The Tyre prophecy

[Agnostic75]

Argument #7

You said that Alexander killed everyone in the island settlement, but that is not true. Consider the following:

http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/107/

Article sources:

1. Siege of Tyre and Gaza

2. Ruth Sheppard. Alexander the Great at War. Osprey Publishing, 2008.

The Tyrians began their preparations and evacuated most of the women and children to their colony at Carthage, leaving behind perhaps 40,000 people. Carthage also promised to send more ships and soldiers.

The besiegers blood was up, and, after a long and bitter siege, they were not inclined to be merciful. For months they had endured grinding labour, been tormented by artillery and archery, and witnessed the slaughter of their captured comrades on the city walls. Six thousand Tyrians were slaughtered when the city was taken, and another 2,000 crucified on the beach. A further 30,000 were sold into slavery. Amongst those spared were the King and his family, and a number of Carthaginian pilgrims who took sanctuary in the Temple of Melqart. Macedonian losses amounted to 400 slain.

Argument #8

Regarding the rebuilding of the island fortress, with the eventual invention of cannons, it is a given that if cannons had been used to defeat it, no one would have wanted to rebuild it.

Argument #9

Regarding the rebuilding of the mainland settlement, what evidence do you have that it was not rebuilt after Nebuchadnezzar made a truce with Tyre?

There are more than a few examples of ancient cities that were never rebuilt, or that were never rebuilt to anywhere near their former glory. In an article at http://listverse.com/2013/09/16/10-forgotten-ancient-civilizations/, 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, and history students, know that they existed.

Of course, there are a good number of other examples.

The island was the major source of Tyre's power, wealth and importance. If the island fortress had lasted until the invention of cannons, they would have been used to destroy it. If it had been destroyed by cannons, it was expected that Tyre would probably never be able to achieve its former power, wealth and importance.

Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon

It was often attacked by Egypt, besieged by Shalmaneser V, who was assisted by the Phoenicians of the mainland, for five years. From 586 until 573 BC, the city was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar II [17] until Tyre agreed to pay a tribute.[18]

In 332 BC Alexander the Great laid siege to the city, conquered and razed it.

In 315 BC, Alexander's former general Antigonus began his own siege of Tyre,[18] taking the city a year later.[19]

In 126 BC, Tyre regained its independence (from the Seleucids)[20] and was allowed to keep much of its independence, as a "civitas foederata", [21] when the area became a Roman province in 64 BC.[22] Tyre continued to maintain much of its commercial importance until the Christian era.

The present-day city of Tyre covers a large part of the original island and has expanded onto and covers most of the causeway, which had increased greatly in width over the centuries because of extensive silt depositions on either side. The part of the original island that is not covered by the modern city of Tyre consists mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times.

So the mainland settlement was partly rebuilt, and as the article says, "continued to maintain much of its commercial importance until the Christian era."

Argument #10

The texts say the remains of the mainland settlement would be cast into the sea, but that did not happen. Instead, the rubble was used to build a causeway to the island. There is obviously a big difference between putting rubble in the water, and using it to build a causeway to the island.

There is not any indication that Ezekiel meant anything more than the mainland settlement would be destroyed, and that its remains would be 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."

"Cast into the sea" means just that, and nothing more unless otherwise specified. Logically, it cannot be said that if the rubble ended up in the sea by any means that that part of the prophecy was inspired by God, but that is what you are implying. If the rubble had ended up in the sea because of an earthquake, you would probably have claimed that that was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

Argument #11

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?

Argument #12

Ezekiel 26:19 says:

"For thus saith the Lord God; 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."

How do you interpret that verse?

Argument #13

Ezekiel expected Nebuchadnezzar to attack the mainland settlement. So what, so did a lot of other people.

Argument #14

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.

I have already reasonably proven that the rubble is not an issue. Regarding the failure to acquire loot, Ezekiel 29 says:

"Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it."

It is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about the wages, and Egypt after Nebuchadnezzar made a truce with Tyre, and that he learned about those things by ordinary means, just like some other people outside of Babylon probably did. The news could have reached him through espionage, or simply by gossip that was not intended to go outside of Babylon, but did anyway. History is full of examples of both possibilities, including today.

Argument #15

I think that you recently said that Ezekiel's predictions did not have a time limit. If that is what you said, you were at least regarding the destruction of the island fortress.

Please reply to my previous post.

A persistent Muslim recently started a new thread on Quran miracles at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/160085-miracles-quran.html. I assume that you will pay some visits to that thread.

 

[1robin]

Argument #7

You said that Alexander killed everyone in the island settlement, but that is not true. Consider the following:

http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/107/

No I didn't. I said he killed or enslaved everyone but there is even another small group he spared for some bizarre reason. The point was he did what was very improbable. The level of destruction predicted by Ezekiel was not the norm. It did occur but occurred so infrequently that no one guessing, would have used that guess. The level of destruction Alexander caused was extremely rare but it was not a systematic destruction of every life there was. That is what I claimed.

Argument #8

Regarding the rebuilding of the island fortress, with the eventual invention of cannons, it is a given that if cannons had been used to defeat it, no one would have wanted to rebuild it.

There are many things wrong with that.

1. No one in Ezekiel's time could have ever anticipated cannon, just as no one in 1700 would have predicted nuclear weapons much less relied on them being employed where destruction was predicted to be extensive.
2. It was not cannons that caused the destruction anyway.
3. Even having cannons, artillery, and nuclear weapons fortresses are rarely destroyed completely. They were almost always retained to be used by the besiegers. Just guessing less than 1% were ever obliterated so if a guess anyone would have gone with the 99% of times when they were not destroyed.
4. Even when obliterated they are usually rebuilt at least in part by their original inhabitants or their immediate descendants.

There is just nothing here.

Argument #9

Regarding the rebuilding of the mainland settlement, what evidence do you have that it was not rebuilt after Nebuchadnezzar made a truce with Tyre?

There are more than a few examples of ancient cities that were never rebuilt, or that were never rebuilt to anywhere near their former glory. 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, and history students, know that they existed.

I do not know that. However I do know that the archeological remains are so destitute than virtually nothing exists to suggest other wise. Claiming what is not known to be impossible occurred is not an argument. It is a preference based tactic. As I must have said history is always the best conclusion given the evidence. No evidence exists it was rebuilt by Phoenicians or anyone soon after as almost no evidence exists it was ever there to begin with.

Of course, there are a good number of other examples.

The island was the major source of Tyre's power, wealth and importance. If the island fortress had lasted until the invention of cannons, they would have been used to destroy it. If it had been destroyed by cannons, it was expected that Tyre would probably never be able to achieve its former power, wealth and importance.

Consider the following:

Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is simply false. That entire region is dotted with fortresses far less formidable that Tyre than survive today. Cannons were used as a Constantinople to breach a fortress not tear one from the earth. A fortress must retain the integrity of it's entire encircling walls to stand. In almost every case cannons were used to knock a hole into which soldiers could invade. They were almost never used to obliterate a fortress at least until modern times. Not to mention anticipation of future weapons that were not even used (the actual tactics were hinted at strongly that were to be used) there is not an argument.

So the mainland settlement was partly rebuilt, and as the article says, "continued to maintain much of its commercial importance until the Christian era."

That is complete crap. I have already illustrated why.

Argument #10

The texts say the remains of the mainland settlement would be cast into the sea, but that did not happen. Instead, the rubble was used to build a causeway to the island. There is obviously a big difference between putting rubble in the water, and using it to build a causeway to the island.

The only way to make a causeway is to throw stuff in the water. What the heck are you talking about?

There is not any indication that Ezekiel meant anything more than the mainland settlement would be destroyed, and that its remains would be 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."

There is endless evidence. He says specifically hat the island would be scraped clean and that it would be used to spread nets on. It was. Ceremony has nothing to do with anything. The issue is that the rubble was indeed thrown into the sea. The sea is literally covered with the ruins of Tyre.

"Cast into the sea" means just that, and nothing more unless otherwise specified. Logically, it cannot be said that if the rubble ended up in the sea by any means that that part of the prophecy was inspired by God, but that is what you are implying. If the rubble had ended up in the sea because of an earthquake, you would probably have claimed that that was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

Are you actually attempting to say thrown into the sea would not include building a causeway by throwing rubble into the sea? I can't believe that is your argument.

Argument #11





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?

Again I do not know, no one does. The evidence however does nothing to indicate any rebuilding of the mainland by Phoenicians soon after the destruction. This is just a new version of the idea that nothing is allowed unless certain if it is inconvenient but if used by you the only requirement is that it not be impossible and what is possible is not even reasonable.

Argument #12

Ezekiel 26:19 says:

"For thus saith the Lord God; 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."

How do you interpret that verse?

Two possible ways and both came true. That it is very analogous. That it uses apocalyptic reference to the nether world to indicate judgment and the extent of destruction, and waters are used to indicate waves of nations attacking. Or that it is only partially analogous and refers to either the rubble on the ocean floor or the earth quake the buried almost all of old Tyre and indicates only that the city would be destroyed entirely as far as Phoenicia was concerned.

Argument #13

Ezekiel expected Nebuchadnezzar to attack the mainland settlement. So what, so did a lot of other people.

Who?

Argument #14



I have already reasonably proven that the rubble is not an issue. Regarding the failure to acquire loot, Ezekiel 29 says:

"Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it."

It is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about the wages, and Egypt after Nebuchadnezzar made a truce with Tyre, and that he learned about those things by ordinary means, just like some other people outside of Babylon probably did. The news could have reached him through espionage, or simply by gossip that was not intended to go outside of Babylon, but did anyway. History is full of examples of both possibilities, including today.

The rubble has no connection to the loot. The fact there was an ocean and no navy between Nebuchadnezzar are the only relevant facts. Possible is not a criteria. Best explanation for the evidence is. The evidence suggests (all of it) that the prophecy predates al the events. For goodness sakes the prophecy is one of the easiest to date and actually contains dates. It is meaningless to claim he could have lied, you must show the evidence demonstrates that. You would make a terrible juror.

Argument #15

I think that you recently said that Ezekiel's predictions did not have a time limit. If that is what you said, you were at least regarding the destruction of the island fortress.

I said that is what I used to believe but have recently discovered that the methodologies employed limit it quite narrowly.

Please reply to my previous post.

A persistent Muslim recently started a new thread on Quran miracles at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/160085-miracles-quran.html. I assume that you will pay some visits to that thread.

I might. Islam is my favorite subject but what connection does that thread have here?

 

[1robin]

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.

What does ego have to do with anything? What are you talking about? I will determine just how large an ego you have by whether you admit your mistake or not below. Without looking I am pretty certain I can predict accurately what you will say.

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.

Well crap. You did not do as I had thought you would (so far at least). If you continue in this vein I will have been wrong about your ego. Let's see.

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.

Revisions are fine if called revisions and the original can be agreed to be faulty.

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.

Since this is not a revision of the mainland issue I will take that subject as closed. You did claim what I said you did, you admit it, and want to move on. If you do not back of those facts I am fine with simply changing the subject.

It is possible he knew of an attack, it is the height of absurdity to suggest most of his details were knowable or guessable in advance. The totality of those details makes a naturalistic explanation pathetically weak and make a supernatural one almost a necessity.

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.

IT is not likely but it is possible. Things not impossible are not an argument.

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.

That does not mean he began intending to, though he probably did. In warfare the only thing that never works are initial plans. Battle plans are never ever carried out in detail. They always change. So he may have intended it from the start or may not have but there is little reason to think Ezekiel would have known and no reason to think he would have known the remarkable and numerous details.

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

It is.

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.

Almost every claim ever made has disagreement. History works by best explanations. The best explanation of the fact the every single plural and singular pronoun also corresponds to the singular or plural action of those who performed the acts is as evidence that there was knowledge foreknown to Ezekiel that has no natural explanation. Any other explanation is at best pathetic in comparison. If there was exceptions to what I said then it would be debatable but not when they are al perfectly accurate. He never gave a plural for what a singular entity accomplished nor the opposite.

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.

Again certainty is never a historical conclusion. I also notice you think Ezekiel had perfect foreknowledge even as a slave but cannot grant for knowledge of what was commonly known to all military commanders and virtually everyone else. Loot is always secured in the most protected place in any attack. However the fact he would still not gain enough left overs to even pay his troops is remarkable and not guessable before hand.

Argument #2

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

It was unusual but not unheard of. Lets consider the total damage range for an attack as 1 - 100 and that 90 - 100 would be extensive. If guessing I would go with the odds and with the larger 1 - 89 range and not restrict myself to the 10%. I do not think I have listed the destruction to the mainland as a strength of the prophecy anyway so its' meaningless.

Argument #3

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

My lord a repeat in the same post.

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.

They were not ordinary but not unheard of but as I said I do not think I used the main land's destruction level as a point here.

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

That is not true. Damage depends on many things and extensive damage requires many improbable tings to be that way. The commander has to find it worth expending the time and energy, he has to want to lose many men and kill much of the enemy, the enemy must be able to resist for quite a bit, he must be capable of doing that level of damage. It is much less common but certainly not proof of a miracle.

Argument #5



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?

Part only applies to the mainland and part to both. That is why it is broken by also and refers to God who is the true source and not to either singular commander. The rock part refers to the island because only the island was built directly on a rock. God was not prophesying an excavation but an attack.

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?

This is only the island but it would not surprise me that nets have been spread on the mainland. The point is what was predicted did occur. Rocks, nets, scraping of dust and maybe one or two others only refer to the island.

Since you did not re-open the original contention about the mainland then I will admit my expectations about your ego were incorrect. I also insist your claims about my ego are wrong, inappropriate, and irrelevant as well.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[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.

Here are the pertinent verses from Ezekiel chapter 26:

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

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.

11. 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.

Nothing in those verses says, or implies anything about the number of people who would be killed, and captured is not mentioned, or implied.

Historical records show that a sizeable percentage of the inhabitants went to Carthage before Alexander attacked the settlement, and that the vast majority of the people were sold into slavery, not killed. Ezekiel did not say, or imply anything about slavery, or being captured.

The point was he did what was very improbable.

If you mean what Alexander did, Ezekiel did not clearly describe anything that Alexander did.

Regarding Ezekiel 26:4, the KJV 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."

The NIV says:

"They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock."

The New Revised Standard Version says:

"They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down its towers. I will scrape its soil from it and make it a bare rock."

What does the top of a rock, or a bare rock look like?

What did the island fortress look like after Alexander defeated it, surely not like a bare rock?

The texts say that the remains of the mainland settlement would be cast into the sea, but that did not happen. Instead, the rubble was used to build a causeway to the island. There is obviously a big difference between putting rubble in the water, and using it to build a causeway to the island.

There is not any indication that Ezekiel meant anything more than the mainland settlement would be destroyed, and that its remains would be 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."

"Cast into the sea" means just that, and nothing more unless otherwise specified.

No one who knew in advance what would happen would merely have said that the remains of the mainland settlement would be cast into the sea. In addition, no one who witnessed the events would merely say that the remains of the mainland settlement were cast into the sea.

If the island fortress had not been defeated until cannons were invented, they would have been used to destroy it. If that had happened, it is a given that no one would have wanted to rebuild it, and that its destruction would have made it far more difficult for the mainland settlement to be rebuilt since the island was the primary source of Tyre's wealth, and power.

I think that you recently said that Ezekiel's predictions did not have a time limit. If that is what you said, you were at least regarding the destruction of the island fortress.

I said that is what I used to believe but have recently discovered that the methodologies employed limit it quite narrowly.

What evidence are you referring to?

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.

But how many ancient forts were built in a sea, which is much different because of oceanic forces?

Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon

It was often attacked by Egypt, besieged by Shalmaneser V, who was assisted by the Phoenicians of the mainland, for five years. From 586 until 573 BC, the city was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar II [17] until Tyre agreed to pay a tribute.[18]

In 332 BC Alexander the Great laid siege to the city, conquered and razed it.

In 315 BC, Alexander's former general Antigonus began his own siege of Tyre,[18] taking the city a year later.[19]

In 126 BC, Tyre regained its independence (from the Seleucids)[20] and was allowed to keep much of its independence, as a "civitas foederata", [21] when the area became a Roman province in 64 BC.[22] Tyre continued to maintain much of its commercial importance until the Christian era.

The present-day city of Tyre covers a large part of the original island and has expanded onto and covers most of the causeway, which had increased greatly in width over the centuries because of extensive silt depositions on either side. The part of the original island that is not covered by the modern city of Tyre consists mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times.

So the mainland settlement was partly rebuilt, and flourished for centuries.

Regarding "the part of the original island that is not covered by the modern city of Tyre consists mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times," obviously, remains of the fort were removed over a number of centuries to make room for new structures. There are remains from many mainland forts because 1) there was often plenty of other land to build on, and 2) some people wanted to preserve them because they believed that they were historically significant. New Tyre was exclusive waterfront land, and probably many people did not consider most of the remains, especially the damaged walls, to be attractive, and removed them.

 

[Agnostic75]

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

That is not true. Damage depends on many things and extensive damage requires many improbable tings to be that way. The commander has to find it worth expending the time and energy, he has to want to lose many men and kill much of the enemy, the enemy must be able to resist for quite a bit, he must be capable of doing that level of damage. It is much less common but certainly not proof of a miracle.

On the contrary, it was a good bet at that time that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the mainland settlement. Consider the following:

http://www.ancient.eu.com/Nebuchadnezzar_II/

King Nebuchadnezzar II (634-562 BCE) was the greatest king of ancient Babylon, succeeding his father, Nabopolassar.

Nebuchadnezzar II defeated the Egyptians and their allies the Assyrians at Carchemish, subdued Palestine and the region of Syria and, consolidating his power, controlled all the trade routes across Mesopotamia from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea.

So it is a virtual given that Nebuchadnezzar had the power to severely damage the mainland settlement if he had wanted to, and he wanted to or he would not have gone there with a sizeable army.

Didn't you say that the mainland settlement was not heavily defended? Some historians say that most of the inhabitants of the mainland settlement fled to the island. Wikipedia says that Old Tyre "was actually more like a line of suburbs than any one city and was used primarily as a source of water and timber for the main island city." Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar also attacked the island fortress. If he did not have a navy, maybe he got help from someone who had a navy.

Why couldn't Ezekiel have written all of chapter 26 after Nebuchadnezzar made a true with Tyre? Even if it was written before Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement, there is still nothing unusual about any of the Tyre prophecy.

Surely many historians would disagree with some of your claims. I assume that the only historians who would agree with you are a segment of conservative Christian historians. You certainly do not have a consensus to support you. As this thread continues, I will contact some college history professors and ask them about some of your claims.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[1robin]

Here are the pertinent verses from Ezekiel chapter 26:


Nothing in those verses says, or implies anything about the number of people who would be killed, and captured is not mentioned, or implied.

Historical records show that a sizeable percentage of the inhabitants went to Carthage before Alexander attacked the settlement, and that the vast majority of the people were sold into slavery, not killed. Ezekiel did not say, or imply anything about slavery, or being captured.

My claim was that the prophecy indicated an extraordinary level of devastation. Not in specific quantifiable level. Just a level that was a very uncommon occurrence. This is exactly what occurred even if what you claimed was true. What records show anyone left Tyre? It does not matter but can't imagine there existing records that trivial that have survived.

I have never ever thought Alexander killed every human on the island and so I doubt I have ever said such. If not then there is no problem here and if so the only problem is my claim not the prophecy's.

If you mean what Alexander did, Ezekiel did not clearly describe anything that Alexander did.

Regarding Ezekiel 26:4, the KJV 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."

The NIV says:

"They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock."

The New Revised Standard Version says:

"They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down its towers. I will scrape its soil from it and make it a bare rock."

What does the top of a rock, or a bare rock look like?

What did the island fortress look like after Alexander defeated it, surely not like a bare rock?

You say he made no predictions that Alexander fulfilled and then list several of them. The prophecy makes two predictions about agency. It says Nebuchadnezzar will do X and that at least one additional agent will do Y. Nebuchadnezzar did X and I believe only Alexander is necessary to show Y was done. If (X + Y) = Z = every prediction of damage Ezekiel made concerning Tyre, then Z - X would equal what Alexander was to have done. The fact he is not named is made irrelevant by the fact that so many accurate details about destruction were fulfilled by him. The probability that the details would all be fulfilled by a single person, especially given that the details were about events that were extremely uncommon in any time makes a natural explanation about guessing look pathetically biased.

The texts say that the remains of the mainland settlement would be cast into the sea, but that did not happen. Instead, the rubble was used to build a causeway to the island. There is obviously a big difference between putting rubble in the water, and using it to build a causeway to the island.

"Cast into the sea" means just that, and nothing more unless otherwise specified.

No one who knew in advance what would happen would merely have said that the remains of the mainland settlement would be cast into the sea. In addition, no one who witnessed the events would merely say that the remains of the mainland settlement were cast into the sea.

If the island fortress had not been defeated until cannons were invented, they would have been used to destroy it. If that had happened, it is a given that no one would have wanted to rebuild it, and that its destruction would have made it far more difficult for the mainland settlement to be rebuilt since the island was the primary source of Tyre's wealth, and power.

This rubble idea is one of the weakest arguments you have ever made for anything IMO. It is also a repeat.

Allow me to make a few complaints here. The following actions are excusive to you alone in my experience and none are conducive to meaningful debate.

1. You show up out of no where and heavily engage in many subjects with exhaustive posts. Then you disappear for weeks at a time. It may be unavoidable but regardless of fault it does not produce an enjoyable debate.
2. You constantly repost things over and over. You do so internal to the same post and even entire posts all together. This strongly indicates you can care less about my response.
3. You constantly make personal commentaries which you can't know and even if you did would not be relevant. I have never mentioned the fact that Craig, Aquinas, Zacharias, D'Souza or a thousand others would wipe you out in a debate because it does not matter. Why do you make inverse claims about me?
4. Give the above insisting I respond to all posts over and over again has no effect but to exasperate.

What evidence are you referring to?

I did not mention any but the prophecy is the evidence. It contains only damage that could be expected from a pre cannon age. In fact the exact same damage and tactics are prescribed to both Nebuchadnezzar and the additional agent/s only the later agents damage is more extensive. This is exactly what I would expect if Alexander's actions were being referred to. If you compare the language about damage given in revelations for the end times it is drastically different. For example there are no flesh falling of the bones of men in Ezekiel's prophecy so biological and radiological weapons seem to have their own descriptions and to not be what Ezekiel was referring to. No million man armies, no world wide battles, no clash of entire civilizations are mentioned. Only what Alexander could and did accomplish and nothing more.

But how many ancient forts were built in a sea, which is much different because of oceanic forces?

Consider the following:

Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THsi is irrelevant for Tyre. Tyre's fortress was completely dry. It was not built on the sea floor. It was built on an island. There still stand maybe hundreds of forts in India that have been flooded and did not disappear. It is also obvious from the prophecy that natural wear and tear can't possibly be what is referred to and what is referred to happened in exactitude through only military means. Let me point out again the bias that must drive your appealing to anything possible to avoid the prophecy but refusal to even accept the most improbable and naturally unexplainable events if prophetic.

So the mainland settlement was partly rebuilt, and flourished for centuries.

Regarding "the part of the original island that is not covered by the modern city of Tyre consists mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times," obviously, remains of the fort were removed over a number of centuries to make room for new structures. There are remains from many mainland forts because 1) there was often plenty of other land to build on, and 2) some people wanted to preserve them because they believed that they were historically significant. New Tyre was exclusive waterfront land, and probably many people did not consider most of the remains, especially the damaged walls, to be attractive, and removed them.

First let me point out what your own information said:

In 332 BC Alexander the Great laid siege to the city, conquered and razed it.

In military terminology "razed" means not to merely conquer but to systematically dismantle.

So without doubt you must admit the city, fortress, and people of Tyre were eradicated from the area. So you must show that Phoenicians somehow rebuilt the city it took generations to have built originally and regained their commercial significance while under continuous hostile occupation for centuries.

Instead of some professors opinion lets look at what a person who actually went here saw.

From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbour in its midst.... There is no harbour like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city.... In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907, emp. added.).
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

So we have an ancient city in the ocean and a new city near the area. Since ancient historical time ends about 1500 years after Alexander destroyed Tyre the new city referred to here is at least that recent and would not have been built by Phoenicians. I imagine the scholars who would suggest otherwise are using bias to amplify any ambiguity in when the new city was built to claim it was built 1500 years earlier. Even the ancient city he is describing was probably not the original. It is more likely the castles the crusaders built on the ruins of the city Alexander destroyed.

 

[1robin]

On the contrary, it was a good bet at that time that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the mainland settlement. Consider the following:

http://www.ancient.eu.com/Nebuchadnezzar_II/

1. I have never used the damage Nebuchadnezzar did or it's prediction as one of the prophecies strengths.
2. It was uncommon to dismantle cities. Ruined buildings take time, are no longer worth anything, and cost manpower. It was not unheard of certainly but was not a common occurrence.
3. If guesswork Ezekiel should have went with the 9 out of 10 times that cities were not destroyed in attacks. Yet he went with the far les common event. That is not a strong indication of prophecy but perfectly consistent with it.

So it is a virtual given that Nebuchadnezzar had the power to severely damage the mainland settlement if he had wanted to, and he wanted to or he would not have gone there with a sizeable army.

Didn't you say that the mainland settlement was not heavily defended? Some historians say that most of the inhabitants of the mainland settlement fled to the island. Wikipedia says that Old Tyre "was actually more like a line of suburbs than any one city and was used primarily as a source of water and timber for the main island city." Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar also attacked the island fortress. If he did not have a navy, maybe he got help from someone who had a navy.

Why couldn't Ezekiel have written all of chapter 26 after Nebuchadnezzar made a true with Tyre? Even if it was written before Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement, there is still nothing unusual about any of the Tyre prophecy.

Surely many historians would disagree with some of your claims. I assume that the only historians who would agree with you are a segment of conservative Christian historians. You certainly do not have a consensus to support you. As this thread continues, I will contact some college history professors and ask them about some of your claims.

Please reply to my previous post.

1. I do not think I said that the city was lightly defended. I am sure it was defended as well as a city could be but it was no fortress. Tyre was rich and could afford a significant defense.
2. I think he did attack the fortress at least with a few shots from his impotent siege engines. He failed but I do not think he ever believed he could succeed and so did exactly as predicted.
3. There is no evidence that he had any navy from any where. Why is the complete absence of evidence good enough for your claims but even having all the evidence is not good enough for mine?
4. I have said Ezekiel could have written it later but the point is that all the evidence indicates he did not. You are again going with anything possible for your claims and denying anything evidenced for my claims. The bias is obvious.
5. I am sure historians disagree with virtual all historical claims. So? Are only universally agreed upon claims valid?
6. The internet is full of scholars claims. I have no idea why you need to go to a school but have at it.

 

[Agnostic75]

My claim was that the prophecy indicated an extraordinary level of devastation.

So what? I have provided you with evidence of a number of forgotten kingdoms, and cultures.

Regarding the eventual use of cannons, if as you said the prophecy excluded the use of cannons, when did the island fortress look like the top of a rock, or like a bare rock? What does a bare rock look like? Did Alexander make the island look like a bare rock?

If modern weapons had never been invented, it is probable that sooner of later, the island fortress would have been defeated. One logical way to defeat the island fortress would have been to put rocks near the entrance to the harbor in order to prevent ships from getting in, or out. The Tyrians used the same tactic against Alexander to keep his ships from getting close to the walls.

The texts say that the remains of the mainland settlement would be cast into the sea, but that did not happen. Instead, the rubble was used to build a causeway to the island. There is obviously a big difference between putting rubble in the water, and using it to build a causeway to the island.

There is not any indication that Ezekiel meant anything more than the mainland settlement would be destroyed, and that its remains would be 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."

"Cast into the sea" means just that, and nothing more unless otherwise specified.

No one who knew in advance what would happen would merely have said that the remains of the mainland settlement would be cast into the sea. In addition, no one who witnessed the events would merely say that the remains of the mainland settlement were cast into the sea.

This rubble idea is one of the weakest arguments you have ever made for anything IMO.

Not in the opinions of billions of people who agree with me. The only people in the entire world who agree with you about the rubble issue are a segment of conservative Christians since not even all conservative Christians believe that the rubble issue indicates divine inspiration. Common sense, logic, and reason indicate that no human who has ever lived who knew what was going to happen, or who witnessed what happened, would have merely said that the rubble would be cast into the sea, and especially if they wanted the people who read what they wrote to believe that it was inspired by God.

 

[Agnostic75]

1. I do not think I said that the city was lightly defended. I am sure it was defended as well as a city could be but it was no fortress. Tyre was rich and could afford a significant defense.

2. I think he did attack the fortress at least with a few shots from his impotent siege engines. He failed but I do not think he ever believed he could succeed and so did exactly as predicted.

3. There is no evidence that he had any navy from any where. Why is the complete absence of evidence good enough for your claims but even having all the evidence is not good enough for mine?

4. I have said Ezekiel could have written it later but the point is that all the evidence indicates he did not.

Are you claiming that Nebuchadnezzar did not have enough power to severely damage the mainland settlement, and that he did not want to severely damage it?

How strong was the mainland settlement? How much did Nebuchadnezzar damage it?

What evidence reasonably proves that Ezekiel wrote chapter 26 before Nebuchadnezzar made a true with Tyre?

 

[1robin]

Are you claiming that Nebuchadnezzar did not have enough power to severely damage the mainland settlement, and that he did not want to severely damage it?

Now that is a military history question not a biblical one. He had sufficient force to extensively damage the mainland but guess he would do so when in most cases attackers did not would not be consistent with some kind of guessing by Ezekiel. If guessing it is always prudent to go with probability not against it time after time. As I have said time after time attackers normally have no reason to expend the time, effort, loss of life, loss of loot in wages, and the loss of surprise a siege of annihilation requires. It was a rare event and not what Ezekiel should have "guessed" would occur and that, not capacity is the issue.

How strong was the mainland settlement? How much did Nebuchadnezzar damage it?

It was strong but within his capacity. He at least destroyed it's capacity to resist and damaged many structures significantly.

What evidence reasonably proves that Ezekiel wrote chapter 26 before Nebuchadnezzar made a true with Tyre?

I gave a link to several of them. From memory the prophecy is dated, it can be compared to historical markers, it has an intended purpose which correlates with events in the captivity that have been well established.

As a very simple example of a date mark: The best argument for the Gospels being pre 70AD is that while they mention tons of insignificant events they leave out totally references to the Temples destruction which would have certainly been included in any historical biography later than 70AD.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

I gave a link to several of them. From memory the prophecy is dated, it can be compared to historical markers, it has an intended purpose which correlates with events in the captivity that have been well established.

But the historical markers cannot show that Ezekiel wrote the prophecy before Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement. Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement from about 586-573 B.C., or for about 13 years. Any historical markers that existed before 586 B.C. also existed after Nebuchadnezzar made a true with Tyre.

 

[Agnostic75]

My claim was that the prophecy indicated an extraordinary level of devastation.

So what? I have provided you with evidence of a number of forgotten kingdoms, and cultures, and there are surely a number of other ones.

The texts say that the remains of the mainland settlement would be cast into the sea, but that did not happen. Instead, the rubble was used to build a causeway to the island. There is obviously a big difference between putting rubble in the water, and using it to build a causeway to the island.

There is not any indication that Ezekiel meant anything more than the mainland settlement would be destroyed, and that its remains would be 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."

"Cast into the sea" means just that, and nothing more unless otherwise specified.

No one who knew in advance what would happen would merely have said that the remains of the mainland settlement would be cast into the sea. In addition, no one who witnessed the events would merely say that the remains of the mainland settlement were cast into the sea.

This rubble idea is one of the weakest arguments you have ever made for anything IMO.

Not in the opinions of billions of people who agree with me. The only people in the entire world who agree with you about the rubble issue are a segment of conservative Christians since not even all conservative Christians believe that the rubble issue indicates divine inspiration. Common sense, logic, and reason indicate that no human who has ever lived who knew what was going to happen, or who witnessed what happened, would have merely said that the rubble would be cast into the sea, and especially if they wanted the people who read what they wrote to believe that it was inspired by God.

 

[Agnostic75]

Nothing in those verses says, or implies anything about the number of people who would be killed, and captured is not mentioned, or implied.

Historical records show that a sizeable percentage of the inhabitants went to Carthage before Alexander attacked the settlement, and that the vast majority of the people were sold into slavery, not killed. Ezekiel did not say, or imply anything about slavery, or being captured.

My claim was that the prophecy indicated an extraordinary level of devastation. Not in specific quantifiable level. Just a level that was a very uncommon occurrence. This is exactly what occurred even if what you claimed was true. What records show anyone left Tyre? It does not matter but can't imagine there existing records that trivial that have survived.

I have never ever thought Alexander killed every human on the island and so I doubt I have ever said such. If not then there is no problem here and if so the only problem is my claim not the prophecy's.

Ezekiel never said how many people would be killed, and he never mentioned slavery, so what was unusual about him claiming that some people in Tyre would be killed?

There are more than a few examples of ancient cities that were never rebuilt, or that were never rebuilt to anywhere near their former glory. 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, and history students, know that they existed.

I do not know that.

I didn't either until I spent just a few minutes searching the Internet, and there are surely a number of other examples.

However I do know that the archeological remains are so destitute that virtually nothing exists to suggest otherwise.

But I have given you a number of other examples, and there are surely many more.

We are only talking about one fortress, and one city, not the Roman Empire.

Even if canons and modern weapons had never been invented, it is probable, and at the very least plausible, that the island fortress would eventually have been defeated, especially since Ezekiel did not put a time limit on the prophecy. One logical way to defeat it would have been to put rocks near the entrance to the harbor in order to prevent ships from getting in, or out. The Tyrians used the same tactic against the ships of Alexander's allies to keep the ships from getting close to the walls, and it worked. Another way would have been for someone to have a larger, more powerful navy. No navy is going to go undefeated forever, and historically, many powerful navies were defeated.

So the island fortress would probably have eventually been defeated anyway, and when that happened, the rebuilding of the mainland settlement would have become much more difficult since the main wealth, and power of Tyre was the island fortress.

Claiming what is not known to be impossible occurred is not an argument.

Claiming what is not common is not evidence of divine inspiration. Plenty of ancient cities were never rebuilt to their former glory, and I only mentioned 10 of a larger number of forgotten kingdoms. You surely know that the odds are astronomical that very unusual things will sometimes occur, and that it would be impossible for them to never occur. Alexander's method of defeating the island was unusual at that time, but it is plausible that someone else would eventually have come up with the idea if some other way of defeating the island settlement had not happened.

 

[Agnostic75]

I think that you recently said that Ezekiel's predictions did not have a time limit. If that is what you said, you were at least regarding the destruction of the island fortress.

I said that is what I used to believe but have recently discovered that the methodologies employed limit it quite narrowly.

What do you mean?

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

No it isn't. However every single time it took more that Nebuchadnezzar to accomplish something it employed a plural. Whenever Nebuchadnezzar alone did X it used a singular.

Verses 7-11 definitely refer only to Nebuchadnezzar.

Verse 12 says:

"They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise; they shall break down your walls and destroy your fine houses. Your stones and timber and soil they shall cast into the water."

Since Nebuchadnezzar did not get riches and loot from the mainland settlement, and did not tear down its walls, verse 12 refers to the island fortress. Since Ezekiel did not believe that Nebuchadnezzar would be able to defeat the island fortress, he used the word "they", meaning someone other than Nebuchadnezzar. Since many other people also believed that Nebuchadnezzar would not be able to defeat the island fortress, verse 12 is not at all unusual.

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."

That verse also refers to the island fortress. The word "they" refers to parties other than Nebuchadnezzar, which is understandable since Ezekiel did not believe that Nebuchadnezzar would be able to defeat the island fortress. The chapter discusses the island settlement in the first few verses, and mentions that mainland settlement for the first time in verse 6, when the term "her daughters in the field" is used,

This was true over at least a dozen claims. The chance that would happen and Alexander just happened to cooperate are basically zero. The author knew exactly what was going to be done by one king and what would take more than one in every case.

Well yes, Ezekiel did know what was going on regarding Nebuchadnezzar severely damaging the mainland settlement, and failing to defeat the island fortress, which surely many other people also believed.

What was true over a dozen times?

Please reply to my previous four posts.

 

[1robin]

What do you mean?

The damage and tactics mentioned are all consistent with the late BC period.





Verses 7-11 definitely refer only to Nebuchadnezzar.

Verse 12 says:

"They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise; they shall break down your walls and destroy your fine houses. Your stones and timber and soil they shall cast into the water."

Since Nebuchadnezzar did not get riches and loot from the mainland settlement, and did not tear down its walls, verse 12 refers to the island fortress. Since Ezekiel did not believe that Nebuchadnezzar would be able to defeat the island fortress, he used the word "they", meaning someone other than Nebuchadnezzar. Since many other people also believed that Nebuchadnezzar would not be able to defeat the island fortress, verse 12 is not at all unusual.

He did tear down the walls and towers on the mainland. V.12 refers to both and you will notice they are referred to because the damage mentioned took two agents.

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."

That verse also refers to the island fortress. The word "they" refers to parties other than Nebuchadnezzar, which is understandable since Ezekiel did not believe that Nebuchadnezzar would be able to defeat the island fortress. The chapter discusses the island settlement in the first few verses, and mentions that mainland settlement for the first time in verse 6, when the term "her daughters in the field" is used,

The dust scraping does. The walls refers to both.

Well yes, Ezekiel did know what was going on regarding Nebuchadnezzar severely damaging the mainland settlement, and failing to defeat the island fortress, which surely many other people also believed.

You doomed yourself. Claiming to know what occurred incurs a burden of proof. You must show Ezekiel knew about the attack, the destination, and the extent of destruction before hand by natural means, and while being an incarcerated prisoner.

What was true over a dozen times?

They way you post drops the links so I could not go back and see.

 

[1robin]

You admitted that Nebuchadnezzar had enough power to severely damage the mainland settlement if he had wanted to. We know that he wanted to since he sent his army to attack it, so what other attackers sometimes did is completely irrelevant. If Ezekiel learned about the attacks by ordinary means, his guess that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the mainland settlement was exactly what any reasonably intelligent person would have guessed since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king.

Regarding Ezekiel guessing, my position is that he did not guess about Nebuchadnezzar attacking the settlement since he knew about it in advance, just like many other people did. He only guessed about the extent of the damage, which was not difficult considering Nebuchadnezzar's power. Ezekiel's description of the damage was very ordinary, and typical of how most anyone else would have described it who believed that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the settlement. What else was there to talk about other than soldiers, horses, walls, and towers?

You said that the defeat of the island fortress caused the collapse of the Phoenician empire. However, Ezekiel 26 only mentions the island fortress of Tyre, and the mainland settlement. That is just one fortress, and one mainland settlement. Wikipedia says that "each city-state was a politically independent unit. They could come into conflict and one city might be dominated by another city-state, although they would collaborate in leagues or alliances."

Ok for the last time.

1. Ezekiel may have heard an attack was in the making but it is unlikely. He may have heard the destination but that was extremely unlikely.. He could not have known the damage that would occur. If He was guessing he would have went with the odds and said only necessary damage would occur. He would never have pocked the very rare idea that very extensive and unnecessary damage would occur, nor throwing rubble into the water, not a campaign so long it rubbed shoulders bare, not of such size dust from horses converted everything. Or any of the other dozen or so details even more improbable.

2. This is simply another "if it is not impossible then it is a better case than what has evidence, probability, historical precedent, and evidence on its side"

3. Even with the internet, world news, living in an open country and having 2300 years history to included you cannot tell me what out next battle will be. Iran, Crimea, the Sudan, Mogadishu, Panama, where nor a single detail about it. Yet you insist a prisoner knew all of these things before hand.

Survey says: Zero

 

[1robin]

But the historical markers cannot show that Ezekiel wrote the prophecy before Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement. Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement from about 586-573 B.C., or for about 13 years. Any historical markers that existed before 586 B.C. also existed after Nebuchadnezzar made a true with Tyre.

First, thanks for posting in short bursts instead of a staccato of repeats.

Every piece of evidence is consistent with that. For example his status in relationship to Nebuchadnezzar when the attack began yet his comments are all in the context of his original relationship to him. There are many of these similar markers. If you go back and follow the links you will find them all. The fault of your argument is exhibited by the fact that similar historical marker would have existed before the destruction of the temple and after yet the fact it is not mentioned strongly suggest the Gospels pre-existed it. This conversation would be a long one. At least first review the links before my being required to start that conversation.

 

[1robin]

So what? I have provided you with evidence of a number of forgotten kingdoms, and cultures, and there are surely a number of other ones.

You missed the point and I have always said it occurred. The Romans and crusaders were famous for it. However the fact remains it was very very inconvenient to literally annihilate a city and it's occupants and so it was rare. It did occur but probably not even 10% of the time. So Ezekiel sitting around guessing at what would happen would have never have guessed the least probable outcome. He would have went with his best chances to guess right and only predicted necessary destruction. Yet he did not and his improbable prediction is what occurred.

Not in the opinions of billions of people who agree with me. The only people in the entire world who agree with you about the rubble issue are a segment of conservative Christians since not even all conservative Christians believe that the rubble issue indicates divine inspiration. Common sense, logic, and reason indicate that no human who has ever lived who knew what was going to happen, or who witnessed what happened, would have merely said that the rubble would be cast into the sea, and especially if they wanted the people who read what they wrote to believe that it was inspired by God.

By the beard of Zeus that is wrong. There are not billions who give a rip about t his prophecy either way. Most of the few thousand do not agree with your claiming rubble thrown in the ocean is not rubble thrown in the ocean if used to build a causeway. In years of debating and researching this prophecy I have never heard anyone make that distinction but even if every human on earth agreed with you then every human on earth would be an irrational biased lunatic who just cannot properly evaluate a prophecy. It is a terrible argument on every level. It is not the worst I have ever seen but it is among them and the worst you have ever made IMO.

Predicted: Rubble would be cast into the sea.
Fulfillment: Rubble was cast into the sea.

Finito.