The Tyre prophecy

[Agnostic75]

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.

Nothing in verse 26 says anything at all about all of the citizens of the island settlement, or the mainland settlement being killed or captured.

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.

But as Dr. Richard Carrier said:

".......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."

You do not even know basic history.

He had no way to know where a fort sat would be used to spread fishing nets.

On the contrary, Ezekiel gave no time frame for the destruction of the island settlement. With an unlimited time frame, it would be expected that eventually, humans, and ordinary oceanic forces would severely damage, or completely destroy the island settlement.

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.

That is correct, and that is why he did not even hint that that would happen. Verse 12 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." The verse refers to the island settlement. As I said, "With an unlimited time frame, it would be expected that eventually, humans, and ordinary oceanic forces would severely damage, or completely destroy the island settlement."

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.

That someone did not have any idea what he was talking about.

There is something unusual in a slave knowing the target for a king's attack.

But you have already admitted that it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about the attacks in advance by ordinary means. There is no need to limit the possibilities to slaves, and I never mentioned slaves. Many different kinds of people besides slaves would have known about the attack in advance.

Not necessarily supernatural but also very rare.

On the contrary, regarding who outside of Babylon knew what about Nebuchadnezzar's plans in advance by ordinary means, it is impossible for anyone living today, thousands of years later, to accurately estimate the odds that Ezekiel, or anyone else, could have learned about the attacks in advance.

It is when combined with more than a dozen details even less explainable by the natural things get undeniable.

Which details are you referring to?

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[1robin]

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.

There is not a new point here at all. I have addressed every claim several times. I will therefor list them in a formal way and deal with each one and will do so for the last time unless new information is provided that defeats my response.


1. Neither of either set of 1 and 2s listed above says anything about which part of Tyre is concerned.

a. The rubble could have been part of either part and was only said to have been thrown in the sea. It was. You can make it only the mainland or only the Island and it would still be true. Parts of each were knocked into the sea by both attackers. There is no difficulty at all here.
b. Stating that Tyre is broken is a common biblical expression. It always means to deteriorate significantly the political, military, and or cultural influence of a group of people. Many nations in the bible were broken but not obliterated nor conquered. In fact the same story includes one example concerning Egypt. So no problem exists whatever here. Nebuchadnezzar broke Tyre's significant influence over the region. They after him withdrew to the Island and ceased to be what they once were. The generalized nature of "broken" is why I have not included it in any of my lists of prophetic details. It is too broad to be meaningful. It was simply the same apocalyptic trash talking common to all ANE texts. It is not a good example of prophecy nor is it in any way inaccurate.


2.1 I have already addressed your dismissal of a multifaceted detail given the unlikelihood a slave would know the location of the next battle and/or even if he had. It is not even close to being a natural explanation for the prophecy as a whole and not a likely natural event anyway.

3. It is not nonsense since most cities are not destroyed. Has London ever ceased to exist since it was formed by Rome, has Berlin, Moscow, even Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? They have been attacked repeatedly for thousands of years and even nuked by the most powerful military in history yet never ceased to exist. Large fortress cities almost never stopped existing for any significant length of time and are still there. Regardless, it was not predicted to eventually blow away or erode. It like Fort Knox, or the Maginot line was a heavily defended and believed impregnable fortress with no known weapons that could even breech it. Yet was said to be soon obliterated by military action. It is like my predicting the north pole will be destroyed by military means.

4. The main land has nothing to do with bare rocks. The island was what was built on bare rock and what was predicted to be scraped clean. Are you actually suggesting Ezekiel meant the Earth would be removed from the mainland? That is absurd. Neither the mainland nor the island was rebuilt by who it was said would not rebuild it. I have been over this too many times. It is very unusual that fortresses are utterly destroyed by any force. Most are still essentially there today in the general form they were built in. Just look at Acre and Jerusalem in the very same area. It was not prophesied to eventually erode away or be sucked up in a tornado. One of the most impregnable fortresses on earth at the time was predicted to be utterly destroyed by military action. This was not some open ended prediction that would eventually come true anyway. It was something that has only rarely ever taken place and I cannot think of even a parallel. Some cities were obliterated and even some forts. I cannot think of any huge military Island colossus remotely similar that were eradicated by military might. Even years later as I have explained it taxed everything even Alexander could muster and he almost gave up several times. This was a hyperbolic prediction with few parallels even as of today. Almost every crusader fort in the region is still there and most were not a tenth the strength of Tyre. That whole region is covered in forts yet Tyre has vanished.
5. Somewhere I read you say that it was not destroyed until 1291. That is an Islamic theory that is an us to kind of hail Mary. I am familiar with it but it has no plausibility and almost no one shares it. Alexander did not want to destroy it, no one would have, yet their killing his messengers meant he would dismantle the place or die trying. No Islamic army is necessary. Alexander hauled in everything that would float and stuck the first ever rams on them and even built the largest siege engines ever constructed and systematically obliterated the place.

6. Saying critics exist is not an argument and by far most Christian scholars support the prophecy.

I am now done with these topics.

 

[Agnostic75]

He would have had no reason to ever suggest Nebuchadnezzar would attempt to wipe out the inland city.......

On the contrary, if Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plan to attack the mainland settlement in advance by ordinary means, that would have been a good reason for him to write what he wrote about Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 26.

.......nor even to besiege the island fortress yet he did.

But Ezekiel never even hinted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the island settlement. Verses 7-11 only discuss Nebuchadnezzar's attacks on the mainland settlement.

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

He certainly would, just like many other people did. You cannot possibly know what happened thousands of years ago.

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

Parts of the mainland settlement were rebuilt on a number of occasions. Even though the prophecy was against the Tyrians, Ezekiel never said who would not rebuild the city, only that it would never be rebuilt.

I have already provided you with the following evidence that shows that the mainland settlement was rebuilt by the Tyrians:

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.

The rebuilt mainland settlement was obviously still a Phoenician settlement, and quite obviously, the island settlement was still a Phoenician settlement.

Dr. Richard Carrier says that "the city of Tyre was rebuilt immediately after Alexander's attack, and remained a powerhouse of trade for the next two thousand years." Are you implying that it was not Tyrians who rebuilt the city?

He had no reason to suspect a punitive raid would result in a siege wall.

Ezekiel chapter 26 never says anything about a siege wall..

Sieges are the exact things raids are never to engage in.

Semantics are not necessary. Regardless of what you want to call Nebuchadnezzar's attacks on Tyre, it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about the attacks in advance by ordinary means.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is not a new point here at all. I have addressed every claim several times. I will therefor list them in a formal way and deal with each one and will do so for the last time unless new information is provided that defeats my response.

Neither of either set of 1 and 2s listed above says anything about which part of Tyre is concerned.

I do not know what you mean, but here is how I understand who is being referred to in the chapter. Verses 1-5 refer to the island as "Tyrus." Verse 6 refers to the mainland settlements as Tyrus' "daughters which are in the field." Verses 7-11 refer only to Nebuchadnezzar, not to other nations. Verse 12 refers to the island. Verse 14 says "And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God." I do not know which settlement that verse refers to, or whether it refers to both settlements, but in any case, there is not any indication that God inspired the verse. There is not any historical evidence that the mainland settlement ever looked like the top of a rock, and it would be expected that over time, humans, and ordinary oceanic forces, would severely damage, or completely destroy the island settlement.

The rubble could have been part of either part and was only said to have been thrown in the sea. It was. You can make it only the mainland or only the Island and it would still be true.

Alexander obviously used rubble from the mainland, but what does that have to do with Ezekiel, chapter 26, and with whether or not the prophecy was divinely inspired?

Parts of each were knocked into the sea by both attackers. There is no difficulty at all here.

So what?

Stating that Tyre is broken is a common biblical expression. It always means to deteriorate significantly the political, military, and or cultural influence of a group of people. Many nations in the bible were broken but not obliterated nor conquered. In fact the same story includes one example concerning Egypt. So no problem exists whatever here. Nebuchadnezzar broke Tyre's significant influence over the region. They after him withdrew to the Island and ceased to be what they once were. The generalized nature of "broken" is why I have not included it in any of my lists of prophetic details. It is too broad to be meaningful. It was simply the same apocalyptic trash talking common to all ANE texts. It is not a good example of prophecy nor is it in any way inaccurate.

So what?

I have already addressed your dismissal of a multifaceted detail given the unlikelihood a slave would know the location of the next battle and/or even if he had. It is not even close to being a natural explanation for the prophecy as a whole and not a likely natural event anyway.

On the contrary, no reputable historian in the entire world would claim that it is not a reasonable possibility that Ezekiel, or any of a number of other people outside of Babylon, learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement by ordinary means. I never mentioned a slave, and there is need to limit the possibilities just to slaves.

When Nebuchadnezzar's forces came within 100 miles of Tyre, it would have been obvious to most people nearby that he was going to Tyre. At that time, or before that time, you can bet that some people near the forces went to warn Tyre. Ezekiel might have learned about the attacks that way, just a few days in advance.

It is not nonsense since most cities are not destroyed. Has London ever ceased to exist since it was formed by Rome, has Berlin, Moscow, even Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? They have been attacked repeatedly for thousands of years and even nuked by the most powerful military in history yet never ceased to exist. Large fortress cities almost never stopped existing for any significant length of time and are still there. Regardless, it was not predicted to eventually blow away or erode. It like Fort Knox, or the Maginot line was a heavily defended and believed impregnable fortress with no known weapons that could even breech it. Yet was said to be soon obliterated by military action. It is like my predicting the north pole will be destroyed by military means.

I have already adequately refuted that. As Dr. Richard Carrier, and many other historians have said, Tyre was rebuilt after it made a truce with Nebuchadnezzar, and it has never ceased to exist, and thousands of people still live there today.

Today, there are a number of examples of cities, and kingdoms, that were never rebuilt, or were never rebuilt to anywhere near their former glory. You do not even have a basic knowledge of ancient history.

The mainland has nothing to do with bare rocks.

If that is the case, so what?

Somewhere I read you say that it was not destroyed until
1291. That is an Islamic theory that is an us to kind of hail Mary. I am familiar with it but it has no plausibility and almost no one shares it. Alexander did not want to destroy it, no one would have, yet their killing his messengers meant he would dismantle the place or die trying. No Islamic army is necessary. Alexander hauled in everything that would float and stuck the first ever rams on them and even built the largest siege engines ever constructed and systematically obliterated the place.

I have never discussed any of that.

Saying critics exist is not an argument and by far most Christian scholars support the prophecy.

No, most "conservative Christian" scholars support the prophecy, but even many of them never debate it because they know that it is difficult to defend.

He would have had no reason to ever suggest Nebuchadnezzar would attempt to wipe out the inland city.......

On the contrary, if Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plan to attack the mainland settlement in advance by ordinary means, that would have been a good reason for him to write what he wrote about Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 26.

.......nor even to besiege the island fortress yet he did.

But Ezekiel never even hinted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the island settlement. Verses 7-11 only discuss Nebuchadnezzar's attacks on the mainland settlement.

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

He certainly would, just like many other people did. You cannot possibly know what happened thousands of years ago.

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

Parts of the mainland settlement were rebuilt on a number of occasions. Even though the prophecy was against the Tyrians, Ezekiel never said who would not rebuild the city, only that it would never be rebuilt.

I have already provided you with the following evidence that shows that the mainland settlement was rebuilt by the Tyrians:

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.

The rebuilt mainland settlement was obviously still a Phoenician settlement, and quite obviously, the island settlement was still a Phoenician settlement. Years later, Carthage gained its independence, and flourished for a number of centuries.

Dr. Richard Carrier says that "the city of Tyre was rebuilt immediately after Alexander's attack, and remained a powerhouse of trade for the next two thousand years." Are you implying that it was not Tyrians who rebuilt the city?

He had no reason to suspect a punitive raid would result in a siege wall.

Ezekiel chapter 26 never says anything about a siege wall..

Sieges are the exact things raids are never to engage in.

Semantics are not necessary. Regardless of what you want to call Nebuchadnezzar's attacks on Tyre, it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about the attacks in advance by ordinary means.

If you are done with this thread, would you like to discuss the book of Daniel, or Isaiah 53?

 

[1robin]

On the contrary, if Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plan to attack the mainland settlement in advance by ordinary means, that would have been a good reason for him to write what he wrote about Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 26.

Only one very small part of it. A hypothetical is not contrary to anything. It does not exist.

But Ezekiel never even hinted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the island settlement. Verses 7-11 only discuss Nebuchadnezzar's attacks on the mainland settlement.

When predictions match what occurred that is evidence for it not against it. He made no significant impact on the island (as I am sure you have claimed he was predicted to, in fact if the island was said to have been predicted to fall that is an admission that he was not the one to have done so), and was not claimed to have. So far 100% accuracy.

He certainly would, just like many other people did. You cannot possibly know what happened thousands of years ago.

1. Ezekiel was not a specialist in siege warfare.
2. Had no known natural access to his plans.

I have argued that since no one would have suggested a nation with no navy could take an island fortress that Ezekiel was not predicting him to have, but was obviously predicting it's destruction so INSPITE of what you and other critics claimed he did not falsely claim Nebuchadnezzar was to have done so. Your agreeing with my position.

Parts of the mainland settlement were rebuilt on a number of occasions. Even though the prophecy was against the Tyrians, Ezekiel never said who would not rebuild the city, only that it would never be rebuilt.

This one statement says the prophecy was against the Tyrians but he did not specify who it was against, which is it. God was mad at a culture's gloating over their ascendency over Israel trade business and downfall. The entire subject of the prophecy is people not bricks or coordinates. What possible purpose would God have had to ensure no one ever lived there again? This is an example of what it does say. When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; 20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; 21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.


That city will never rise. How more emphatic could God have been? The city that contained the culture that had gloried over Israel's loss would never come back. In fact the whole empire crashed. There is no way of getting from that verse and the similar ones to any city or building erected in the area. That is purely a product of bias.

I have already provided you with the following evidence that shows that the mainland settlement was rebuilt by the Tyrians:

Bible prophecies and myth

The original city is all but unknowable. The mainland city was built of far less permanent structures that eh island and almost no trace of any kind exists for it before or after the attacks. This is wishful thinking at best. I have seen more claims about there never having been a city there in the first place than yours. In fact I have never heard anyone claim what you have. I went to the link and could find nothing claiming Phoenicians rebuilt any part of the city. It only says that the city later existed not who had rebuilt it.

The rebuilt mainland settlement was obviously still a Phoenician settlement, and quite obviously, the island settlement was still a Phoenician settlement.

Dr. Richard Carrier says that "the city of Tyre was rebuilt immediately after Alexander's attack, and remained a powerhouse of trade for the next two thousand years." Are you implying that it was not Tyrians who rebuilt the city?

Not only is that sheer Lunacy it is impossible. Alexander's had to build a camp where you say a city had been rebuilt. The mainland city is actually what Alexander used to make the causeway. Unless you consider a pile of debris on the ocean floor a maritime power this is nuts. How does a culture that did not even exist, remain a powerhouse? Persia controlled Tyre when Alexander took it, then Muslims took it, then Christians took it, and now I think the Lebanese have it. There has no even been a Phoenicia, much less a Tyre to be a powerhouse of anything for 2000 years. Mr. Carrier looses my respect with every post. I imagine your confusing his claims about what non-Phoenicians did with "new Tyre" not what the Phoenicians did. In fact almost the entire old city is under water. The scrap of settlements you see even in pictures are built on debris that accumulated on what Alexander constructed in far more recent times. See pictures here and tell me where old Tyre or the mainland city is?
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

Ezekiel chapter 26 never says anything about a siege wall..

That was a type-O but in general towers and columns are part of siege walls. It makes little sense to built a tower in the middle of a field.

Semantics are not necessary. Regardless of what you want to call Nebuchadnezzar's attacks on Tyre, it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about the attacks in advance by ordinary means.

Siege was a mistake in terminology anyway. You had said Nebuchadnezzar had intended to conquer Tyre as was predicted. I said he had not and that was not predicted. Now you seem to agree to both so semantics are beside the point. I still can't get past you claiming Carrier suggests Tyre continued as a Phoenician powerhouse for 2000 years, one or both of you are sadly and absurdly wrong.

 

[Agnostic75]

On the contrary, if Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plan to attack the mainland settlement in advance by ordinary means, that would have been a good reason for him to write what he wrote about Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 26.

Only one very small part of it.

That is correct, but that is what we are talking about, and my arguments about that point are valid.

A hypothetical is not contrary to anything. It does not exist.

But Ezekiel never even hinted that Nebuchadnezzar would attack the island settlement. Verses 7-11 only discuss Nebuchadnezzar's attacks on the mainland settlement.

When predictions match what occurred that is evidence for it not against it.

Which predictions are you referring to?

He made no significant impact on the island (as I am sure you have claimed he was predicted to, in fact if the island was said to have been predicted to fall that is an admission that he was not the one to have done so), and was not claimed to have. So far 100% accuracy.

Many skeptics do claim that the prophecy failed because Nebuchadnezzar did not defeat the island settlement, but I have never made that claim. I have never said that Ezekiel's predictions did not come true, only that there is not any evidence that God inspired the Tyre prophecy. Many skeptics claim that verse 12 refers to Nebuchadnezzar. Many Christians claim that verse 12 reverts back to the island. I agree with those Christians regarding that issue.

He certainly would, just like many other people did. You cannot possibly know what happened thousands of years ago.

1. Ezekiel was not a specialist in siege warfare.

2. Had no known natural access to his plans.

That is absurd. It did not take much knowledge of military equipment, and tactics Ezekiel to guess that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the mainland settlement in the following ways:

7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground.

No one needs to be a military person in order to use ordinary language like that.

I have argued that since no one would have suggested a nation with no navy could take an island fortress that Ezekiel was not predicting him to have, but was obviously predicting it's destruction so IN SPITE of what you and other critics claimed he did not falsely claim Nebuchadnezzar was to have done so. Your agreeing with my position.

Been there, done that.

Parts of the mainland settlement were rebuilt on a number of occasions. Even though the prophecy was against the Tyrians, Ezekiel never said who would not rebuild the city, only that it would never be rebuilt.

This one statement says the prophecy was against the Tyrians but he did not specify who it was against, which is it.

You said that the prophecy means that Tyrians would never rebuild the city, but you cannot reasonably prove that that is what Ezekiel meant.

God was mad at a culture's gloating over their ascendency over Israel trade business and downfall. The entire subject of the prophecy is people not bricks or coordinates. What possible purpose would God have had to ensure no one ever lived there again? This is an example of what it does say. When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; 20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; 21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

That city will never rise. How more emphatic could God have been? The city that contained the culture that had gloried over Israel's loss would never come back. In fact the whole empire crashed. There is no way of getting from that verse and the similar ones to any city or building erected in the area. That is purely a product of bias.

That trick will not do. You need to make arguments without claiming what God said since my position is that God did not inspire the prophecy. My arguments pertain to what Ezekiel believed, not to what God said. You cannot reasonably prove that Ezekiel implied that Tyre would not be rebuilt only by Tyrians. There is no logic that states that since the prophecy is against the Tyrians, any mention of rebuilding has to refer only to the Tyrians. Even if you are right, a number of ancient cities, and kingdoms were never restored to their former glory.

 

[Agnostic75]

The original city is all but unknowable.

Sure, as are a number of other ancient cities, and kingdoms. It was reasonably possible, if not probable, that eventually, the island fortress would be largely, or completely destroyed by a combination of humans, and ordinary oceanic conditions, so the island being rebuilt is not worth debating. If the mainland settlement was never rebuilt, so what since a number of ancient cities, and kingdoms were not rebuilt to anywhere near their former glory, and some were not rebuilt at all?

I have not been able to find anything at the Internet about the location, size, and strength of the mainland settlement, how many times it was attacked, what the results of the attacks were, and what, if any attempts were made to rebuild it. Have you? If so, please post what you found.

Siege was a mistake in terminology anyway. You had said Nebuchadnezzar had intended to conquer Tyre as was predicted. I said he had not and that was not predicted. Now you seem to agree to both so semantics are beside the point.

I already told you that when I once said that Nebuchadnezzar intended to attack Tyre, I meant the mainland settlement. That is because Nebuchadnezzar did not have a navy, and even if he did, he probably would have failed to defeat the island fortress.

Consider the following verses from Ezekiel chapter 26:

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.

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

Verses 1-5 obviously refer to the island settlement since verse 6 switches to "her daughters which are in the field," which obviously refers to the mainland settlement.

It is interesting that both verse 4, and verse 14, say "like the top of a rock." Doesn't verse 4 refer to the island settlement, and doesn't verse 14 refer to the mainland settlement? If so, the island settlement would probably eventually have been completely or mostly destroyed prophecy or no prophecy, especially when canons were invented, so Ezekiel predicting that it would end up like the top of a rock is not useful in debates. If the island settlement was not rebuilt, that is not unusual enough to help you since a number of ancient cities, and kingdoms were not rebuilt to anywhere near their former glory, and some were not rebuilt at all.

Regarding verse, it is quite speculative for anyone to claim that it refers to Alexander. I will start a new thread just on that verse.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Agnostic75]

I still can't get past you claiming Carrier suggests Tyre continued as a Phoenician powerhouse for 2000 years, one or both of you are sadly and absurdly wrong.

If you wish, you can contact Dr. Carrier at [email protected].

Bible prophecy is easy to understand for people who realize that the pride of the ancient Hebrews, and their hatred of their enemies, were largely responsible for it, including the Tyre prophecy. In ancient times, it was common for people to want to kill people who they hated, and to want their gods to kill their enemies.

The pride of the Hebrews is even found in the New Testament. For example, Revelation 7 discusses 144,000 people, 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. Ancient Hebrews placed great importance on genetics, but obviously, a loving God would not do that, and would not turn his back on everyone else in the world for thousands of years.

We know that God did not make a land promise to Abraham since there is not any historical evidence that Hebrews, or Jews, have ever occupied all of the land of ancient Canaan like God promised. Today, Jews do no occupy anywhere near all of the land of ancient Canaan. In addition, in the Old Testament, God said that the land promise would be an everlasting covenant. That is obviously false since an everlasting covenant could not begin until Hebrews occupy all of the land of ancient Canaan.

Jews could never have won all of their modern wars without help from the U.S., and some other countries. Regarding one of the wars, Israel was close to losing it. Prime Minister Golda Meir desperately contacted President Nixon and asked him for help, and Nixon sent Israel military supplies which helped it to win the war.

I am partly pleased that Israel is in the Middle East. That is because no predominantly Muslim country is very tolerant of homosexuals, and Israel is generally very tolerant of them, and has allowed them to serve in their armed forces for decades.

I am well aware that many Christians claim that God chose the Hebrews to be his chosen people not because they were genetically, or culturally superior, but in order to demonstrate his power, and his gratitude for their faithfulness. However, that is very unlikely since there were far better ways for God to accomplish that without giving many people the idea that he was playing favorites, or that he does not exist since a loving God would not play favorites.

Please reply to my two previous posts.

 

[1robin]

That is correct, but that is what we are talking about, and my arguments about that point are valid.

Your reasoning is valid but it is probably not accurate but regardless it does not justify the conclusion at all. If I make ten predictions and claim I got them from God. It is not an argument at all to suggest one could have been known without God and so there is no God or prophecy.

Which predictions are you referring to?

I have listed them many many times but specifically here that two sources are indicated for Tyre's total destruction not one (which is the most common criticism). I am certain you began originally saying the prophecy was wrong because the Babylonians were to have destroyed all of Tyre yet didn't, now you seem to be saying he was not supposed to have so it is wrong.

Many skeptics do claim that the prophecy failed because Nebuchadnezzar did not defeat the island settlement, but I have never made that claim. I have never said that Ezekiel's predictions did not come true, only that there is not any evidence that God inspired the Tyre prophecy. Many skeptics claim that verse 12 refers to Nebuchadnezzar. Many Christians claim that verse 12 reverts back to the island. I agree with those Christians regarding that issue.

I think you have but either way it shows the inconsistency of arguments from your side. They are all over the place and never rational.

Are you now saying that all his predictions were accurate but he could have guessed or known them all through natural agency? That is a new one and I believe the worst argument I have ever heard on the issue.

That is absurd. It did not take much knowledge of military equipment, and tactics Ezekiel to guess that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the mainland settlement in the following ways:

7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground.

No one needs to be a military person in order to use ordinary language like that.

I thought you were talking about the island not the mainland. I have never listed any detail associated with the destruction of the mainland as proof for supernatural sourcing except the failure to acquire loot and details not associated with the capacity to perform them like throwing rubble into the water. Claiming we could take Iraq required no divine guidance, claiming we would find Hussein in a hole or that his statue would be torn down using a specific piece of equipment might. I mentioned unpredictable details not aspects of capacity.

Been there, done that.

I know, that is what I said.

You said that the prophecy means that Tyrians would never rebuild the city, but you cannot reasonably prove that that is what Ezekiel meant.

That trick will not do. You need to make arguments without claiming what God said since my position is that God did not inspire the prophecy. My arguments pertain to what Ezekiel believed, not to what God said. You cannot reasonably prove that Ezekiel implied that Tyre would not be rebuilt only by Tyrians. There is no logic that states that since the prophecy is against the Tyrians, any mention of rebuilding has to refer only to the Tyrians. Even if you are right, a number of ancient cities, and kingdoms were never restored to their former glory.

I performed no trick. I do not think this even relevant since Ezekiel would have no more reason to be made at topography than God. History does not work like this. You take the evidence and see which explanation is the best. That God or Ezekiel would hate a plot of sand so bad as to insist it never would be inhabited again is about the worst position possible. That he or God was referring to the culture that had performed the action being judged is the best and God's inspiring it the best of all.

 

[Agnostic75]

Your reasoning is valid but it is probably not accurate but regardless it does not justify the conclusion at all. If I make ten predictions and claim I got them from God. It is not an argument at all to suggest one could have been known without God and so there is no God or prophecy.

I agree, but you have not even reasonably proven that one other claim was inspired by God.

I have listed them many many times but specifically here that two sources are indicated for Tyre's total destruction not one (which is the most common criticism). I am certain you began originally saying the prophecy was wrong because the Babylonians were to have destroyed all of Tyre yet didn't, now you seem to be saying he was not supposed to have so it is wrong.

But I agree with you that two sources are indicated for Tyre's total destruction.
That is not my position, and never was my position. I once said that Nebuchadnezzar intended to attack Tyre, but I only meant the mainland settlement since he had no navy, and since even if he had had a navy, he probably would not have been able to defeat the island fortress.

Are you now saying that all his predictions were accurate but he could have guessed or known them all through natural agency?

Yes, that is my position, and you have not provided any reasonable evidence that God inspired any of the Tyre prophecy.

The original city is all but unknowable.

Sure, as are a number of other ancient cities, and kingdoms. It was reasonably possible, if not probable, that eventually, the island fortress would be largely, or completely destroyed by a combination of humans, and ordinary oceanic conditions, so the island fortress being destroyed and never being rebuilt is not worth debating. If the mainland settlement was never rebuilt, so what since a number of ancient cities, and kingdoms were not rebuilt to anywhere near their former glory, and some were not rebuilt at all?

Siege was a mistake in terminology anyway. You had said Nebuchadnezzar had intended to conquer Tyre as was predicted. I said he had not and that was not predicted. Now you seem to agree to both so semantics are beside the point.

I already told you that when I once said that Nebuchadnezzar intended to attack Tyre, I only meant the mainland settlement. That is because Nebuchadnezzar did not have a navy, and even if he did, he probably would have failed to defeat the island fortress, as others had already unsuccessfully tried to do.

Verse 12 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."

It is quite speculative for anyone to claim that that verse refers to Alexander. I will start a new thread on just that verse.

 

[1robin]

Sure, as are a number of other ancient cities, and kingdoms. It was reasonably possible, if not probable, that eventually, the island fortress would be largely, or completely destroyed by a combination of humans, and ordinary oceanic conditions, so the island being rebuilt is not worth debating. If the mainland settlement was never rebuilt, so what since a number of ancient cities, and kingdoms were not rebuilt to anywhere near their former glory, and some were not rebuilt at all.

No it is not. Very very few strong fortifications are wiped from history. So few I cannot even think of one outside the bible. Even many Roman overnight forts have significant remains left. It is not reasonable to assume he just happen to guess a 5% probability right and that is being generous. Guesses usually go with more likely events not almost unheard of ones. Name me any other fortress that strong predicted to wiped out of existence by human efforts that was before the most modern weapons of recent times. I had thought the prophecy was fairly open ended but it isn't. The machinery and tactics described limited it to a fairly narrow range of time that ended a long long time before weapons that made eradication practical (but is extremely uncommon even then). Just look at the area. Acre still there, Antioch still there, Jerusalem still there. There must be a hundred weaker structures still there, I can think of none that were obliterated in the area despite being attacked dozens of times even in far more recent times. No it is not reasonable to thing Ezekiel would have guessed this.

I have not been able to find anything at the Internet about the location, size, and strength of the mainland settlement, how many times it was attacked, what the results of the attacks were, and what, if any attempts were made to rebuild it. Have you? If so, please post what you found.

Only what I posted. That very few structural remains exist but were obviously destroyed. My point was there is enough evidence to confirm in general what Ezekiel claimed but not near enough to validate your claims about being rebuilt by Phoenicians or ever being a power base again.

I already told you that when I once said that Nebuchadnezzar intended to attack Tyre, I meant the mainland settlement. That is because Nebuchadnezzar did not have a navy, and even if he did, he probably would have failed to defeat the island fortress.

No that is what I said and you seem to have adopted. I am the one that originally brought the navy issue up to counter the claim Ezekiel meant he was to have taken the island.

The primary wealth, power, and glory of Tyre was the island fortress. Its eventual destruction was a given because eventually, canons would be invented, the fortress would be destroyed, and then no one would have wanted to rebuild it.

Cannons do not scrape rocks bare. They force a breech by which the attackers can gain entrance and kill the defenders. What occurred a Tyre is extremely rare. It is even rare for undefended cities. It was very rare for even Rome to sack a city and kill or enslave it's inhabitants. The few times it occurred have become legendary because of the novelty. I know military history better than anything else. Wiping defended structures out of existence is almost unheard of. Not even the atomic bombs eradicated entire settlements. We must have blown up bikini atoll several dozen times and structures on he islands are still there. Tearing up stuff is not impossible, obliterating them is very close to it especially using the tactics and equipment Ezekiel mentions.

Please reply to my previous post.

You post a dozen posts or more a day with many additional duplicates. You seem to search me out in ever thread. I do not mind but it takes time to respond. Can you not wait 24 hours for a reply?

 

[Agnostic75]

No that is what I said and you seem to have adopted. I am the one that originally brought the navy issue up to counter the claim Ezekiel meant he was to have taken the island.

You cannot provide any evidence that I ever claimed that Ezekiel meant that Nebuchadnezzar would attack, or conquer the island. Here is what was said:

There are not any doubts whatsoever that it was a good bet that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre.

There was almost no possibility Nebuchadnezzar could have defeated the Island citadel. He had no navy and he had no adequate siege equipment to even attempt it. I see no evidence he ever intended to. It took the mighty Alexander so long with a navy and with the greatest siege equipment ever built (of it's type) that he almost gave it up several times. This was an absurd claim.

I never disagreed with that, and I later told you that I only meant the mainland settlement. I would never have claimed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the island fortress since I already knew that he did not have a navy, and others had already unsuccessfully attacked it. You merely presumed that I agreed with many other skeptics about that issue, but I don't.

 

[Agnostic75]

No it is not. Very very few strong fortifications are wiped from history.

But all that it takes are a few to question your arguments. You are nowhere near a historian, and you do not know how many ancient cities, and kingdoms, were completely destroyed, or nearly destroyed, and were never rebuilt to anywhere near their former glory. I will check further regarding this topic.

The Hebrews hated Tyre, and were jealous of it. Ezekiel believed that God was angry with Tyre, and that God told him that Tyre would be destroyed. Your arguments about what was historically likely are irrelevant since in Ezekiel's mind, the odds were 100% that both settlements would be completely destroyed, and would never be rebuilt, regardless of what had happened with any other cities, or kingdoms. Ezekiel believed that nothing is impossible for God, so to him, what was historically probable regarding the destruction, and rebuilding of other cities, and kingdoms, did not concern him.

Cannons do not scrape rocks bare. They force a breech by which the attackers can gain entrance and kill the defenders. What occurred a Tyre is extremely rare. It is even rare for undefended cities. It was very rare for even Rome to sack a city and kill or enslave it's inhabitants. The few times it occurred have become legendary because of the novelty. I know military history better than anything else. Wiping defended structures out of existence is almost unheard of. Not even the atomic bombs eradicated entire settlements. We must have blown up bikini atoll several dozen times and structures on he islands are still there. Tearing up stuff is not impossible, obliterating them is very close to it especially using the tactics and equipment Ezekiel mentions.

But a combination of cannons, and ordinary oceanic conditions over time, would eventually have completely, or largely destroyed the island settlement, and it is unlikely that anyone would have wanted to rebuild it after that.

Ezekiel never even hinted that the inhabitants of either settlement would be enslaved. Regarding the killing of Tyre's inhabitants, the God of the Bible endorsed, or ordered killing people on a number of occasions, sometimes even women, and children, so it is not unusual that Ezekiel predicted that the inhabitants of Tyre would be killed. Actually, Ezekiel did not say that everyone would be killed. He said "And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword, and "he shall slay thy people by the sword." That does not necessarily mean everyone.

The meaning of the term "like a bare rock" is very subjective. What does a bare rock look like? What did the island fortress look like after Alexander defeated it? What did the mainland settlement look like after both settlements made a true with Nebuchadnezzar? What happened to the mainland settlement that has not happened to other cities?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

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

It is indeed goofy, on both accounts:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

It is indeed goofy, on both accounts:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Right off it is obvious rape is not a form of marriage here. That is not even a coherent idea. God made many concessions like divorce and servitude based only on our sin, rebellion, and fallibility. This is also one. Commands like this must be interpreted within the context of Jewish law. For instance consider the one about stoning a child for rebellion. If you research it, it required both parents and a priest consent. The same in this case. You cannot get a bride by raping her, but if you rape here you have deprived her of value in that society and must be wiling to take responsibility for it by supporting her. Many of these ancient customs do not jive with ours because we leave out context and necessities. Not that we have improved anything. Any group that claims taking lives in the womb by the millions based on rights a women does not have without God to begin with and that are deprived of the child, has lost any standing to judge anything. In summary rape is not a form of marriage at all and only has an offer of marriage necessary for benefit of the women and her family and at their discretion and is a result of our sin not God's masochism.

I have never understood the motivation of dismissing the only possible eternal hope for humanity by intentionally casting him in the worst light possible at every chance and in opposition to common sense and historical context.

However having an Avatar that ridiculous must count for something.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

No that is what I said and you seem to have adopted. I am the one that originally brought the navy issue up to counter the claim Ezekiel meant he was to have taken the island.

You cannot provide any evidence that I ever claimed that Ezekiel meant that Nebuchadnezzar would attack, or conquer the island. Here is what was said:

There are not any doubts whatsoever that it was a good bet that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre.

There was almost no possibility Nebuchadnezzar could have defeated the Island citadel. He had no navy and he had no adequate siege equipment to even attempt it. I see no evidence he ever intended to. It took the mighty Alexander so long with a navy and with the greatest siege equipment ever built (of it's type) that he almost gave it up several times. This was an absurd claim.

I never disagreed with that, and I later told you that I meant only the mainland settlement. I would never have claimed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the island fortress since I already knew that he did not have a navy, and that others had already unsuccessfully attacked it. You merely presumed that I agree with many other skeptics about that issue, but I don't.

No it is not. Very very few strong fortifications are wiped from history.

But all that it takes are a few to question your arguments. You are nowhere near a historian, and you do not know how many ancient cities, and kingdoms, were completely destroyed, or nearly destroyed, and were never rebuilt to anywhere near their former glory. I will check further regarding this topic.

In an article at 10 Forgotten Ancient Civilizations - Listverse, ten forgotten civilizations are briefly discussed. You probably have never heard of most of them, and maybe you have never heard of any of them. At any rate, at least some of those cultures were powerful, but few people living today outside of historians, or history students, know that they existed.

At any rate, eventually, the island fortress would have been defeated because of the invention of the cannon. Once the island fortress was defeated, and its wealth was taken, the possible survivors of the mainland settlement would not have been able to rebuild the mainland settlement even if they have wanted to rebuild it. If there were any survivors, they would have become scattered, and would have become assimilated into other cultures just like many other survivors of wars.

Cannons do not scrape rocks bare. They force a breech by which the attackers can gain entrance and kill the defenders. What occurred a Tyre is extremely rare. It is even rare for undefended cities. It was very rare for even Rome to sack a city and kill or enslave it's inhabitants. The few times it occurred have become legendary because of the novelty. I know military history better than anything else. Wiping defended structures out of existence is almost unheard of. Not even the atomic bombs eradicated entire settlements. We must have blown up bikini atoll several dozen times and structures on he islands are still there. Tearing up stuff is not impossible, obliterating them is very close to it especially using the tactics and equipment Ezekiel mentions.

But a combination of cannons, and ordinary oceanic conditions over time, would eventually have completely, or largely destroyed the island settlement, and it is unlikely that anyone would have wanted to rebuild it after that. In addition, the extent of the damage from cannons would have depended upon the intentions of the attackers. Perhaps some attackers would have preferred to damage the fortress much more than other attackers would. A few breeches just big enough to allow troops to get into the fortress would not have been nearly as desirable as sending in troops after the fortress had been extensively damaged by cannons. During the war in Iraq, the U.S. did something similar when it softened up Saddam Hussein's forces with the U.S. air force before sending in ground troops.

The Hebrews hated Tyre, and were jealous of it. Ezekiel believed that God was angry with Tyre, and that God told him that Tyre would be destroyed. Your arguments about what was historically likely are irrelevant since in Ezekiel's mind, the odds were 100% that both settlements would be completely destroyed, and would never be rebuilt, regardless of what had happened with any other cities, or kingdoms. Ezekiel believed that nothing is impossible for God, so what was historically probable regarding the destruction, and rebuilding of other cities, and kingdoms, did not concern him.

Ezekiel never even hinted that the inhabitants of either settlement would be enslaved. Regarding the killing of Tyre's inhabitants, the God of the Bible endorsed, or ordered killing people on a number of occasions, sometimes even women, and children, so it is not unusual that Ezekiel predicted that the inhabitants of Tyre would be killed. Actually, Ezekiel did not say that everyone would be killed. He said "And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword, and "he shall slay thy people by the sword." That does not necessarily mean everyone.

The meaning of the term "like a bare rock" is very subjective. What does a bare rock look like? What did the island fortress look like after Alexander defeated it? What did the mainland settlement look like after both settlements made a true with Nebuchadnezzar? What happened to the mainland settlement that has not happened to other cities?

The texts say that materials from the mainland settlement would be cast into the sea. That does not even remotely imply anything at all about a causeway being built to the island. There is not any indication that Ezekiel meant anything more than the mainland settlement would be destroyed, and unceremoniously cast into the sea. I used the word "unceremoniously" since the Bible uses it several times in a derogatory fashion. Exodus 15:4 says "Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea." Mark 9:42 says "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." Luke 17:2 says "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

So, if the remains of the city had been cast into the sea, and left there, and a causeway to the island had not been built, that would have been analogous to some other Scriptures that consider it to be disgraceful for something, or someone to be cast into the sea.

A related term to "cast into the sea" is "cast out." The term "cast out" is used 90 times in the KJV. It is often used to describe situations that involve the removable of someone whose presence is displeasing. Ezekiel found the presence of the mainland settlement to be very displeasing, so he used the term "cast into the sea," which would have been a disgraceful ending for the settlement. As it turned out, much more happened than just the remains of the mainland settlement being case into the sea, and Ezekiel did not say anything about it. If Ezekiel had had any idea about a causeway being built to the island, you can bet that he would have written about it.

Quite obviously, no intelligent case can be made that Ezekiel meant anything at all about a causeway being built to the island.

I have not been able to find anything at the Internet about the location, size, and strength of the mainland settlement, how many times it was attacked, what the results of the attacks were, and what, if any attempts were made to rebuild it. Have you? If so, please post what you found.

Only what I posted. That very few structural remains exist but were obviously destroyed.

If you cannot answer my questions, how could you know whether or not the mainland settlement was rebuilt after Nebuchadnezzar made a truce with Tyre?

 

[1robin]

You cannot provide any evidence that I ever claimed that Ezekiel meant that Nebuchadnezzar would attack, or conquer the island. Here is what was said:

You have really really blown it here. The only way you have out of this will be an honorable admission of being wrong or a dishonorable tirade of excuses and hair splitting used to try and claim you comments do not mean what they say.

I am not going to wade through all of that, but I will reply to anything that you quote from those links. I will, however, comment on what the first link says about "many nations." That was probably added after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre. Ezekiel surely believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre since 1) he knew that Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king, and had conquered a number of cultures, 2) Tyre would have been a great prize for Nebuchadnezzer because of its riches, 3) Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings (you do not call a man a "king of kings" if you do not believe that his conquest will be successful), and 4) Ezekiel went to great lengths to discuss the extensive destruction that Nebuchadnezzar would cause for Tyre. There would have been no need for Ezekiel to have gone to those great lengths if he did not believe that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre.

Let me box you in so tight that it will be a wonder to watch you try and get past his stuff.


1. You said above that Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre, however you have also said he conquered the mainland. So if he conquered the mainland but still failed then it can only be possible you meant he was to take the island yet couldn't.
2. You speak of great riches wanted by Nebuchadnezzar, yet those riches were well known to be stashed on the island during any attack. It was not only what had occurred in the past it was perfectly logical and predictable. If he was attacking to gain great riches then you had to assume he was attempting to take the island where the riches were.
3. You say above that Ezekiel added information after Nebuchadnezzar had failed in his attack. The information you are referring to was what I pointed out was his permission to take Egypt to gain the loot you say he expected to gain from Tyre. To say it was an addition is to necessarily believe his original claim failed. The only thing Nebuchadnezzar failed to do was take the island so you must have assumed he was said to do so.
4. You say that the many nations was added later. gain that only would be necessary if Nebuchadnezzar had failed to do what was predicted, yet you now say he was only predicted to take the mainland and in fact did so. So what did he fail at?
5. The links you reference make the exact same point.
6. You say Ezekiel believed Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre but have admitted the mainland was only a suburb and not Tyre proper. What did Ezekiel mean by defeat Tyre according to you if all he did was take a village on the shore and not the fortress and harbor that made Tyre a power house?

I can keep this up for quite a while but it would be like herding cats. This ought to be interesting.

 

[Agnostic75]

You cannot provide any evidence that I ever claimed that Ezekiel meant that Nebuchadnezzar would attack, or conquer the island.

You have really blown it here. The only way you have out of this will be an honorable admission of being wrong or a dishonorable tirade of excuses and hair splitting used to try and claim you comments do not mean what they say.

Quote:

I am not going to wade through all of that, but I will reply to anything that you quote from those links. I will, however, comment on what the first link says about "many nations." That was probably added after Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre. Ezekiel surely believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre since 1) he knew that Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king, and had conquered a number of cultures, 2) Tyre would have been a great prize for Nebuchadnezzer because of its riches, 3) Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings (you do not call a man a "king of kings" if you do not believe that his conquest will be successful), and 4) Ezekiel went to great lengths to discuss the extensive destruction that Nebuchadnezzar would cause for Tyre. There would have been no need for Ezekiel to have gone to those great lengths if he did not believe that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre.

End quotes

Let me box you in so tight that it will be a wonder to watch you try and get past his stuff.

Your efforts will be futile since I do not have the large ego that you have. I do not mind at all admitting that I make mistakes when I am aware that I have made them, and I will do so in this thread if I find that I have made some mistakes. If I have made some mistakes that I am aware of, I will simply revise them. By the time that this thread is over, whether months, or years from now, it will have become apparent to many people how many mistakes you have made.

You said above that Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre, however you have also said he conquered the mainland. So if he conquered the mainland but still failed then it can only be possible you meant he was to take the island yet couldn't.

You speak of great riches wanted by Nebuchadnezzar, yet those riches were well known to be stashed on the island during any attack. It was not only what had occurred in the past it was perfectly logical and predictable. If he was attacking to gain great riches then you had to assume he was attempting to take the island where the riches were.

You say above that Ezekiel added information after Nebuchadnezzar had failed in his attack. The information you are referring to was what I pointed out was his permission to take Egypt to gain the loot you say he expected to gain from Tyre. To say it was an addition is to necessarily believe his original claim failed. The only thing Nebuchadnezzar failed to do was take the island so you must have assumed he was said to do so.

You say that the many nations was added later. gain that only would be necessary if Nebuchadnezzar had failed to do what was predicted, yet you now say he was only predicted to take the mainland and in fact did so. So what did he fail at?

The links you reference make the exact same point.

You say Ezekiel believed Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre but have admitted the mainland was only a suburb and not Tyre proper. What did Ezekiel mean by defeat Tyre according to you if all he did was take a village on the shore and not the fortress and harbor that made Tyre a power house?

I could go into specifics, but that is not necessary because I admit that some of what I said was incorrect, and confused. Since I am only human, I expect to sometimes make mistakes, and to sometimes be confused. Even experts sometimes make mistakes, and are sometimes confused. However, I am continuing to learn more about the history of Tyre, and I will continue to revise my arguments as necessary as this thread continues.

I will now post my revised arguments. It will not do you any good to claim that my revisions are not reliable because of anything that I have posted previously since my revised arguments must stand or fall on their own merit. I recall that you once asked me if my position was that Ezekiel's predictions came true, but that none of the prophecy required divine inspiration. I told you that that was my position, but now I have one exception, meaning that I believe that Ezekiel's prediction about the rubble being cast into the sea was wrong for reasons that I gave in my next post.

I will number my arguments for easy reference.

In order to prevent the need for making long replies, I suggest that we discuss my arguments one at a time, starting with argument #1.

Argument #1

It is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's attacks on the mainland settlement in advance by ordinary means. You said that it can be inferred from other parts of the prophecy that God told him about all of the events. That would be true if you showed that some other parts of the prophecy were divinely inspired, but you have not done that.

Here are my current positions regarding Nebuchadnezzar:

1. It is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's intentions to attack the mainland settlement in advance.

2. We at least know that Nebuchadnezzar intended to attack the mainland settlement since that is what he did, unless you have some valid evidence that I am not aware of that he also attacked the island fortress.

3. Chapter 26 mentions Nebuchadnezzar's horses. That must be referring to the mainland settlement.

4. Verse 12 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."

As you know, many Christians and skeptics disagree about who the pronoun shift refers to. You have argued that it must refer back to many other nations since Nebuchadnezzar did not have a navy, but the previous five verses, which are verses 7-11, refer to Nebuchadnezzar, and maybe the pronoun shift still refers to his forces. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar wanted to hire someone else's navy to attack the fortress, and Ezekiel knew about it. In addition, perhaps Nebuchadnezzar intended to try to force the island fortress to surrender by defeating the mainland settlement, which some sources say was important to the island fortress, and Ezekiel knew about it. Even if you are right, that does not change my arguments since if Nebuchadnezzar did not have a navy, and had no intention of hiring someone else's navy, it would not have taken a rocket scientist to accurately guess that he would not defeat the island fortress.

5. We do not know where all of Tyre's wealth was, and how much Nebuchadnezzar knew about that. The same goes for Ezekiel. For example, a good deal of the wealth could have been sent to a number of cities around the Mediterranean Sea.

Argument #2

It is not at all unusual that Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would cause extensive damage to the mainland settlement.

Argument #3

It is not unusual that Nebuchadnezzar caused extensive damage to the mainland settlement.

Argument #4

The terms that Ezekiel used to describe Nebuchadnezzar's damage to the mainland settlement were quite ordinary, and surely many other people also believed that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the mainland settlement.

It would have been surprising to many people is Nebuchadnezzar had not severely damaged the mainland settlement.

Argument #5

Cannons do not scrape rocks bare.

Ezekiel 26:4 says:

"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."

Verse 4 says:

"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."

Please define "like the top of a rock."

In your opinion, does verse 4 refer to the mainland settlement, to the island settlement, or to both settlements?

If your answer is the island settlement, did Alexander make it look like the top of a rock?

If your answer is the mainland settlement, did Nebuchadnezzar, or anyone else, make the mainland settlement look like the top of a rock?

Argument #6

Verse 14 says:

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

In your opinion, does verse 14 refer to the mainland settlement, to the island settlement, or to both settlements?