The Tyre prophecy

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

OK, well, freely available abortion is obviously moral progress, as is the acceptance of homosexuality. Also the abolition of slavery.

Clearly we inhabit a world which is morally superior to previous times.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

OK, well, freely available abortion is obviously moral progress, as is the acceptance of homosexuality. Also the abolition of slavery.

Clearly we inhabit a world which is morally superior to previous times.

Not to mention rape as a method of marriage.

 

[1robin]

Not to mention rape as a method of marriage.

What?

 

[1robin]

OK, well, freely available abortion is obviously moral progress, as is the acceptance of homosexuality. Also the abolition of slavery.

So murder of the most innocent form of human life, the acceptance of a practice engaged in by 4% of us that causes 60% of aids cases in the US and billions of dollars, and to claim to have done what was purchased by a Christian presidents expense and a Christians nations blood are examples of atheist moral progress. is someone playing "the world turned upside down" somewhere?

Clearly we inhabit a world which is morally superior to previous times.

Only if atheistic utopian genocide is the goal. I get it, you call whatever is better. Only in ambiguous-land is a thousand mega-tons of thermo-nuclear holocaust, progress. That would probably make Armageddon a party, and hell, paradise.

 

[1robin]

Not to mention rape as a method of marriage.

That is the goofiest avatar ever, followed shortly behind that post.

 

[1robin]

If I make a complain about God thread can we discuss prophecy there?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So murder of the most innocent form of human life, the acceptance of a practice engaged in by 4% of us that causes 60% of aids cases in the US and billions of dollars, and to claim to have done what was purchased by a Christian presidents expense and a Christians nations blood are examples of atheist moral progress. is someone playing "the world turned upside down" somewhere?

Really, man. I wish you would take some time to compose your thoughts. I can't make any sense of what you've written above.

Only if atheistic utopian genocide is the goal.

It's better than Christian utopian genocide. Clearly.

 

[1robin]

Really, man. I wish you would take some time to compose your thoughts. I can't make any sense of what you've written above.

You know exactly what I stated.

It's better than Christian utopian genocide. Clearly.

No it is not. In fact it is far more numerous. Anyone that claims one type of genocide is better than another has lost moral credibility.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You know exactly what I stated.

You're posting falsehoods about me again. I do not know what you were trying to state. It was one of the most grammatically-confused pieces of prose I've ever encountered.

No it is not. In fact it is far more numerous. Anyone that claims one type of genocide is better than another has lost moral credibility.

You talked about 'atheistic utopian genocide'... whatever that might mean to you.

I'm just trying to figure out what you're on about.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Let's take one specific prediction at a time. Ezekiel predicted the Nebuchadnezzar would seriously damage the mainland settlement. That happened, but surely many other people also believed that that would happen. Ezekiel used terms like tearing down towers, and going down streets, which are ordinary terms that would typically be used to predict serious damage.

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.

But even if you are completely right about those things, that does not help you. Regarding Nebuchadnezzar, all that matters is
the following:

Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the mainland settlement. There was nothing unusual about that. Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would seriously damage the mainland settlement. There was nothing unusual about that, and many other people must have also believed that that would happen since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king.

A Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II says:

"After the destruction of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar engaged in a thirteen-year siege of Tyre (circa 586–573) which ended in a compromise, with the Tyrians accepting Babylonian authority."

Two scholarly references were given for that claim. You can check the references if you wish.

The following is from a Christian publication that is called the Apologetics Press:

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

In chronological order, the siege of Nebuchadnezzar took place within a few months of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Josephus, quoting “the records of the Phoenicians,” says that Nebuchadnezzar “besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king” (Against Apion, 1.21). The length of the siege was due, in part, to the unusual arrangement of the mainland city and the island city. While the mainland city would have been susceptible to ordinary siege tactics, the island city would have been easily defended against orthodox siege methods (Fleming, p. 45). The historical record suggests that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city, but the siege of the island “probably ended with the nominal submission of the city” in which Tyre surrendered “without receiving the hostile army within her walls” (p. 45). The city of Tyre was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, who did major damage to the mainland as Ezekiel predicted, but the island city remained primarily unaffected.

I doubt that Nebuchadnezzar spent 13 years attacking the island fortress.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Let me put it another way. Very few people at these forums have a degree in theology, biology, physics, or philosophy. As such, they often cannot make well-informed arguments about those fields. However, even if they did have degrees, often, that would not settle anything since, for example, although you do not know enough about macro evolution to intelligently discuss it, even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, it wouldn't matter because 1) 99.86 of experts disagree with you, and 2) when Ph.D.s debate macro evolution, most people do not know enough about biology to adequately judge who won. So, when you made a number of posts about macro evolution, why should anyone have paid any attention to you?

Regarding what I know, it doesn't matter since the main issue is the collective debating abilities, and knowledge of all skeptics as compared with the debating abilities, and knowledge of all Christians. Thus, it doesn't matter what you said about macro evolution since thousands of skeptic experts could easily demolish you in debates about macro evolution. Many Christians use a similar approach. For example, most creationists do not know nearly enough about biology to reject macro evolution based upon their knowledge of biology, but that doesn't matter to them because they believed that creationist experts know enough about biology to accept creationism based upon biology.

And it doesn't matter what you have said about biblical criticism and history since thousands of skeptic experts could easily demolish you if you debated biblical criticism and history with them. You would need to read, and remember, many dozens of books that you have not read in order to even have rudimentary discussions about numerous topics that are related to biblical criticism and history. In some thread, you made a post about manuscript evidence and some other things, but what you posted, or probably copied from some Christian website, would get you nowhere if you debated it with skeptic experts. One thing about biblical criticism and history is that debates about it are endless, and one topic often leads to many more topics, which leads to many more topics. Surely no loving God would require that people become walking encyclopedias before they choose a world view. If eternal life exists, morally, it should be very easy to learn about, not difficult to learn about. Since you have refused to debate certain topics with experts, that shows that you know that you are not well-informed about many of the topics that you debate.

There are very few first and second century A.D. original New Testament manuscripts, and they are too incomplete to be of much use in debates. The number of manuscripts wouldn't matter even if there were a million of them since no one knows how many times they have been changed. Since it is probable that some of them have been changed, there is no way of knowing how many more have been changed since interpolations are not always obvious.

In an article at The Formation of the New Testament Canon, ancient historian Dr. Richard Carrier says:

Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible. It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions. The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won."

The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, a poor forgery written perhaps near the end of the 3rd century (inspired by Col. 4:16), remained part of many accepted Bibles throughout the Middle Ages, and continued to be included in some printed Bibles as late as the 17th century (M 182-3, 239-40). On the other hand, the Apocalypse of Paul (M 186-7), purporting to be written by Paul himself, but really composed in the 3rd century as well, was never taken anywhere near as seriously. It was apparently admired by many monks in the early Middle Ages, yet never had a chance at the canon, and it is best classified with the 3rd century Christian novels and other works of Christian fiction that proliferated in this period.

That is just a little of the long article.

Unlike you, I know my limitations, and I usually only discuss topics at length that I would be willing to debate with Christian experts. For example, I would be willing to debate any Christian about homosexuality, the Tyre prophecy, the morality of God, and the existence of God relating to some of my arguments in the thread at another forum that it titled "The right religion."

Skeptics at these forums do not need to be concerned about debating you when they do not know enough about a certain issue to adequately refute your arguments since there will always be many thousands of other skeptics who would demolish you in debates almost any topic. Of course, you could counter by saying that there will always be thousands of Christian experts that could demolish skeptics at these forums in debates, but once experts are involved, most laymen do not know enough about many topics to adequately judge debates about them.

We have barely gotten started with this thread. If necessary, I will spend years debating the Tyre prophecy with you, and I would have been willing to spend years debating homosexuality with you, but you withdrew from the thread on homosexuality. It is quite interesting that you often accuse skeptics of not reading your links, and you have accused me of being repetitive, but regarding the thread on homosexuality, I can easily prove that you have refused to reply to some of my arguments on many occasions. You complain that you do not have enough time to make posts. Well, that is because you debate far too many issues, so your lack of enough time is your fault. You have spent a lot of time debating homosexuality in various threads, and have gotten nowhere. You now know that, and that is why you vacated the thread on homosexuality. I have mentioned Richard Carrier's article on the New Testament Canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon to you in at least two threads, but you have never commented on it. I mentioned Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun to you a number of times, but all that you ever did was make a few casual comments about it that showed that you have no idea what most of the article means.

Just how many different topics do you want to debate, and what makes you think that you have enough expertise to adequately debate them? You are not nearly any expert in any field of Christian apologetics, and you are not even a gifted amateur in any field of Christian apologetics. You know a good deal about math, a fair amount about certain kinds of engineering, and a fair amount about military history, none of which help you at all in your debates at these forums.

Please reply to my post #90.

 

[1robin]

Let me put it another way. Very few people at these forums have a degree in theology, biology, physics, or philosophy. As such, they often cannot make well-informed arguments about those fields. However, even if they did have degrees, often, that would not settle anything since, for example, although you do not know enough about macro evolution to intelligently discuss it, even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, it wouldn't matter because 1) 99.86 of experts disagree with you, and 2) when Ph.D.s debate macro evolution, most people do not know enough about biology to adequately judge who won. So, when you made a number of posts about macro evolution, why should anyone have paid any attention to you?

Regarding what I know, it doesn't matter since the main issue is the collective debating abilities, and knowledge of all skeptics as compared with the debating abilities, and knowledge of all Christians. Thus, it doesn't matter what you said about macro evolution since thousands of skeptic experts could easily demolish you in debates about macro evolution. Many Christians use a similar approach. For example, most creationists do not know nearly enough about biology to reject macro evolution based upon their knowledge of biology, but that doesn't matter to them because they believed that creationist experts know enough about biology to accept creationism based upon biology.

And it doesn't matter what you have said about biblical criticism and history since thousands of skeptic experts could easily demolish you if you debated biblical criticism and history with them. You would need to read, and remember, many dozens of books that you have not read in order to even have rudimentary discussions about numerous topics that are related to biblical criticism and history. In some thread, you made a post about manuscript evidence and some other things, but what you posted, or probably copied from some Christian website, would get you nowhere if you debated it with skeptic experts. One thing about biblical criticism and history is that debates about it are endless, and one topic often leads to many more topics, which leads to many more topics. Surely no loving God would require that people become walking encyclopedias before they choose a world view. If eternal life exists, morally, it should be very easy to learn about, not difficult to learn about. Since you have refused to debate certain topics with experts, that shows that you know that you are not well-informed about many of the topics that you debate.

There are very few first and second century A.D. original New Testament manuscripts, and they are too incomplete to be of much use in debates. The number of manuscripts wouldn't matter even if there were a million of them since no one knows how many times they have been changed. Since it is probable that some of them have been changed, there is no way of knowing how many more have been changed since interpolations are not always obvious.

In an article at The Formation of the New Testament Canon, ancient historian Dr. Richard Carrier says:



That is just a little of the long article.

Unlike you, I know my limitations, and I usually only discuss topics at length that I would be willing to debate with Christian experts. For example, I would be willing to debate any Christian about homosexuality, the Tyre prophecy, the morality of God, and the existence of God relating to some of my arguments in the thread at another forum that it titled "The right religion."

Skeptics at these forums do not need to be concerned about debating you when they do not know enough about a certain issue to adequately refute your arguments since there will always be many thousands of other skeptics who would demolish you in debates almost any topic. Of course, you could counter by saying that there will always be thousands of Christian experts that could demolish skeptics at these forums in debates, but once experts are involved, most laymen do not know enough about many topics to adequately judge debates about them.

We have barely gotten started with this thread. If necessary, I will spend years debating the Tyre prophecy with you, and I would have been willing to spend years debating homosexuality with you, but you withdrew from the thread on homosexuality. It is quite interesting that you often accuse skeptics of not reading your links, and you have accused me of being repetitive, but regarding the thread on homosexuality, I can easily prove that you have refused to reply to some of my arguments on many occasions. You complain that you do not have enough time to make posts. Well, that is because you debate far too many issues, so your lack of enough time is your fault. You have spent a lot of time debating homosexuality in various threads, and have gotten nowhere. You now know that, and that is why you vacated the thread on homosexuality. I have mentioned Richard Carrier's article on the New Testament Canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon to you in at least two threads, but you have never commented on it. I mentioned Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun to you a number of times, but all that you ever did was make a few casual comments about it that showed that you have no idea what most of the article means.

Just how many different topics do you want to debate, and what makes you think that you have enough expertise to adequately debate them? You are not nearly any expert in any field of Christian apologetics, and you are not even a gifted amateur in any field of Christian apologetics. You know a good deal about math, a fair amount about certain kinds of engineering, and a fair amount about military history, none of which help you at all in your debates at these forums.

Please reply to my post #90.

What in the world is this? You said basically that:

1. No scholars I could use matter.
2. All scholars you use do matter.
4. I cannot mention an opinion even if I have a PhD in the subject if the majority disagrees. Tell that to the state majority in 1900.
5. I cannot discuss anything because some unnamed scholar would defeat me if I had a formal debate with them.
6. That the majority of a group that agrees to a generalized concept automatically makes every specific problem area within that field moot. IOW since most experts believe flight is possible then any restrictions about swept wings being necessary for transonic flight are irrelevant. That makes no sense.

There is little reason to go on. This is a repeat of a repeat that was dismissed as irrelevant long ago. I do not care what your personal evaluation of me are concerning mysterious scholars somewhere. I do not care what the rotary club, the sewing mothers of Ethiopia, or the mile high club has determined about God and the physics dept. would be no different. Either counter my claims or let them go.

I do not think there was one sentence about Tyre in here.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Nothing that Ezekiel said about Nebuchadnezzar took divine inspiration. Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack, and seriously damage the mainland settlement. That happened, but surely many other people also believed that that would happen. Ezekiel used terms like tearing down towers, and going down streets, which are ordinary terms that would typically be used to predict serious damage. There was nothing unusual about a powerful king like Nebuchadnezzar damaging the mainland settlement, and it would have been quite surprising if that had not happened after his forces got to the mainland settlement.

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.

But even if you are completely right about those things, that does not help you. Regarding Nebuchadnezzar, all that matters is
the following:

Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the mainland settlement. There was nothing unusual about that. Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would seriously damage the mainland settlement. There was nothing unusual about that, and many other people must have also believed that that would happen since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Consider the following:

Bible prophecies and myth

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.

.......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.

In fact the whole Phoenician/Carthaginian empire started to self destruct from that moment.......

So what? All ancient empires fell sooner or later.

By the way, years after Nebuchadnezzar died, Carthage gained independence, and flourished for centuries.



Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Agnostic75]

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/ezekiel-261-14-a-proof-text-for-inerrancy-or-fallibility-of-the-old-testament.aspxhttp://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...ancy-or-fallibility-of-the-old-testament.aspxhttp://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...ancy-or-fallibility-of-the-old-testament.aspx
http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-co...ze&chapter=026
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NASB
http://www.konig.org/page8.htm
http://www.bibleevidences.com/prophecy.htm
http://www.equip.org/articles/fulfil...an-apologetic/

Regarding the first link, the end of the article has the following conclusions:

A close reading of the text of Ezekiel 26:1–14 reveals the following facts:

Quote:

1. The rubble from Tyre would be put into the sea. This was fulfilled in 332 BC by Alexander the Great’s army, 250 years after Ezekiel was written.

2. The passage does not state that Nebuchadnezzar would capture the island city and get its wealth. On the other hand, it does not say Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre at all—he conquered “Old Tyre.” It simply states he did not get anything of value from it. This is exactly what Ezekiel 29:17ff states. There is no contradiction.

3. The total destruction of Tyre would be accomplished gradually by one nation after another.

4. In the end Tyre would be destroyed down to the bare rock and never rebuilt. The final destruction took place in AD 1291, almost 2,000 years after Ezekiel was written.

End quotes

Regarding item 1, following are versus 1-14:

Quote:

1 And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste:

3 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.

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.

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.

12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

14 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.

End quotes

Apparently, item 1 refers to verse 12, which says:

"And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water."

A major problem with that approach is that the verse probably refers to only the island fortress. The first mention of Tyre in chapter 26 is "Tyrus," in verse
2. The verse clearly means the island settlement since verse 6 mentions Tyrus' "daughters" on the mainland.

Item 2 is nonsense since many people expected that Nebuchadnezzar would seriously damage the mainland settlement, which was an easy guess, and that he would not be able to conquer the island settlement, which if not an easy guess was assumed by many people since the island was a very strong fortress.

Item 3 is also nonsense since historically, many cities, and empires have been gradually defeated by many nations.

Item 4 is also nonsense since 1) as I showed in my previous post, the mainland settlement was rebuilt on a number of occasions, 2) there is not any evidence that the mainland settlement ever looked like a bare rock, and 3) it is not unusual that the island settlement would eventually be destroyed by a combination of humans, and by water and winds over time.

It is no wonder that even many conservative Christian Bible scholars, and many gifted Christian amateurs do not debate the Tyre prophecy.

Please reply to my previous two posts.

 

[1robin]

Let's take one specific prediction at a time. Ezekiel predicted the Nebuchadnezzar would seriously damage the mainland settlement. That happened, but surely many other people also believed that that would happen. Ezekiel used terms like tearing down towers, and going down streets, which are ordinary terms that would typically be used to predict serious damage.

Going down streets is serious damage, good Lord. This partial list is from a previous post that evaluates what Ezekiel could have known versus what he claimed.

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 or international 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 effort, not a conquest 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. Yet not find enough loot to pay the troops.
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. IT became as siege but was not intended to be one.
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.
h. He had no way to know that one of the strongest fortresses on Earth would be completely demolished down to the bedrock. This is a very rare occurrence in ancient warfare.
I. He had no way to know where a fort sat would be used to spread fishing nets.
J. He had no way to know the rubble from he old city would be used as a causeway to get siege weapons to the fort.

Also keep in mind this is a multiplicative probability. They all must come true without a single failure. Someone computed a very generous probability factor of 1 in 70,000 by natural means.

But even if you are completely right about those things, that does not help you. Regarding Nebuchadnezzar, all that matters is
the following:

Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the mainland settlement. There was nothing unusual about that. Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would seriously damage the mainland settlement. There was nothing unusual about that, and many other people must have also believed that that would happen since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king.

There is something unusual in a slave knowing the target for a kings attack. Not necessarily supernatural but also very rare. It is when combined with more than a dozen details even less explainable by the natural things get undeniable.

A Wikipedia article at Nebuchadnezzar II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia says:

"After the destruction of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar engaged in a thirteen-year siege of Tyre (circa 586–573) which ended in a compromise, with the Tyrians accepting Babylonian authority."

Two scholarly references were given for that claim. You can check the references if you wish.

I do not disagree with it, why would I need to challenge it?

The following is from a Christian publication that is called the Apologetics Press:

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790



I doubt that Nebuchadnezzar spent 13 years attacking the island fortress.

I do not see the point here. I never said he spent 13 years attacking the fortress. I doubt he spent 13 years attacking anything. He probably spent a month attacking the mainland and a few days lobbing missiles at the island but probably had a garrison in Tyre for 13 years. You have switched tactics and started posted what I have already claimed occurred and then saying "there". What is the problem here?

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Nothing that Ezekiel said about Nebuchadnezzar took divine inspiration.

Then by all means tell me the same number of details and the level of them he did for the next war even though you have the advantage of the internet and news services and are not a slave. When you can do so accurately then your declaration may have some merit.

Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack, and seriously damage the mainland settlement. That happened, but surely many other people also believed that that would happen. Ezekiel used terms like tearing down towers, and going down streets, which are ordinary terms that would typically be used to predict serious damage. There was nothing unusual about a powerful king like Nebuchadnezzar damaging the mainland settlement, and it would have been quite surprising if that had not happened after his forces got to the mainland settlement.

Yu can not select one detail of a dozen or so level prophecy that is more explainable by natural means but sufficiently done so and ten condemn all the other aspects of the prophecy along with it. If I predicted you would take another breath and then be hit by a UFO, knocked into the grand canyon, and discover Atlantis there. It is the height of absurdity to say I could have guessed all that based on the fact I knew you would draw another breath.

But even if you are completely right about those things, that does not help you. Regarding Nebuchadnezzar, all that matters is
the following:

Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the mainland settlement. There was nothing unusual about that. Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would seriously damage the mainland settlement. There was nothing unusual about that, and many other people must have also believed that that would happen since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king.

This is a repeat from another post already addressed.

 

[1robin]

Consider the following:

Bible prophecies and myth



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:

How many times do I have to clarify this. It was a prophecy against the PHONECIAN residents of TYRE not the geographical coordinates. It was never intended to convey the idea no one would ever pile one stone on another in the general area. It only applied to a Phoenician Tyre by always referring to it as "that city" or "they will not". They did not. No Phoenician city ever existed at that place again and in fact the entire Carthaginian empire crumbled to dust from that moment. How many times do I have to make this clear. I know of DR Carrier and he is a good scholar but his idea that a prediction that applied to any city ever being built in the region was never intended. It makes no sense. He also seems to think Nebuchadnezzar was predicted to have ended Tyre himself which as I and others have pointed out defies every pronoun in the prophecy. He is just plain wrong and in this case it is not speculation, he is in fact wrong.

Please reply to my previous post.

If you only posted new material it would take me 1/3 rd the time.

 

[Agnostic75]

Going down streets is serious damage, good Lord. This partial list is from a previous post that evaluates what Ezekiel could have known versus what he claimed.

At best Ezekiel might have gotten wind of an attack coming at some point. He would not have known about it's details.

What details? Here are verses 7-11:

Quote:

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.

End of quotes

None of that has any evidence of divine inspiration. The verses merely describe in ordinary terms that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the mainland settlement. The predictions were quite ordinary since you said that the mainland settlement was not strongly fortified, which means that it would have been unusual if Nebuchadnezzar had not severely damaged the mainland settlement.

Even with internet and television you can not tell me the next nation or international war that will occur.......

But you have admitted that it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about the attacks in advance by ordinary means. Surely hundreds of people knew about the attacks in advance, and it is impossible for you to know thousands of years later how many people outside of Babylon knew about the attacks in advance. And you certainly cannot rule out a reasonable possibility that Ezekiel learned about the attacks in advance just before Nebuchadnezzar reached Tyre when it became obvious to everyone that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the mainland settlement.

.......nor any details about it. Ezekiel for example would have never known from spies that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to take the island.......

Goodness gracious, many people believed that Nebuchadnezzar would fail to conquer the island because of its location in the water, and because of its strong fortifications. Verses 7-14 are all about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks on the mainland settlement, not the island settlement.

.......and attack Egypt to pay his men instead.

Just plain old common sense indicates that it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plan to attack Egypt in advance by ordinary means, just like many other people did.

Spies are out as an explanation.

Not at all. Surely some people outside of Babylon knew about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks on the mainland settlement in advance, and that would have immediately become very big news to anyone who heard it, and the news would have spread rapidly. It would be impossible to keep such news a secret.

When Nebuchadnezzar's forces left Babylon, it was not long before many people outside of Babylon knew that he was probably heading for Tyre. At that time, many people would easily have been able to beat Nebuchadnezzar's forces to Tyre and spread the news.

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

You do not have any clue what you are talking about. Ezekiel did not even hint that Nebuchadnezzar would attempt to conquer the island.

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

On the contrary, Ezekiel never said anything at all about Alexander.

Nothing that Ezekiel said about Nebuchadnezzar indicates divine inspiration. It is so simple that it is amazing that you do not even understand basic logic. It is certainly a reasonable possibility that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement in advance by ordinary means. That is not even debatable.

If the mainland settlement was not well fortified, it is quite natural that Ezekiel, and many other people, believed that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the settlement. That is not even debatable.

Regarding "pronoun shifts," verses 7-11 refer only to Nebuchadnezzar. Verses 12-14 refer to the island. Following are verses 12-14:

Quote:

12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

14 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.

End quotes

None of those verse indicate divine inspiration. Common sense indicates that eventually, with no given time frame, humans, and ordinary oceanic forces would eventually cause great destruction to the island.