and under Roman rule and then under Islamic rule. The ruins, abandoned (but not destroyed, contrary to Ezekiel's predictions) in the Middle Ages, were badly damaged during Arab-Israeli Warfare in 1982, but the core of the city still had a population in 1991 of 70,000 (almost twice the population in Alexander's day), and the ruined sections are actually threatened by thriving urban growth. It is still there today, and it is still a major Lebanese financial center.

Regarding "this is almost never the case concerning sieges," all that it takes are a few exceptions to make your argument invalid, and there are obviously some exceptions.

Alexander's building of a bridge to the island was, as you said, "abnormal," but so what since Ezekiel never even remotely hinted that Alexander would ever attack the island fortress, or the a causeway would be built to the island from the mainland?

The rest of the chapter is not worth debating.

 

[1robin]

On the contrary, you could not possibly know what Nebuchadnezzar's intentions were. It is easily probable, and at the very least plausible, that Nebuchadnezzar wanted to defeat the mainland settlement since Ezekiel 29 says that he "fought a hard campaign against Tyre," "every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw, and "yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre." So a reward was desired, and expected by Nebuchadnezzar, but obviously did not happen. If you were right that that attacks were intended to be punitive, Nebuchadnezzar would have gotten his intended reward, but he didn't since he wanted to conquer the mainland settlement. Surely the mainland settlement alone was worth trying to conquer, or Nebuchadnezzar would not have tried to conquer it. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar intended to defeat the mainland settlement, and use that as leverage to get tribute from the island settlement. He also might have had some long plans to use navies from other countries to defeat the island settlement.

I know what military history validates. It does not validate a claim that a guy with no possible hope of ever defeating a place would set out to conquer it. IOW that is the worst possible conclusion and the one you draw in spite of the evidence. You seem to think your claims no matter how unreliable are true unless I prove them wrong to a certainty. That is never how history works.

Even if that is true, Nebuchadnezzar wanted to defeat the mainland settlement since he wanted a reward, which he did not get.

What? I said he did want the mainland city. I said he knew he could not take the island city and so never intended to. I imagine he thought he would get enough from the mainland but in fact did not. Lopped a few rocks at the island and eventually moved on. The only weapon associated with towers I could find he had was an axe. Towers and columns ion the bible can mean anything from a fort to an alter. I do not see him trying to take a fort with an axe. I imagine he only tore down the wooden watch towers on the mainland.

Of course, but that does not mean that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

It is evidence he did. Evidence being that which the inclusion of lends credence to the proposition.

But Ezekiel 26 does not say, or even imply, how, and when the island fortress would eventually be destroyed. Even amateurs in history know that the island fortress would eventually be defeated since that is what has happened to all ancient empires. Surely the eventual defeat of the island fortress was eventually inevitable, and yet you claim that it took divine prophecy to predict the obvious.

Was he to detail every single act in the entire episode. he did include quite a few that would not have been guessed at. No one would have thought that fortress would have been utterly destroyed. No one in history had had the capacity to do so until Alexander and no one without great motivation would have even considered it. He also suggests a causeway would be built, that everyone was to be killed or enslaved, that the treasure would be taken, that it would take many nations, that that city would never be rebuilt and that it's foundation left bare for the spreading of nets. just how many details does it take?

Nor does it have to considering that the verse says that Nebuchadnezzar wanted a reward that he did not get.

Your the one who suggested he wanted to conquer Tyre not me.

I surely do, and did not imply otherwise. That happened because Nebuchadnezzar did not get his expected reward, which was the conquest of the mainland settlement.

No, that is s saying like we say kick their tails or wiped them out than indicated a protracted struggle not a literal event.

Ezekiel could easily have learned about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks by ordinary means, and surely many people knew about the attacks in advance by ordinary means, or Ezekiel could have merely written the prophecy when Nebuchadnezzar got to Tyre.

Do you know of similar details concerning the next war, even living in a very open nation and not being a slave? It is possible he knew a battle was coming, it is impossible he knew the wealth of detail he recorded.

Well of course the defeat of both settlements would be spread out over time, which was obvious to anyone living back then since both settlements had been unsuccessfully attacked before, but regarding the mainland settlement, the Bible itself shows in Ezekiel 29 that Nebuchadnezzar wanted the reward of defeating it, and Ezekiel plausibly if not probably implies it in chapter 26 with the following:

I know of no battle where the attacker wanted nothing from the fight.

"7 For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. 8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. 9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. 10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. 11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground."

And all that occurred just as described.

All of those verse clearly refer to Nebuchadnezzar, not to many nations. The terms in verses 9-11 are typical of what a person would use if they believed that a great conqueror would successfully attack a city. How else would you describe attacks that you believed would be successful?

If I saw him taking the mainland city that is exactly hat I would have described. You only have a point if all the verses that include taking the island and al the details associated with it are attached to the "he" pronoun but they are not.

That is correct since there is not any evidence that Ezekiel knew that the island fortress would eventually be conquered without a navy. Ezekiel 26 does not specifically say anything about how the island fortress would be defeated.

The point is that what he saw occurred exactly the way he described it before the events took place.

But Ezekiel did not say, or imply anything about how, or when the island fortress would be defeated, meaning that your mention of a navy is irrelevant.

So your criteria for how many details must be produced to be supernatural are whatever amount were given plus one?

Obviously not since Ezekiel never mentions how, or when the island fortress would be defeated. At the time that Ezekiel wrote the prophecy, it is probable that he, and everyone else, expected that when the island fortress was eventually defeated, navies would have to be used, which is what happened.

It is a given that a Navy is required to destroy an Island from 5000 BC until 1950. What your saying is exactly what I said and what you disagreed with. Ezekiel knew Nebuchadnezzar would not take the island and so never ever suggested he would (which is the number one counter used against the prophecy). That is the point. he always envisioned more than one attack.

But as secular history, and the Bible, show,l Nebuchadnezzar only attacked the mainland settlement, so you are not making any sense.

This is a new tactic I guess. Agree with everything I have been saying but claim it is evidence I am wrong. I said the Ezekiel always envisioned more than one war necessary to take Tyre. You and others have said that he meant only one attack and was wrong. Now you saying he was right and so he was wrong. I do not get it.

Ezekiel 26 never says, or implies anything about Alexander, or about navies, although common sense indicates that navies would partly be involved.

I never said it did. I said it always implied more than one attack or war.

Where does Ezekiel 26 say anything about siege engines no one had heard of, and unusual events?

I said that as evidence he meant more than one force. Since no equipment existed at that time or at any point before then to allow Nebuchadnezzar to take the island that is proof Ezekiel always meant more than one war was necessary. That is proof your original claim that he meant only Nebuchadnezzar ion his prophecy was wrong.

 

[1robin]

How do you know otherwise? Were you there?

That is not the way history works. Things are not as Agnostic declares until certainty exists they are not. Legally documents are considered to be what they claim until evidence exists they are not, just like testimony. In historical studies the best explanation for the evidence is chosen, not certainties and never opinions contrary to evidence. Prophecy is by far the best explanation for Ezekiel.

Possibly. If so, it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about the attacks in advance by ordinary means, just like at least hundreds of other people surely did. It is impossible for anyone living today to have valid historical evidence regarding how Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's intended attacks on Tyre, and Egypt.

Did you know our tactics even 24 hours before desert storm? Did you know to what extent they would work? Did you know the end result? I was in the military and had no clue. Your trying to tell me a guy in Alcatraz knew them all. At best he might have interpreted the military being called up and requests for supplies as indicating an attack would occur somewhere. Nothing natural explains his wealth of detailed knowledge. He could not have, but even if he knew all the plans he could have not known how they would turn out.

But now you are agreeing with me since I agree with Ezekiel 26, and secular history, which show that Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement, not the island.

No you are agreeing with me. I have consistently said this very thing from day one and so did Ezekiel. It is your side who claims that since Ezekiel said Nebuchadnezzar was predicted to take the whole place yet didn't he was wrong not mine. This is getting nuts. You agree with me, then reverse it, then declare that makes you right. astonishing.

But I agree that it was quite reasonable that since Nebuchadnezzar did not have a navy, he did not intend to conquer the island fortress. Since Ezekiel never said, or implied anything about navies, I do not have any idea why you ever mentioned navies. Maybe you got the idea from a conservative Christian website whose author also did not have any idea what he was talking about. Even the average sixth grader could deduce that Nebuchadnezzar, who had no navy, had no intention, or way, of successfully defeating the island fortress. When Ezekiel 29 says that Nebuchadnezzar did not get the reward that he wanted, that obviously refers to the mainland settlement, so it did not make any sense at all for you to discuss navies as far as Nebuchadnezzar's involvement is concerned.

Your the one who said he intended to conquer Tyre not me. We spent days discussing it, now you have given up and switched positions. I mentioned Navies as proof that even if Ezekiel was sitting around guessing he never would have guessed what you claimed (that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Tyre).


Here is what you said:

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.

It has been my position from the beginning that Ezekiel did not prophecy that he would defeat Tyre proper nor that he would have ever guessed so by natural means because there existed no navy to do so. It was you who suggested that he did not me.

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." That does not make any case that helps you. No one living today has any idea what Ezekiel meant by "like the top of a rock." What does the top of a rock look like? If the island fortress had been abandoned before Alexander destroyed it, by this time, meaning by 2013, ordinary oceanic conditions would have largely destroyed it. "Like the top of a rock" is much too vague to be of use to conservative Christians, which is largely why even many conservative Christian Bible scholars do not debate the Tyre prophecy even if they believe that God inspired it.

Nor would anyone have guessed it would have been reduced to nothing. These prophecies are not to be read without common sense. They are not open ended things which may eventually happen. They have historical references. This is like prophesying New York City will be reduced to complete ruble by force and it happen. Not even conquerors routinely demolish a place, it takes too much time a and resources. Not to mention they almost have never ensured that that people could not build it back. Only one other time do I know it to have occurred. Rome actually salted the fields of Carthage to stop them from building again, but I do not think it worked. The only two times I know it worked were predicted in the bible. Tyre and Babylon. The last person to try and settle Babylon was Hussein just before the gulf war stopped him.

Well of course Nebuchadnezzar did not have the capacity to destroy the island settlement, and I most certainly have never said otherwise. Ezekiel only mentions Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel chapter 26 regarding his attacks on the mainland settlement, so why do you keep trying to associate Nebuchadnezzar with anything about the island fortress? Quite obviously, Nebuchadnezzar did not even completely destroy the mainland settlement, let alone the island fortress.

You most certainly have said otherwise. That is one of the two main contentions against this prophecy. You said it was reasonable to expect him to defeat Tyre an so Ezekiel could have guessed it, yet Tyre could not have been defeated by him. The mainland settlement was a suburb so you cannot say it was a prophecy about him defeating the mainland only. In those times suburbs were referred to as daughters of the city and Ezekiel distinguished between them perfectly.

What do you mean by "reduce the target"?

A proper siege is not throwing some rocks at a wall. A siege is meant to take or destroy a fortress. Nebuchadnezzar intended neither.

Surely Nebuchadnezzar intended to, and wanted to defeat the mainland settlement. That is why he spent 13 years trying to do so. The mainland settlement ended up getting severely damaged, and paid tribute to him, but as Ezekiel 29 shows, he did not get his intended reward, which had to have been the conquest of the mainland settlement since if widespread punitive actions were his only intent, he achieved that, and got his reward if that was his only intent, which it wasn't.

Everyone knew that wealth of Tyre was mainly held in the fortress and that any wealth to be had from the mainland would come quick or never. He was not hoping they kept their loot in the mainland for thirteen years. I imagine he took the whole place over very quickly and used it as a staging grounds for other things or considered keeping it and finally gave up both. The mainland does not even have any formidable remains and was lightly defended.

It is a reasonable assumption that Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the mainland settlement, partly because of the widespread damage that he predicted in Ezekiel chapter 26, which would be typical of a conquest, and because he called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings." Nebuchadnezzar had a very impressive reputation as a conqueror, and it was a good bet at that time that he would defeat the mainland settlement. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that "the second and greatest king of the Chaldean dynasty of Babylonia (reigned c. 605–c. 561 bc). He was known for his military might, the splendour of his capital, Babylon, and his important part in Jewish history."

I never suggested that once Ezekiel would have know what was to be attacked he would be safe in assuming it would be defeated. My claim is he wrote about what was to occur before it would have been known in general and specifics that could not have possibly been known beforehand.

It is doubtful that Ezekiel would have predicted that a very powerful "king of kings" would go down all of the city's streets, set engines of war against its walls, enter into its gates, bring its garrisons to the ground, break down its walls, and destroy its houses if he did not believe that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer the city.

I never suggested he did.

The Internet has many examples of the 13 year siege from Christian, and skeptic websites, including the skeptic website that I just quoted. You can easily find many other examples yourself.

I have read most.

That is debatable, but it is a fact that thousands of skeptic scholars in many fields could easily intimidate you, and that is why you have refused to debate any of them. You are nowhere near a scholar in any field of Christian apologetics. You are not even a gifted amateur in any field of Christian apologetics. I have come across many gifted amateurs during the past ten years, both Christian, and skeptic, any you do not know anywhere near what any of them know, and never will. You are merely a dabber who has no idea what his academic limitations are.

No it is not, they can't intimidate me. They can be smarter or more well informed they can't intimidate. I have no use for your personal commentary and these posts are long enough without it. Christians and the bible have made a career of not being intimidated and making fools out of their critics.

Please reply to my previous post.

I have.

 

[1robin]

Of course it's a better place. If you disagree, try going back and living your life 500 years ago.

You mean before Hitler's 50 million deaths, abortions hundreds of millions, or just before we had enough weapons pointed at each other to end all life and the moral insanity to almost have done so twice. Is air-conditioning justification for millions of unnecessary aids deaths?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You mean before Hitler's 50 million deaths....

Look up 'black death'. Hitler couldn't touch the percentage of people killed by disease 500 years ago. They say 90% of all native Americans could have died of smallpox.

...abortions hundreds of millions

I'd much rather be an aborted baby than a peasant 500 years ago.

Is air-conditioning justification for millions of unnecessary aids deaths?

What the heck are you talking about? AIDS? Do you have any idea how many fewer people die of disease than died 500 years ago?

 

[1robin]

Look up 'black death'. Hitler couldn't touch the percentage of people killed by disease 500 years ago. They say 90% of all native Americans could have died of smallpox.

I thought we were discussing moral progress not germ theory.

I'd much rather be an aborted baby than a peasant 500 years ago.

We may very well have aborted the guy who cured cancer or Nietzsche's Ubermansch by now. That is quite an arrogant responsibility to be made in complete ignorance. BTW these numbers exceed all your combined and are morally related and not the actions of mindless germs.

What the heck are you talking about? AIDS? Do you have any idea how many fewer people die of disease than died 500 years ago?

No significant case of human born aids existed before the polio vaccine, when Monkey blood serum was substituted for human.

None of this has anything to do with moral progress, which is the only relevant subject.