The Tyre prophecy

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Sleeppy]

Do you mean that the prophecy indicates that it would be fulfilled by say 10 B.C.? After Nebuchadnezzar made a truce with Tyre, the mainland settlement was partly rebuilt, and flourished for centuries. In 64 B.C., it became a Roman province, so it still existed at that time, had not been forgotten, and had not disappeared. It did not achieve its former glory, but a good number of ancient cities did not achieve anywhere near their former glory.

You and 1Robin are pretty persistent with each other.. Have any Jews clarified their position on Tyre yet?

 

[Agnostic75]

So without doubt you must admit the city, fortress, and people of Tyre were eradicated from the area.

Some Tyrians were killed, some were sold into slavery, and a good number of them went to Carthage not long before Alexander attacked the island fortress. After Alexander left Tyre, some of the Tyrians who went to Carthage probably went back to live in the partly rebuilt mainland settlement.

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.

Tyrians, not Phoenicians. Each city-state in Phoenicia was independent.

Many ancient cities and did not regain their former glory.

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.

In other words, you cannot reasonably prove that the supposedly small number of ancient cities that were never rebuilt to their former glory indicates that the prophecy was divinely inspired.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

But as I already told you, unusual events do not necessarily indicate divine inspiration. Forgotten civilizations are not rare enough to make a case that the destruction of both settlements was divinely inspired.

We are only discussing one fortress, and one mainland settlement. With an unlimited time frame, it is not that unusual that both settlements were eventually destroyed.

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.

Not at all since, as I said:

"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."

All that Ezekiel said is that the rubble would be cast into the sea, nothing more. That is all that Ezekiel believed would happen.

There are not billions who give a rip about this prophecy either way.

I meant that if everyone in the world knew about the prophecy, the vast majority of people would reject it, as even many Christians do.

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.

Well that is cute, and nonsensical. Consider the following two statements:

1. The rubble was cast into the sea.

2. The rubble was used to build a causeway to the island.

Now which sentence more accurately describes what happened? Obviously, the second sentence.

If a person knew what would happen, which sentence would they have been more likely to use? Obviously, the second sentence.

If a person saw what happened, which sentence would they have been more likely to use? Obviously, the second sentence.

If a person who knew what was going to happen wanted people to believe that what they wrote was divinely inspired, which sentence would they have been more likely to use? Obviously, the second sentence.

No historian in the entire world who is not a conservative Christian would agree with your arguments.

 

[Agnostic75]

What do you mean?

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

Do you mean that the prophecy indicates that it would be fulfilled by say 10 B.C.? After Nebuchadnezzar made a truce with Tyre, the mainland settlement was partly rebuilt, and flourished for centuries. In 64 B.C., it became a Roman province, so it still existed at that time, had not been forgotten, and had not disappeared. It did not achieve its former glory, but a good number of ancient cities did not achieve anywhere near their former glory.

A thousand years after Alexander defeated Tyre in 332 B.C., had the weapons of warfare significantly changed?

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

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."

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

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.

What do you mean?

There are many of these similar markers. If you go back and follow the links you will find them all.

I do not know where the links are that you mentioned. Do you know where they are? Can you give me an example of a marker that would exist before the prophecy was written that would not also exist after it was written?

The fault of your argument is exhibited by the fact that similar historical markers 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.

The Gospels have nothing to do with whether or not Ezekiel knew about the attacks by ordinary means. Ezekiel 26 must stand on its own merits without needing to depend upon other Scriptures.

It would have been surprising to many people if 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.

Your arguments cannot be valid. You admitted that Nebuchadnezzar had the ability to severely damage the mainland settlement if he had wanted to.

We know that he wanted to attack the settlement because he attacked it. Thus, when he attacked the settlement, it would have been surprising if he had not severely damaged it.

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 there is no doubt that Nebuchadnezzar had the ability to severely damage the mainland settlement if he had wanted to.

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.

Let's start over regarding this issue in order to keep it simple. When Ezekiel wrote that Nebuchadnezzar did not get the reward that he wanted, and that Nebuchadnezzar would attack Egypt, it is reasonably possible that he wrote those claims after it became obvious to a probable good number of people that Nebuchadnezzar failed to get his reward, and that he planned to attack Egypt. There is not any historical evidence at all that that news was a secret.

It is meaningless to claim he could have lied, you must show the evidence demonstrates that. You would make a terrible juror.

I do not have to demonstrate anything since I did not write the prophecy. My position is that it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar failing to get his reward, and his plans to attack Egypt (reference Ezekiel 29) by ordinary means after Nebuchadnezzar made a truce with Tyre.

I will concede for the sake of argument, at least for now, that Ezekiel wrote all of chapter 26 before the events, but not chapter 29. However, that does not change any of my other arguments regarding chapter 26.

 

[Agnostic75]

Verses 7-11 definitely refer only to Nebuchadnezzar.

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."

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.

Of course, and that was expected since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king.

V.12 refers to both and you will notice they are referred to because the damage mentioned took two agents.

"They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise; they shall break down your walls and destroy your fine houses" has to refer to the island settlement since Nebuchadnezzar did not get riches and loot from the mainland settlement, and did not break down its walls. That part of the verse is not unusual since Ezekiel believed that someone other than Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the island settlement, which was not a difficult guess.

Regarding "Your stones and timber and thy dust they shall cast into the water," since the previous part of the verse did not have anything to do with the mainland settlement, there are not any good reasons to assume that the last part of it refers to the mainland settlement.

I have a new theory about verse 12. Here is my easily plausible, more likely probable position. Ezekiel believed that the island fortress would look like a bare rock, so in verse 12 he wrote that whoever conquered it would throw the stones, timber, and dust into the water. That makes much more sense than claiming that the verse refers to the mainland settlement. Exodus 15:4says "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."

In all three cases, something, or someone was cast into the sea, and that was it. The same goes for Ezekiel 26:12. If the conqueror of the mainland settlement had thrown the stones, timber, and dust into the sea, without doing anything else with it, that would have been consistent with the three examples of Scriptures that I mentioned, and the island could be described by some people to look like a bare rock.

As you know, one of my previous arguments was that Ezekiel said that the rubble from the mainland settlement would be cast in the sea, nothing more. I should have said that he said that the rubble from the island fortress would be cast into the sea, nothing more, and that is exactly what would have happened if whoever conquered the island fortress had cast the stones, timber, and dust into the sea.

So verse 12 is not unusual at all if Ezekiel meant that it refers only to the island fortress, and it better fits the evidence than the mainland settlement does for the reasons that I gave.

 

[1robin]

You and 1Robin are pretty persistent with each other.. Have any Jews clarified their position on Tyre yet?

I do not remember any that have in the forum anyway. I only had regular dialogue with one Jew who I believed was a competent debater (I only talked to 2 or 3 total). He was very prolific and very knowledgeable. However one day he challenged me to a formal debate that was moderated and I accepted. He since has disappeared for some reason and has not posted since. Why is it you asked and what did you mean by persistent?

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Why must verse 4 refer to both? The first five verses refer only to the island fortress. The daughters in the field are not mentioned until verse 6. As far as I know, the only verses in chapter 26 that clearly refer to the mainland settlement are verses 6-11.

Consider the following verses:

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.

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.

When I asked you which settlement verse 14 refers to, you said only the island settlement. If the verse refers only to the island settlement, why can't verse 4 also refer only to the island settlement?

Since Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the mainland settlement on his own, and devoted verses 7-11 specifically to Nebuchadnezzar, he would not have needed to include Nebuchadnezzar as a part of "they" in verse 4. You have said that Ezekiel is very clear regarding his pronoun shifts, and uses the word "they" to refer to parties other than Nebuchadnezzar. You said:

Every time a new person addresses this I have to start over at the top. You must pay very strict attention to pronoun shifts for the predicted events. Every one Nebuchadnezzar accomplished has a singular pronoun, or his name mentioned directly. Everything that it required more than him to accomplish has a plural associated with it. The probabilities of doing this unintentionally are so absurd as to rule that out. Documents of ancient history only have as much evidence for dating them as they do. It may be less than desired at times. In this case all of it suggests it was written a few decades before the first attack it describes. The historical markers are all correct.

So according to your own arguments, verse 4 does not partly refer to the mainland settlement.

The chance the pronoun shifts would assign only the acts Nebuchadnezzar accomplished with a singular, and what it took more people to accomplish with a plural, by accident is mathematically absurd. There is at best a 1 in several ten thousands chance you can be right.

Not at all. The pronoun shifts are expected. Ezekiel used the word "he" in verses 7-11 to refer specifically to Nebuchadnezzar. There is nothing unusual about those verses since Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the mainland settlement on his own, which was not a difficult guess.

Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would not be able to defeat the island fortress, which was not a difficult guess, so he used the word "they" to refer to other parties that would defeat the island fortress.

Ezekiel said Nebuchadnezzar would not receive enough loot to pay his troops.

But there is not any reasonable evidence that Ezekiel did not learn about that after Nebuchadnezzar made a truce with the mainland settlement.

The fortress Island was covered in money.

Probably, but if so, so what since it was not a difficult guess? For all we know, much of the wealth could have been stored elsewhere other than at the mainland settlement.

He knew that his singular Nebuchadnezzar would not take the island.

Sure, along with a multitude of other people who knew that Nebuchadnezzar did not have a navy.

That is why he predicted he would be allowed to sack Egypt.

There is not any non-biblical historical evidence that indicates that Ezekiel knew anything about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to invade Egypt before Nebuchadnezzar made a truce with Tyre. No historical marker can prove otherwise.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

I made that reply to the following that you said:

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.

I merely replied to your claim that Ezekiel knew exactly what was going on. I obviously do not know what Ezekiel knew, and you knew that what I meant was that it is reasonably possible that Ezekiel found out about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack Tyre by ordinary means, just like many other people did.

Dr. Richard Carrier says:

Ezekiel was a captive of Nebuchadnezzar since the sack of Jerusalem in 597 B.C. and this explains the prediction: he is issuing propaganda favoring his captor, no doubt to get on his good side, and Ezekiel could easily have intelligence about the king's plans since he would see the preparations.

I do not know about favoring his captor, but it is certainly reasonably possible that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's plans by ordinary means, just like many other people did. It is impossible for you to know what opportunities Ezekiel, or anyone else had to learn about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement.

In Ezekiel 26, Ezekiel says that the word of the Lord came to him in the eleventh year. In Ezekiel 29, regarding the no wages, and Egypt issues, Ezekiel says that the word of the Lord came to him in the twenty-seventh year, or sixteen years later. What year B.C. was the twenty-seventh year?

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 things 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.......

How is any of that an issue? We know that Nebuchadnezzar wanted to attack the mainland settlement since he attacked it. When he decided to attack it, from that point on, it was probable that he would attack it, and severely damage it, not improbable.



I made a lot of other recent replies to you starting with my post #144.

 

[1robin]

Of course, and that was expected since Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king.



"They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise; they shall break down your walls and destroy your fine houses" has to refer to the island settlement since Nebuchadnezzar did not get riches and loot from the mainland settlement, and did not break down its walls. That part of the verse is not unusual since Ezekiel believed that someone other than Nebuchadnezzar would defeat the island settlement, which was not a difficult guess.

Regarding "Your stones and timber and thy dust they shall cast into the water," since the previous part of the verse did not have anything to do with the mainland settlement, there are not any good reasons to assume that the last part of it refers to the mainland settlement.

I have a new theory about verse 12. Here is my easily plausible, more likely probable position. Ezekiel believed that the island fortress would look like a bare rock, so in verse 12 he wrote that whoever conquered it would throw the stones, timber, and dust into the water. That makes much more sense than claiming that the verse refers to the mainland settlement. Exodus 15:4says "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."

In all three cases, something, or someone was cast into the sea, and that was it. The same goes for Ezekiel 26:12. If the conqueror of the mainland settlement had thrown the stones, timber, and dust into the sea, without doing anything else with it, that would have been consistent with the three examples of Scriptures that I mentioned, and the island could be described by some people to look like a bare rock.

As you know, one of my previous arguments was that Ezekiel said that the rubble from the mainland settlement would be cast in the sea, nothing more. I should have said that he said that the rubble from the island fortress would be cast into the sea, nothing more, and that is exactly what would have happened if whoever conquered the island fortress had cast the stones, timber, and dust into the sea.

So verse 12 is not unusual at all if Ezekiel meant that it refers to the island fortress, and it better fits the evidence than the mainland settlement does for the reasons that I gave.

Yet left out that I said it applied to both EXCEPT FOR THE ISLAND. Both would tear up the mainland structures and cast rubble into the ocean, but only Alexander would destroy the island apart from a few stones lobbed at it by the Babylonians.

The rubble is not connected to the island. It speaks to (or is traditional thought to) the rubble from the mainland. No doubt alexander's pounding the walls of the Island which were at the circumference of the island knocked hundreds into the sea, so the prophecy is true either way but I think it only refers to the mainland.

TO SAVE TIME PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE THE PROPHECY. JUST INDICATE WHICH VERSE YOUR POINT APPLIES TO AS I HAVE MOST MEMORIZED AND THE REST LINKED TO IN DETAIL. That many words get confusing all slammed together.

Why must verse 4 refer to both? The first five verses refer only to the island fortress. The daughters in the field are not mentioned until verse 6. As far as I know, the only verses in chapter 26 that clearly refer to the mainland settlement are verses 6-11.

I mentioned daughters as a word used for suburbs. It is not the only word used for them and is in fact is rarely used.

Sorry I am called away and must end this here. I will try and get to the rest soon. I am sure you will remind me if I forget. Have a good one.

 

[Agnostic75]

New Revised Standard Version

Ezekiel 26:12

"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."

I have a new theory about verse 12. Here is my easily plausible, more likely probable position. Ezekiel believed that the island fortress would look like a bare rock, so in verse 12 he wrote that whoever conquered it would throw the stones, timber, and dust into the water. That makes much more sense than claiming that the verse refers to the mainland settlement. Exodus 15:4says "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."

In all three cases, something, or someone was cast into the sea, and that was it. The same goes for Ezekiel 26:12. If the conqueror of the mainland settlement had thrown the stones, timber, and dust into the sea, without doing anything else with it, that would have been consistent with the three examples of Scriptures that I mentioned, and the island could be described by some people to look like a bare rock.

As you know, one of my previous arguments was that Ezekiel said that the rubble from the mainland settlement would be cast in the sea, nothing more. I should have said that he said that the rubble from the island fortress would be cast into the sea, nothing more, and that is exactly what would have happened if whoever conquered the island fortress had cast the stones, timber, and dust into the sea.

So verse 12 is not unusual at all if Ezekiel meant that it refers to the island fortress, and it better fits the evidence than the mainland settlement does for the reasons that I gave.

Yet left out that I said it applied to both EXCEPT FOR THE ISLAND. Both would tear up the mainland structures and cast rubble into the ocean, but only Alexander would destroy the island apart from a few stones lobbed at it by the Babylonians.

I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Argument #1

The verse uses the pronoun "they" to distinguish "many nations" from Nebuchadnezzar, who is only referred to in the chapter as "he," and "his."

Argument #2

The verse makes the following three claims:

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

Item 1 refers only to the island settlement because 1) the pronoun "they" indicates parties other than Nebuchadnezzar, and 2) the riches, loot, and merchandise were on the island, not the mainland.

Regarding item 2, the walls must be the walls of the island fortress since "fine houses" refers to the island settlement.

Item 3 fits my theory better since it does not require adding to the texts like your theory does. 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."

Please note that in all three cases, something, or someone was cast into the sea, and that was it. Nothing more was said, or implied. That is consistent with my theory since it postulates that the conqueror of the island fortress would unceremoniously cast the remains of the island fortress into the sea in Scriptural fashion, without anything more being said, or implied.

Argument #3

The rubble is not connected to the island. It speaks to (or is traditional thought to) the rubble from the mainland.

Quite obviously, the rubble is connected to whichever settlement it came from, and the texts imply that it would come from the island. Your theory adds to the texts, mine doesn't. In my theory, the rubble from the island fortress is cast into the sea, and that's it, which is what the texts say. In your theory, additional things have to happen that the texts do not say, or imply.

Argument #4

No doubt Alexander's pounding the walls of the island which were at the circumference of the island knocked hundreds into the sea, so the prophecy is true either way but I think it only refers to the mainland.

If Alexander had knocked parts of the walls into the water, that would not have indicated divine inspiration since whoever eventually conquered the island fortress would probably have done that.

Argument #5

My theory meets all of the requirements of verse 12, has no illogical claims, fits the pronoun theory that many conservative Christians use, does not contradict any of Ezekiel, chapter 26, and does not add to the texts. Your theory is an example of religious predispositionalism, confirmation bias, and argument from convenience.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: There are not any doubts whatsoever that many people found out about Nebuchadnezzar's plans by ordinary means. No one living today could possibly know how many people that was, and who they were.

Nebuchadnezzar might have decided to attack the mainland settlement years before he attacked it, and waited for the best time to attack it. If that was the case, his intentions to attack the mainland settlement might have been widely known for years before he attacked it.

Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II

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

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

Ezekiel’s prophetic message is one of the easiest to place in an accurate time frame. In verse 2 of the first chapter, the prophet noted that his visions and prophecies began “in the fifth year of King Johoiachin’s captivity.” The date for this captivity is virtually unanimously accepted as 597 B.C. during the second deportation of citizens from Judea to Babylon, which is documented in detail in 2 Kings 24:10-20. Furthermore, not only is the deportation recorded in the biblical account, but the ancient Chaldean records document it as well (Free and Vos, 1992, p. 194). Since Ezekiel’s visions began five years after the deportation, then a firm date of 592 B.C. can be established for the beginning of his prophecy. The prophet supplies other specific dates such as the seventh year (20:1), the ninth year (24:1), the eleventh year (26:1), and the latest date given as the twenty-seventh year (29:17) [Note: for an outline see Archer, 1974, pp. 368-369].

Due to the firmly established dating system that Ezekiel chose to use for his prophecy, the date of the prophecy regarding the city of Tyre, found in chapter 26, can be accurately established as the eleventh year after 597, which would be 586 B.C.

That article says that Ezekiel wrote the prophecy in 586 B.C., and Wikipedia says that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre in circa 586. If Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre in 586 B.C., on what exact date did his attacks begin? If Ezekiel wrote the prophecy in 586 B.C., on what exact date did he write it?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: A reasonable case can be made that the only verses in Ezekiel, chapter 26 that refer to the mainland settlement are verses 6-11, in which case the rebuilding of Tyre refers only to the island settlement.

Consider the following:

Edward T. Babinski - Biblical Errancy: Ezekiel's Prophecy of Tyre: a failed prophecy

My main source is: Tyre Through the Ages by Nina Jordanian (1969), a scholar who lived in Lebanon. At 264 pages, with illustrations, maps and notes, not to mention a serious bibliography, it may well be the standard work on the long history of Tyre. The forward was written by Emir Maurice Chehab, Director General of Antiquities of Lebanon. Jordanian makes one thing very clear: Tyre proper always referred to the island and not to a mainland site.

The mainland settlement was not Tyre.

Both the Hebrew name (Zor) and the Arabic name (Sour) of Tyre mean "rock," and the only rock around is the island. The surrounding mainland is rather
flat.......

Esarhaddon (680-669 BC) of Assyria boasts of conquering Tyre, which is identified as an island. "I CONQUERED TYRE, WHICH IS (AN ISLAND) AMIDST THE SEA." (ANET, p.290)

The Encyclopaedia of the Orient, in an Internet account written by Tore Kjeilen, had this to say: "Tyre was originally built on an island right off the coast, providing for natural defense. Many functions were established on the mainland as well, but all important institutions remained on the island." Two of those institutions were the temple of Ba'al Melqart (the patron deity of Tyre) and the temple of Astarte (Asherah), which were built on the island by Hiram I.

Isaac Asimov speculated that the very first settlement in the area might well have been on the mainland. However, our job is to identify the Tyre proper of Ezekiel's prophecy. Where the first settlement may (or may not) have been is irrelevant to that purpose. By Ezekiel's time, Tyre proper was, and had long been, the island city.

Ashurbanipal, one of the Assyrian kings, identifies the mainland town across from Tyre as Ushu. "ON MY RETURN MARCH, I CONQURED THE TOWN USHU THE EMPLACEMENT OF WHICH IS ON THE SEACOAST." (ANET, p.300)

Here is a school text used in Egypt, from the late 13th century BC: "WHAT IS UZU LIKE? THEY SAY ANOTHER TOWN IS IN THE SEA, NAMED TYRE-THE-PORT. WATER IS TAKEN (TO) IT BY THE BOATS, AND IT IS RICHER IN FISH THAN SAND." (ANET, p.477) Note that this text didn't say that Tyre HAD a port in the sea; Tyre IS the port! Also, note the word "another." Uzu (Ushu) is NOT Tyre!

Ezekiel 27:25 "… 'So you were filled and heavily laden [with riches] in the heart of the seas."

Ezekiel 27:32 "… 'Who was ever destroyed like Tyre in the midst of the sea?"

Ezekiel 27:34 "Now you are wrecked by the seas, in the depths of the waters;

Ezekiel 28:2 "''Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord God:
'Because your heart is proud, and you have said, 'I am a god, I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas, …"

How do you make a "rock" out of flat, sandy land? The island, essentially a rock with a thin layer of soil, can be made into a bare rock--not so a city on the beach. Thus, we have every reason to believe that verses 4 and 5 fall in line with the rest of the mass of evidence, showing that Tyre can only be the island city.

Ezekiel agreed when he referred to the mainland settlement as "her daughters which are in the field." Obviously, parents, and daughters, are two separate entities.

You tried to limit the time frame of the prophecy to late B.C. When did the island fortress look like a bare rock? What does a bare rock look like?

Wikipedia says that "massed chariot warfare became all but obsolete after the Warring-States Period (476–221 BC)." Chariots would have been largely ineffective against the island fortress, so they are not worth debating unless you have some valid evidence that Alexander used chariots to attack it. A detailed article about Alexander's attacks on the island settlement at http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/107/ does not say, or imply that Alexander used chariots against the island settlement.

Even if Alexander used chariots against the island fortress, Ezekiel did not specifically say, or imply that they would be used to defeat it. He mentioned swords, horses, chariots, and siege machines. Ezekiel did not say, or imply, that all of those weapons would be used to defeat the island settlement.

Horses, and swords, were still in use after cannons were invented.

Siege machines were still in use until cannons became widely used, which was after 1200 A.D.

Ships were still in use after cannons were invented.

If Alexander had not defeated the island settlement, it is reasonably possible that by 1200 A.D., someone else would have defeated it. I doubt that very many college professors of ancient naval warfare would disagree with me. I said "reasonably possible," not "probable," although it may be probable.

The rebuilding of the mainland settlement is not an issue since the prophecy only mentions the rebuilding of the island settlement. Verse 13 says "And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard." That refers only to the island settlement. If the island settlement had never been rebuilt, verse 13 would be true regardless of whether or not the mainland settlement was ever rebuilt. That is obviously because the wealth, power, and glory of Tyre was by far the island settlement, not its daughter settlements.

The prophecy has nothing to do with other Phoenician city-states since they were all independent. You could argue that if the island settlement had been defeated, the other Phoenician city-states would have wanted to rebuilt it, but since anyone who conquered the island settlement would be very powerful, it is reasonable to assume that the other city-states would not have wanted to fight a war with whoever conquered the island settlement.

An article at http://www.ancient.eu.com/phoenicia/ says:

The city-states of Phoenicia flourished through maritime trade between c. 1500-322 BCE when the major cities were conquered by Alexander the Great and, after his death, the region became a battleground in the fight between his generals for succession and empire.

You said that the fall of the island settlement caused the decline of the Phoenician empire, but can you reasonably prove that if Alexander had failed to defeat the island settlement, he would not have been able to defeat the other Phoenician cities?

The Tyre prophecy is definitely confusing since it has confused millions of Christians for centuries. The prophecy does not give the slightest hint that the rubble would come from the mainland settlement, and it gives plenty of evidence that it would come from the island fortress.

 

[Agnostic75]

He also suggests.......that everyone was to be killed or enslaved.......

No he didn't. He never implied how many people would be killed, and he never mentioned slavery at all. Many of the people at the island settlement went to Carthage before Alexander attacked the settlement.

.......that the treasure would be taken.......

But no one knows how much of the wealth of Tyre was kept at the island. Perhaps much of it was kept at some other locations around the Mediterranean Sea.

There was nothing unusual about ancient cities getting looted when they were conquered.

It is reasonably possible that some other people also believed that someday, the island settlement would be defeated. You must show that no one else believed that the island settlement would eventually be defeated.

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.

Tyre was so strong Alexander several times almost gave it up. He was a siege master with some of the largest siege equipment ever built. He failed, failed, and failed again. He finally had to capture a Navy, get another navy from Macedonia, hire more ships, equip them with the first known water born siege devices and it still took a while. In fact he would have quit except for one thing. The Phoenicians hung his messengers from the walls. That is also the only thing that made Alexander perform the extreme and complete destruction predicted. He had no intention of doing what Ezekiel said until that freak event occurred. Even more remarkable it meant that Phoenicia could not rebuild it again.

The prophecy has nothing to do with other Phoenician city-states since they were all independent.

An article at http://www.ancient.eu.com/phoenicia/ says:

The city-states of Phoenicia flourished through maritime trade between c. 1500-322 BCE when the major cities were conquered by Alexander the Great and, after his death, the region became a battleground in the fight between his generals for succession and empire.

You said that the fall of the island settlement caused the decline of the Phoenician empire, but can you reasonably prove that if Alexander had failed to defeat the island settlement, he would not have been able to defeat the other Phoenician cities?

Wikipedia says:

"The Phoenicians lacked the population or necessity to establish self-sustaining cities abroad, and most cities had fewer than 1,000 inhabitants, but Carthage and a few other cities later developed into large, self-sustaining, independent cities."

So Alexander would have had little trouble defeating most Phoenician cities, the Romans defeated Carthage, and most Phoenician cities would not have been able to help rebuild Tyre because of their small size, and because whoever eventually defeated Tyre would be very powerful.

If the Tyrians had not killed Alexander's messengers, it is reasonably possible that he would still have conquered the island settlement. He had had great success, was very bold, and had a big ego. The bigger the reputation, wealth, and power of an enemy, the greater the satisfaction of defeating them. Bold people with big egos sometimes make illogical choices. An article at http://www.livescience.com/1523-mystery-solved-alexander-great-defeated-tyre.html says:

"Although Tyre was an important Mediterranean seaport, Alexander could have ignored it and fast-tracked to Egypt. This was more a show of military muscle than anything else."

A website at http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/107/ says:

"Macedonian losses amounted to 400 slain."

That is not very many soldiers.

As far as I can tell, the article indicates that the causeway was not needed, or used to defeat the island settlement since it was the naval forces that breached the fortress. The article says:

"Realising that naval superiority was the key to taking Tyre, he temporarily left the siege and set off for Sidon to fetch his own ships. In addition, he also received vessels from Byblus, Aradus, Rhodes, Lycia, Cilicia and Macedon. The Kings of Cyprus sent another 120 ships to Sidon. In all, Alexander now had roughly 220 ships.......Alexander now brought his ships directly beneath the walls and began to pound them with battering rams. Greek forces at the northern end of the island attempted to make a breach but failed. A small breach was made in the southern defences but a Macedonian attack across causeways resulted only in casualties and failure.......Alexander waited for three days before resuming his assault. Whilst diversionary attacks occupied the defenders attention, two ships with bridging equipment approached the southern breach. Alexander himself was in command of this force, which consisted mostly of elite hypaspists and pezhaitoroi. The Macedonians managed to force their way onto the wall: Admetus, commander of the Hypaspists, was the first man onto the battlements and was killed by a spear as he exhorted his men onward. Neverthless the assault was a success, and soon the Macedonians were pouring down into the city itself, killing and looting. After this initial breach was forced, Alexanders command was swollen as more and more Greeks and Macedonians succeeded in entering the city from various points, including the harbours.......The surviving Tyrians fell back to the Agenorium, an old fortress in the northern sector of the city, but only managed to hold out for a brief period before they were slaughtered."

The article does not say, or imply, that the walls were breached from the causeway. As the article shows, Alexander had considerable resistance trying to use the causeway to defeat the fortress, and that that is when he realized that naval superiority was needed to defeat it. If the walls were not breached from the causeway, building it was not a clever idea after all, and had nothing to do with the defeat of the island fortress. The causeway might have been useful for various reasons after naval forces conquered the fortress, such as having easier access to the mainland, but not for purposes of defeating it.

Did Alexander give money to the kings who sent some of their naval forces to help him defeat the island settlement? If so, how much money? If he did not give them any money, then having their ships to help him did not cost him anything.

What were the costs in money, lives, and military equipment regarding Alexander's other conquests?

What is not common is not evidence of divine inspiration. It would be impossible to quantify the odds against Ezekiel accurately predicting that someone would eventually defeat the island settlement without divine inspiration. 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. Of course, when odds get high enough, they become a virtual certainty for all practical purposes, but Ezekiel accurately predicting that someone would eventually defeat the island settlement did not beat astronomical odds, and that would still be the case if we limited the time frame to 500 years. As I showed in one of my previous posts, there is no need to limit the time frame to 500 years.

Whenever Nebuchadnezzar alone did X it used a singular. 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.

That is ridiculous. The odds are almost 100% that Nebuchadnezzar needed help to defeat the island settlement since he did not have a navy. In addition, the odds are high that Nebuchadnezzar would be able to severely damage the mainland settlement.

You cannot use one prophecy to prove another. If you believe that some other prophecies are easier to reasonably prove than the Tyre prophecy is, you should start a new thread about one of them.

I believe Daniel predicted that Babylon would fall and never be rebuilt. That was even worse. Babylon was the most fortified city in history. It was like predicting New York would soon disappear even if it was surrounded by our entire military, and never be rebuilt. The last attempt to rebuild it occurred when Sadaam Hussein tried to do so. As is usually the case when God predicts something. That was gulf war I and he failed. Combine these with over 2,000 additional ones and you get almost proof (in fact it is proof of the supernatural at least).

I have debated the Babylon prophecy extensively at another religious discussion website, and I will be happy to debate it with you in a new thread if you wish. Not only are there not over 2,000 additional ones, there are not any at all.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Tyre was so strong Alexander several times almost gave it up. He was a siege master with some of the largest siege equipment ever built. He failed, failed, and failed again. He finally had to capture a Navy, get another navy from Macedonia, hire more ships, equip them with the first known water born siege devices and it still took a while. In fact he would have quit except for one thing. The Phoenicians hung his messengers from the walls. That is also the only thing that made Alexander perform the extreme and complete destruction predicted. He had no intention of doing what Ezekiel said until that freak event occurred. Even more remarkable it meant that Phoenicia could not rebuild it again.

The prophecy has nothing to do with other Phoenician city-states since they were all independent.

An article at http://www.ancient.eu.com/phoenicia/ says:

The city-states of Phoenicia flourished through maritime trade between c. 1500-322 BCE when the major cities were conquered by Alexander the Great and, after his death, the region became a battleground in the fight between his generals for succession and empire.

You said that the fall of the island settlement caused the decline of the Phoenician empire, but can you reasonably prove that if Alexander had failed to defeat the island settlement, he would not have been able to defeat the other Phoenician cities?

Wikipedia says:

"The Phoenicians lacked the population or necessity to establish self-sustaining cities abroad, and most cities had fewer than 1,000 inhabitants, but Carthage and a few other cities later developed into large, self-sustaining, independent cities."

So Alexander would have had little trouble defeating most Phoenician cities, the Romans defeated Carthage, and most Phoenician cities would not have been able to help rebuild Tyre because of their small size, and because whoever eventually defeated Tyre would be very powerful.

In addition, he also received vessels from Byblus, Aradus, Rhodes, Lycia, Cilicia and Macedon. The Kings of Cyprus sent another 120 ships to Sidon. In all, Alexander now had roughly 220 ships.......Alexander now brought his ships directly beneath the walls and began to pound them with battering rams. Greek forces at the northern end of the island attempted to make a breach but failed. A small breach was made in the southern defences but a Macedonian attack across causeways resulted only in casualties and failure.......Alexander waited for three days before resuming his assault. Whilst diversionary attacks occupied the defenders attention, two ships with bridging equipment approached the southern breach. Alexander himself was in command of this force, which consisted mostly of elite hypaspists and pezhaitoroi. The Macedonians managed to force their way onto the wall: Admetus, commander of the Hypaspists, was the first man onto the battlements and was killed by a spear as he exhorted his men onward. Neverthless the assault was a success, and soon the Macedonians were pouring down into the city itself, killing and looting. After this initial breach was forced, Alexanders command was swollen as more and more Greeks and Macedonians succeeded in entering the city from various points, including the harbours.......The surviving Tyrians fell back to the Agenorium, an old fortress in the northern sector of the city, but only managed to hold out for a brief period before they were slaughtered."

The article does not say, or imply, that the walls were breached from the causeway. As the article shows, Alexander had considerable resistance trying to use the causeway to defeat the fortress, and that that is when he realized that naval superiority was needed to defeat it. If the walls were not breached from the causeway, building it was not a clever idea after all, and had nothing to do with the defeat of the island fortress. The causeway might have been useful for various reasons after naval forces conquered the fortress, such as having easier access to the mainland, but not for purposes of defeating it.
If the Tyrians had not killed Alexander's messengers, it is reasonably possible that he would still have conquered the island settlement. He had had great success, was very bold, and had a big ego. In addition, Wikipedia says:

"The Siege of Tyre occurred in 332 BC when Alexander set out to conquer Tyre, a strategic coastal base. Tyre was the site of the only remaining Persian port that did not capitulate to Alexander. Even by this point in the war, the Persian navy still posed a major threat to Alexander. Tyre, the largest and most important city-state of Phoenicia, was located both on the Mediterranean coast as well as a nearby Island with two natural harbors on the landward side."

So aside from Alexander's ego, the island settlement had enough strategic value to warrant him defeating it.

A website at http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/107/ says:

"Macedonian losses amounted to 400 slain."

That is not very many soldiers.

As far as I can tell, the article indicates that the causeway was not needed, or used to defeat the island settlement since it was the naval forces that breached the fortress. The article says:

"Realising that naval superiority was the key to taking Tyre, he temporarily left the siege and set off for Sidon to fetch his own ships."

Consider the following:

http://military.answers.com/war/alexander-the-great-and-the-siege-of-tyre

The island city of Tyre was completely surrounded by stone walls that were 100 to 200 feet high. Since Alexander did not have a large enough naval force to take either the north or south ports and access the city through that route, he decided to build a causeway from the mainland to the city and march on it that way. The causeway was built of stone and easily constructed for almost two thirds of the distance to the island. There the sea shelf dropped off and made continuing the 200 feet wide causeway much more difficult. At this time the causeway workers were also within range of Tyre's wall defenses, which further slowed progress. Alexander ordered the building of two siege towers and had them placed at the end of the causeway to directly attack the walls of Tyre. This worked for a few days until the Tyrian navy sent a ship full of oil and pitch directly at the towers and crashed the burning vessel into them, completely destroying the towers.

The defeat of his siege towers meant that Alexander would not be able to take the city without a substantial navy. Alexander's recent concurring of the Persians was just the boon he needed. When the Persian military ships returned to their home cities, they found them under Greek control and immediately moved to support Alexander. In addition, 120 ships arrived from Cyprus that wished to join his fleet. Alexander now had a fleet of over 220 ships under his control, which was enough to take the city. He immediately formed a blockade at both ports and stopped the city from receiving supplies/

Alexander decided to take ram ships and attack the southern wall of the city. This tactic was slowed by several huge boulders that had been strategically placed to prevent just such an attack. The boulders were removed with crane ships, and the siege on the south wall continued. Eventually the rams made a small breach in the southern wall, and Alexander's troops flowed into the city. The battle was short, and Tyre's troops were quickly toppled.

So again, it appears that the causeway was not needed, or used to defeat the mainland settlement. Ezekiel must have believed that only naval forces would be used to defeat the island fortress, which was an easy guess, and apparently, that is what happened. Anyway, in my posts #154, and #156 I reasonably proved that the rubble that would be cast into the sea would come from the island settlement, not the mainland settlement.

Wikipedia says:

"Anabasis Alexandri (Greek: Ἀλεξάνδρου ἀνάβασις Alexándrou anábasis), the Campaigns of Alexander by Arrian, is the most important source on Alexander the Great. The Greek term anabasis referred to an expedition from a coastline into the interior of a country. The term katabasis referred to a trip from the interior to the coast. So a more literal translation would be The Expedition of Alexander."

Consider the following by Arrian, who Wikipedia says is the most important ancient source on Alexander:

http://www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Alexander_Sources5.html

"Alexander easily persuaded his men to make an attack on Tyre. An omen helped to convince him, because that very night during a dream he seemed to be approaching the walls of Tyre, and Heracles was stretching out his right hand towards him and leading him to the city. Aristander explained that this meant that Tyre would be captured with great effort, just as the labours of Heracles also demanded great effort. Certainly the siege of Tyre was a considerable undertaking."

So aside from Alexander's ego, and the strategic value of the island fortress, Alexander had a very important religious reason for attacking the fortress, and he did not mind the hardships, which means that your claim that Alexander would not have attacked the fortress unless the Tyrians had hung his messengers is false.

 

[Agnostic75]

Whenever Nebuchadnezzar alone did X it used a singular. 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.

That is ridiculous. The odds are almost 100% that Nebuchadnezzar needed help to defeat the island settlement since he did not have a navy. In addition, the odds are high that Nebuchadnezzar would be able to severely damage the mainland settlement.

You cannot use one prophecy to prove another. If you believe that some other prophecies are easier to reasonably prove than the Tyre prophecy is, you should start a new thread about one of them.

I believe Daniel predicted that Babylon would fall and never be rebuilt. That was even worse. Babylon was the most fortified city in history. It was like predicting New York would soon disappear even if it was surrounded by our entire military, and never be rebuilt. The last attempt to rebuild it occurred when Sadaam Hussein tried to do so. As is usually the case when God predicts something. That was gulf war I and he failed. Combine these with over 2,000 additional ones and you get almost proof (in fact it is proof of the supernatural at least).

I have debated the Babylon prophecy extensively at another religious discussion website, and I will be happy to debate it with you in a new thread if you wish. Not only are there not over 2,000 additional ones, there are not any at all.

Anyway, you are wasting your time since an evil God can predict the future just as easily as a good God can. When I first used that argument in another thread, you made the nonsensical claim that God has provided Christians with ways to tell good supernatural beings from evil ones, but it is quite obvious that if an evil God inspired the Bible, he inspired the Scriptures that say that Christians can tell good supernatural beings from evil ones.

 

[Agnostic75]

.......also suggests.......that everyone was to be killed or enslaved.......

No he didn't. He never implied how many people would be killed, and he never mentioned slavery at all. Many of the people at the island settlement went to Carthage before Alexander attacked the settlement.

An article at http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/107/ says:

"The Tyrians began their preparations and evacuated most of the women and children to their colony at Carthage, leaving behind perhaps 40,000 people."

Did Alexander give money to the kings who sent some of their naval forces to help him defeat the island settlement? If so, how much money? If he did not give them any money, then having their ships to help him did not cost him anything.

What is not common is not evidence of divine inspiration. It would be impossible to quantify the odds against Ezekiel accurately predicting that someone would eventually defeat the island settlement without divine inspiration. 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. Of course, when odds get high enough, they become a virtual certainty for all practical purposes, but Ezekiel accurately predicting that someone would eventually defeat the island settlement did not beat astronomical odds, and that would still be the case if we limited the time frame to 500 years. As I showed in one of my previous posts, there is no need to limit the time frame to 500 years.

Alexander showed that it was possible to defeat the island fortress with just naval forces, reference my post #158, which is a minor revision of my post #157. It is impossible to know the odds that someone else would have conquered the island fortress with naval forces by say 1200 A.D. Even if the odds were known, and we limited the time frame to 500 years, it is impossible to judge what odds indicate divine inspiration, especially since no other parts of the Tyre prophecy are unusual.