The Tyre prophecy

[Agnostic75]

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.

Not at all. Consider the following:

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 harbours on the landward side.

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

Alexander was aware of Tyre's supposed impregnability and convened a council of war, explaining to his generals the vital importance of securing all Phoenician cities before advancing on Egypt. Tyre was a stronghold for the Persian fleet and could not be left behind to threaten Alexander's rear. In a last-ditch attempt to prevent a long and exhaustive siege, he dispatched heralds to Tyre demanding their surrender, but the Macedonian's were executed and their bodies hurled into the sea.

Obviously, it would have been important for Alexander to secure all Phoenician cities even if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers.

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/AncientHis..._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 did not mind the hardships. Your claim is obviously false.

Even more remarkable it meant that Phoenicia could not rebuild it again.

There is not anything remarkable about Phoenicia not rebuilding Tyre.
Consider the following:

http://www.ancient.eu.com/phoenicia/[/url] 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.

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.

Alexander would have easily been able to defeat the other city-states of Phoenicia that he defeated even if he had not been able to defeat the island settlement, partly because of their small populations, and partly because of his powerful armies.

Byblus, and Sidon had already capitulated to Alexander, and their fleets even joined Alexander to attack the island settlement since they considered it to be beneficial to abandon their former ally.

Carthage was defeated by the Romans.

So, once the island fortress had been defeated by Alexander, it was expected that the other Phoenician city-states would not have been able to rebuild the island settlement even if they had wanted to, and some did not want to since they had joined Alexander.

Since I have been revising a number of my posts during the past several days, there is some repetition, so please disregard the repetition.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I made have made an interesting discovery today. Based up the three sources that I am using for this post, it seems to me that when Alexander used siege machines on the causeway to attack the island fortress, the machines were not able to breach the walls, and it was naval forces that breached the walls. Consider the following:

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

Alexander constructed two siege towers from timber covered with rawhide and positioned them at the end of the causeway. Artillery engines at the top of these towers were able to return fire at the walls, and the work gangs erected timber palisades as an added measure of protection. Work proceeded, and Alexander spent much of his time on the mole, dispensing small gifts of money to his sweating labourers and leading by personal example.

The Tyrians then initiated their first major defensive action of the siege. They took an old horse transport ship and filled it to the gunwales with combustible material: chaff, torches, pitch and sulphur. They slung double yardarms from the mast, and to these hooked cauldrons filled with a volatile inflammable oil. The stern of the ship was ballasted to lift the bows clear of the water, and two galleys towed her in towards the end of the mole, driving her and themselves aground.

The crews lit the materials aboard the fireship and all managed to swim to safety. The tip of the mole became an inferno as the ship burnt, igniting the two towers. A host of Tyrians in small boats rowed out from the city and landed on various points of the causeway, engaging the besiegers as they frantically attempted to douse the flames. Siege engines were burnt and the palisades along the edge of the mole destroyed.

The attack was a great success for the Tyrians, but they had reckoned without the resolve of Alexander, who now ordered the causeway to be widened and more towers built. 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.

Alexander the Great and the Siege of Tyre - Military.Answers.com

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.

"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:

Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre

As the Tyrians were no longer able to gain any assistance from their ships, the Macedonians brought their engines right up to the wall. When they were brought along the mole they achieved nothing worthy of mention because of the strength of the wall, so they brought some of the ships that carried engines up to that part of the wall which faced towards Sidon. When even there they did not do any better, Alexander sent them round to the south and the part of the wall facing towards Egypt, so as to test every part of the fortification. It was at this point that the wall was first of all battered to a considerable extent and then partly destroyed by a breach. At that time, Alexander made a limited attack, just throwing gangways where the wall had been damaged; the Tyrians easily drove back the Macedonians.

If the causeway was not used to breach the walls, then Alexander was not able to use the rubble from the mainland settlement to help defeat the island fortress, and building it was not a clever idea after all.

He had no way to know the rubble from the old city would be used as a causeway to get siege weapons to the fort.

Well of course he didn't. Since God did not inspire the Tyre prophecy, Ezekiel did not know that Alexander would ever be born, let alone build a causeway to the island.

Your comment is not valid since the siege machines were not able to breach the walls. That was done by the navies of Alexander's allies, and by some of his own ships.

 

[1robin]

Not at all. Consider the following:



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



Obviously, it would have been important for Alexander to secure all Phoenician cities even if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers.

Alexander was not after minor cities, he was after Babylon. If he captured it and killed Darius he would instantly own all the cities in 4/5ths of the known world. Alexander had no desire top even fight Tyre he only wanted it's loyalty so he could bring supplies in. The Island fortress thought rightly it was so impregnable that it hung his messengers from the wall. Alexander then decided the city would be destroyed. You still do not get the point that it takes time, money, lives, and a lot of effort to destroy efforts. You do not do so unless there is a very good reason. Most of the time they were bypassed entirely, entered through conspiracy with insiders, or starved to death. Annihilation is the least occurrence. You say he wanted all those sea ports. When facing Darius at Gaugamela every single general he had counseled him to go back to the coast and recruit from cities they could easy subdue. His famous line was "I would if I were Parmenion, but I am Alexander. He wanted Babylon because that would give him all those cities without a fight. Tyre just happen to tick off the wrong man.

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

http://www.johndclare.net/AncientHis..._Sources5.html



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 did not mind the hardships. Your claim is obviously false.

That site must be run by idiots. Alexander only told them he wanted to worship at their temple to either take them from inside or to scout for weaknesses. This was recorded by his own biographer and at least two contemporary sources. His ego desired to lop the head off the dragon of Babylon, not waste time with Tyre at all. he never intended to attack it at all until his messengers were killed.

There is not anything remarkable about Phoenicia not rebuilding Tyre.
Consider the following:

http://www.ancient.eu.com/phoenicia/[/url] says:

So you now admit that they did not rebuild it. It is in fact almost always the case the people who lived in the town rebuilt it inn general. Kind of hard to in Tyre's case since Alexander killed or enslaved them all. Which by the way Ezekiel never could have known by natural means.

Alexander would have easily been able to defeat the other city-states of Phoenicia that he defeated even if he had not been able to defeat the island settlement, partly because of their small populations, and partly because of his powerful armies.

There were not many Phoenician states in that area. Phoenicians came from Carthage on the other side of the med and only occupied coastal regions. That is not who Alexander faced. He faced Babylon who had two armies both 4-5 times his armies side. He whipped them both. Tyre was only a foot note to Alexander.

Byblus, and Sidon had already capitulated to Alexander, and their fleets even joined Alexander to attack the island settlement since they considered it to be beneficial to abandon their former ally.

Agreed

Carthage was defeated by the Romans.

I said the Carthaginian empire began to faith from the moment Tyre was sacked. It kept crumbling until finally destroyed by Rome about 100 years later.

So, once the island fortress had been defeated by Alexander, it was expected that the other Phoenician city-states would not have been able to rebuild the island settlement even if they had wanted to, and some did not want to since they had joined Alexander.

In fact they actually tried to rebuild it, but one of Alexander's generals (satraps) went back and defeated it again but at least you are admitting they never rebuilt it. Now you trying to explain that away. That make three of my claims you have adopted. Your getting there.

Since I have been revising a number of my posts during the past several days, there is some repetition, so please disregard the repetition.

I will.

 

[Agnostic75]

Alexander was not after minor cities.......

Tyre was not a minor city. Consider the following:

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 harbours on the landward side.

Please note:

"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."

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

Alexander was aware of Tyre's supposed impregnability and convened a council of war, explaining to his generals the vital importance of securing all Phoenician cities before advancing on Egypt. Tyre was a stronghold for the Persian fleet and could not be left behind to threaten Alexander's rear. In a last-ditch attempt to prevent a long and exhaustive siege, he dispatched heralds to Tyre demanding their surrender, but the Macedonian's were executed and their bodies hurled into the sea.

Please note:

"Alexander.......convened a council of war, explaining to his generals the vital importance of securing all Phoenician cities before advancing on Egypt. Tyre was a stronghold for the Persian fleet and could not be left behind to threaten Alexander's rear."

.......he was after Babylon.

No he wasn't, at least not right after he defeated the island settlement. Consider the following:

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

With the siege finally over (it had started in January and ended in July), Alexander made his sacrifice to Heracles, and held a torch race and triumphal procession through the streets of the city. With Tyre subjugated, Alexander could turn his attention to subduing Gaza and Egypt.

 

[Agnostic75]

Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre

Quote:

"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."

That site must be run by idiots.

Not al all since all that the website did was directly quote Arrian, who is one of the most reputable ancient sources on Alexander. The website did not include any commentary, so please explain why you believe that it is run by idiots.

Wikipedia says:

Arrian of Nicomedia, c. AD 86 – c.160, was a Roman historian, public servant, military commander and philosopher of the 2nd-century Roman period.

The Anabasis of Alexander is perhaps his best-known work, and is generally considered one of the best sources on the campaigns of Alexander the Great.

Following is some more information about Arrian:

Arrian Campaigns of Alexander (Anabasis) Summary

Arrian: Campaigns of Alexander (Anabasis)
Summary by Michael McGoodwin, prepared 2002

Arrian does not attempt to analyze why Alexander did what he did, nor does he provide much character study or the antecedents of the war. His model was Xenophon's Anabasis. He intended this work to be his masterpiece, believing Alexander to be a splendid subject who had not been adequately represented theretofore. He wanted to write a factual account free of mythology and romance. His main sources were Ptolemy I son of Lagus (future king of Egypt, writings are non-extant) and Aristobulus (Greek engineer, non-extant), both of whom were commanders who accompanied Alexander. However, he also said he drew on, or is thought to have drawn on, the Ephemerides (diaries of the campaigns mostly by Eumenes--non-extant), Alexander's own correspondence, Callisthenes (non-extant, draws on Homeric myth), Trogus, Nearchus (commanded Alexander's fleet from the Indus River to the Persian Gulf, published 310, non-extant), Cleitarchus (non-extant, exhibits a penchant for sensational, fabulous, and romantic), Chares (non-extant, chamberlain who wrote of court life), Ephippos (who wrote of Alexander's drinking), Diodorus (extant history written 1st C BCE), Justin (wrote 3rd C AD), Quintus Curtius Rufus (wrote 1st C CE, sensational and emotive style), Plutarch (Life of Alexander 2nd C CE, interested in character, thus a good companion to Arrian, a good miscellanist), Diodorus, and others. He was also influenced by Xenophon's Anabasis and Theopompus (376-c. 320, wrote Philippica).

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Following are some more quotes of Arrian, who is one of the best ancient sources on Alexander:

Major Battles of Alexander's Asian Campaign

He set out from Marathus and took possession of Byblus on terms of capitulation, as he did also of Sidon, the inhabitants of which spontaneously invited him from hatred of the Persians and Darius. Thence he advanced towards Tyre; ambassadors from which city, despatched by the commonwealth, met him on the march, announcing that the Tyrians had decided to do whatever he might command. He commended both the city and its ambassadors, and ordered them to return and tell the Tyrians that he wished to enter their city and offer sacrifice to Heracles. The son of the king of the Tyrians was one of the ambassadors, and the others were conspicuous men in Tyre; but the king Azemilcus himself was sailing with Autophradates.

The reason of this demand was, that in Tyre there existed a temple of Heracles, the most ancient of all those which are mentioned in history. It was not dedicated to the Argive Heracles, the son of Alcmena; for this Heracles was honoured in Tyre many generations before Cadmus set out from Phoenicia and occupied Thebes, and before Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, was born, from whom Dionysus, the son of Zeus, was born. Dionysus would be third from Cadmus, being a contemporary of Labdacus, son of Polydorus, the son of Cadmus; and the Argive Heracles lived about the time of Oedipus, son of Laius. The Egyptians also worshipped another Heracles, not the one which either the Tyrians or Greeks worship. But Herodotus says that the Egyptians considered Heracles to be one of the twelve gods, just as the Athenians worshipped a different Dionysus, who was the son of Zeus and Core; and the mystic chant called Iacchus was sung to this Dionysus, not to the Theban. So also I think that the Heracles honoured in Tartessus by the Iberians, where are certain pillars named after Heracles, is the Tyrian Heracles; for Tartessus was a colony of the Phoenicians, and the temple to the Heracles there was built and the sacrifices offered after the usage of the Phoenicians. Hecataeus the historian says Geryones, against whom the Argive Heracles was despatched by Eurystheus to drive his oxen away and bring them to Mycenae, had nothing to do with the land of the Iberians; nor was Heracles despatched to any island called Erythia outside the Great Sea; but that Geryones was king of the mainland around Ambracia and the Amphilochians, that Heracles drove the oxen from this Epirus, and that this was deemed no mean task. I know that to the present time this part of the mainland is rich in pasture land and rears a very fine breed of oxen; and I do not think it beyond the bounds of probability that the fame of the oxen from Epirus, and the name of the king of Epirus, Geryones, had reached Eurystheus. But I do not think it probable that Eurystheus would know the name of the king of the Iberians, who were the remotest nation in Europe, or whether a fine breed of oxen grazed in their land, unless some one, by introducing Hera into the account, as herself giving these commands to Heracles through Eurystheus, wished, by means of the fable, to disguise the incredibility of the tale.

To this Tyrian Heracles, Alexander said he wished to offer sacrifice. But when this message was brought to Tyre by the ambassadors, the people passed a decree to obey any other command of Alexander, but not to admit into the city any Persian or Macedonian; thinking that under the existing circumstances, this was the most specious answer, and that it would be the safest course for them to pursue in reference to the issue of the war, which was still uncertain. When the answer from Tyre was brought to Alexander, he sent the ambassadors back in a rage. He then summoned a council of his Companions and the leaders of his army, together with the captains of infantry and cavalry, and spoke as follows:

"Friends and allies, I see that an expedition to Egypt will not be safe for us, so long as the Persians retain the sovereignty of the sea; nor is it a safe course, both for other reasons, and especially looking at the state of matters in Greece, for us to pursue Darius, leaving in our rear the city of Tyre itself in doubtful allegiance, and Egypt and Cyprus in the occupation of the Persians. I am apprehensive lest while we advance with our forces towards Babylon and in pursuit of Darius, the Persians should again conquer the maritime districts, and transfer the war into Greece with a larger army, considering that the Lacedaemonians are now waging war against us without disguise, and the city of Athens is restrained for the present rather by fear than by any good-will towards us. But if Tyre were captured, the whole of Phoenicia would be in our possession, and the fleet of the Phoenicians, which is the most numerous and the best in the Persian navy, would in all probability come over to us. For the Phoenician sailors and marines will not dare to put to sea in order to incur danger on behalf of others, when their own cities are occupied by us. After this, Cyprus will either yield to us without delay, or will be captured with ease at the mere arrival of a naval force; and then navigating the sea with the ships from Macedonia in conjunction with those of the Phoenicians, Cyprus also having come over to us, we shall acquire the absolute sovereignty of the sea, and at the same time an expedition into Egypt will become an easy matter for us. After we have brought Egypt into subjection, no anxiety about Greece and our own land will any longer remain, and we shall be able to undertake the expedition to Babylon with safety in regard to affairs at home, and at the same time with greater reputation, in consequence of having appropriated to ourselves all the maritime provinces of the Persians and all the land this side of the Euphrates."

By this speech he easily persuaded his officers to make an attempt upon Tyre. Moreover he was encouraged by a divine admonition, for that very night in his sleep he seemed to be approaching the Tyrian walls, and Heracles seemed to take him by the right hand and lead him up into the city.

So Alexander had strategic, and religious reasons for attacking the island fortress.

 

[Agnostic75]

The Island fortress thought rightly it was so impregnable that it hung his messengers from the wall. Alexander then decided the city would be destroyed.

In my three previous posts, I provided reasonable evidence that Alexander would have still attacked the island settlement if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers. I quoted some modern, and ancient sources that agree with me. Please quote some sources that say that Alexander would not have attacked the island fortress if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers.

You still do not get the point that it takes time, money, lives, and a lot of effort to destroy efforts. You do not do so unless there is a very good reason. Most of the time they were bypassed entirely, entered through conspiracy with insiders, or starved to death. Annihilation is the least occurrence.

But history is full of battles, and wars that were fought in spite of the costs. Wikipedia has a long article on the history of military warfare at Military history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. All of the wars that are mentioned were fought in spite of the costs.

When facing Darius at Gaugamela every single general he had counseled him to go back to the coast and recruit from cities they could easy subdue. His famous line was "I would if I were Parmenion, but I am Alexander."

Consider the following:

Just before the battle, Darius offered Alexander a generous peace agreement: he would cede half the Persian Empire if Alexander ceased his invasion of Persia, but Alexander declined without any consideration. One of Alexander's generals, Parmenion, said that if he were Alexander he would gladly accept the more-than-generous offer. Alexander replied, "And I would too, if I were Parmenion."

That says one general, not every single general. Please quote your source that says every general.

I have previously provided reasonable evidence that Alexander's generals wanted to attack Tyre.

Of course, your comments are ridiculous since Alexander attacked Tyre, and Darius at Gaugamela in spite of the costs, not to mention his other conquests. In addition, the main issue is Alexander's motivations for attacking Tyre, not his generals' motivations. Further, Alexander's motivations for his conquests sometimes varied, as was the case with many other conquerors, so his motivations at Gaugamela were not necessarily the same as his motivations at Tyre. I discussed Alexander's motivations for attacking Tyre in some of my previous posts.

One source that I read said that when the Tyrians told Alexander that they would not allow him to enter the city to worship at the temple, they also told him that he could still worship at an older temple at the mainland. So, let's try to follow the sequence of events. 1. Alexander asks the Tyrians for permission to enter the city. 2. The Tyrians say no, do not hang Alexander's messengers, let the messengers go, and tell Alexander that he can still worship at an older temple at the mainland. 3. Alexander again sends messengers to the city, and the Tyrians hang them, but why? What did the messengers tell the Tyrians? Apparently, they either told the Tyrians that 1) Alexander would peacefully leave Tyre, or that 2) Alexander insisted that he be allowed to enter the city, or he would attack it. It is unlikely that the Tyrians would have hung Alexander's messengers if they told them that Alexander would peacefully leave Tyre. It is more likely that Alexander was angry, and threatened the Tyrians, and then they hung his messengers. If that happened, why did Alexander threaten the Tyrians? The possibilities are 1) Alexander was only angry because he wanted to worship at the temple, and would not have attacked the city if he had been allowed to enter it, 2) Alexander had strategic reasons for being angry, and 3) Alexander had a vision that told him to attack the city.

In some of my previous posts, I quoted some sources that agree with items 2, and 3.

If item 1 is true, Alexander must have believed that he had a very good reason for attacking the city, which was because he was denied permission to enter it to worship at the temple.

The Island fortress thought rightly it was so impregnable that it hung his messengers from the wall. Alexander then decided the city would be destroyed.

In my three previous posts, I provided reasonable evidence that Alexander would have still attacked the island settlement if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers. I quoted some modern, and ancient sources that agree with me. Please quote some sources that say that Alexander would not have attacked the island fortress if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers.

You still do not get the point that it takes time, money, lives, and a lot of effort to destroy efforts. You do not do so unless there is a very good reason. Most of the time they were bypassed entirely, entered through conspiracy with insiders, or starved to death. Annihilation is the least occurrence.

But history is full of battles, and wars that were fought in spite of the costs. Wikipedia has a long article on the history of military warfare at Military history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. All of the wars that are mentioned were fought in spite of the costs.

When facing Darius at Gaugamela every single general he had counseled him to go back to the coast and recruit from cities they could easy subdue. His famous line was "I would if I were Parmenion, but I am Alexander."

Consider the following:

Just before the battle, Darius offered Alexander a generous peace agreement: he would cede half the Persian Empire if Alexander ceased his invasion of Persia, but Alexander declined without any consideration. One of Alexander's generals, Parmenion, said that if he were Alexander he would gladly accept the more-than-generous offer. Alexander replied, "And I would too, if I were Parmenion."

That says one general, not every single general. Please quote your source that says every general.

I have previously provided reasonable evidence that Alexander's generals wanted to attack Tyre.

Of course, your comments are ridiculous since Alexander attacked Tyre, and Darius at Gaugamela in spite of the costs, not to mention his other conquests. In addition, the main issue is Alexander's motivations for attacking Tyre, not his generals' motivations. Further, Alexander's motivations for his conquests sometimes varied, as was the case with many other conquerors, so his motivations at Gaugamela were not necessarily the same as his motivations at Tyre. I discussed Alexander's motivations for attacking Tyre in some of my previous posts.

One source that I read said that when the Tyrians told Alexander that they would not allow him to enter the city to worship at the temple, they also told him that he could still worship at an older temple at the mainland. So, let's try to follow the sequence of events. 1. Alexander asks the Tyrians for permission to enter the city. 2. The Tyrians say no, do not hang Alexander's messengers, let the messengers go, and tell Alexander that he can still worship at an older temple at the mainland. 3. Alexander again sends messengers to the city, and the Tyrians hanged them, but why? What did the messengers tell the Tyrians? Apparently, they either told the Tyrians that 1) Alexander would peacefully leave Tyre, or that 2) Alexander insisted that he be allowed to enter the city, or he would attack it. It is unlikely that the Tyrians would have hanged Alexander's messengers if they told them that Alexander would peacefully leave Tyre. It is more likely that Alexander was angry, and threatened the Tyrians, and then they hanged his messengers. If that happened, why did Alexander threaten the Tyrians? Some possibilities are 1) Alexander was only angry because he wanted to worship at the temple, and would not have conquered the city if he had been allowed to enter it, 2) Alexander had strategic reasons for being angry, and 3) Alexander had a religious vision that told him to attack the city.

In some of my previous posts, I quoted some sources that agree with items 2, and 3.

Even if item 1 is true, you are just guessing. I assume that very few historians other than some conservative Christian historians would claim that there is sufficient historical evidence that Alexander was only angry with the Tyrians because he wanted to worship at the temple, and would not have conquered the city if he had been allowed to enter it to worship in the temple.

You have a problem. If item 1 is true, that is a religious reason, and you objected when I quoted the ancient historian Arrian's claim that Alexander had a religious vision that told him to attack the island fortress.

 

[Agnostic75]

Of course, you are wasting your time discussing any Bible prophecy since I told you at another forum that if good, and evil supernatural beings exists, no mere fallible, imperfect human would be able to tell which ones are which, and which ones are the most powerful. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and deceives many people, but Paul could not have known which supernatural beings are which, or even that any good supernatural beings exist. You said that God has provided Christians with ways to tell who is who, but that is simply ridiculous since that would only be true if 1) good supernatural beings exist, and 2) if good supernatural beings are more powerful than evil supernatural beings are. You have not reasonably proven either one of those claims.

This has nothing to do with prophecy at all.

Yes it does since if God is evil, and is masquerading as a good God, you have no case at all regarding prophecy, or anything else that is in the Bible.

You appear to not be interested in resolution, evidence, or reason.

This is not true since I would like to discuss my posts 154, 155, 156, 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, and 167 with you. In addition, I have made many replies to your arguments in some other threads.

I will not keep bringing up this argument, at least not much, but it is an excellent argument. I just wanted to let you know that I have an additional excellent argument, and one that is impossible for you to adequately refute.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The Tyre prophecy was probably written after the fact and is most likely political propaganda. But being such it does not invalidate the prophetic tradition. People have been making predictions for thousands of years just by simple observation. There is nothing supernatural about it, but even if these prediction were not supernatural does not mean the prophets weren't inspired.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: The more that I study the Tyre prophecy, the more I realize how easy it is to refute.

In my posts 154, and 156 I reasonably proved that the issues of a bare rock, rubble, and rebuilding only apply to the island fortress. I have referred to those issues as my idea, but I have since found out that other skeptics have said that those issues refers only to the island settlement, and I quoted one of them in my post 156.

Ezekiel had no idea that Alexander would ever be born, let alone build a causeway to the island, which turned out to be a bad idea since the siege machines that he put there were not able to breach the walls, and it took ships to do that. All of the historical sources that I checked at the Internet show that the walls were breached from ships, not from the causeway.

Ezekiel must have believed that only ships would be used to defeat the island settlement, so he would not have predicted anything about a causeway being built to the island fortress to defeat it. If Ezekiel had predicted that Alexander would build a causeway to the island fortress, and use it to defeat the fortress, his prophecy would have failed.

If Alexander had not built a causeway to the island fortress, and had just used naval forces, it is reasonably possible, if not probable that the fortress would be rebuilt since it was a strategic fortress, and was not largely destroyed by Alexander when he defeated it.

If the causeway had not been built, and the fortress had been rebuilt, it would quite obviously have been rebuilt, and occupied by whoever conquered it, certainly not by the inhabitants, and certainly not by allies of Tyre. If that had happened, Ezekiel's prediction that the island fortress would never be rebuilt would have failed.

You could argue that the building of the causeway proves that God inspired the Tyre prophecy since even though it was not used to defeat the island fortress, its presence helped to ensure that the fortress would never be rebuilt. It is true that the presence of the causeway helped to ensure that the fortress would never be rebuilt, but that does not reasonably prove divine inspiration. You cannot show that the odds against anyone building a causeway to the island by say 1200 A.D., or even by 100 B.C., are so high that Ezekiel's prediction that the island fortress would never be rebuilt was inspired by God.

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 nothing subsequent to those events was mentioned since just being cast into the sea was sufficient to reap disgrace on the enemy. Similarly, if the remains of the island fortress had been cast into the sea, and nothing else happened, that would have been sufficient to reap disgrace on the enemy. A causeway being built to the island was not necessary in order for the walls of the fortress to be cast into the sea, and in fact, the causeway had little or nothing to do with parts of the walls falling into the sea since ships did most of the damage to the fortress.

You have argued that the prophecy was fulfilled either way since some stones from the walls of the fortress fell into the sea. However, it was quite natural that parts of the walls would fall into the sea when it was attacked by ships.

You have argued that Alexander was the first to use naval siege machines. If he was, so what? Wikipedia says:

The earliest engine was the battering ram, developed by the Assyrians, followed by the catapult in ancient Greece. The Spartans used battering rams in the Siege of Plataea in 429 BC, but it seems that the Greeks limited their use of siege engines to assault ladders, though Peloponnesian forces used something resembling flamethrowers.

The first Mediterranean people to use advanced siege machinery were the Carthaginians, who used siege towers and battering rams against the Greek colonies of Sicily. These engines influenced the ruler of Syracuse, Dionysius I, who developed a catapult in 399 BC.

The first two rulers to make use of siege engines to a large extent were Philip II of Macedonia and Alexander the Great.

Obviously, the Tyre prophecy does not have anything to do with the expected evolution of siege machines that were used on land, and by ships.

 

[1robin]

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.

I searched three previous pages of posts and cannot find the statement you said I made. I also not you cut it up to make a point. I meant hat the killing and enslaving everyone is consistent with the apocalyptic predictions made, not that any body counts were mentioned.

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."

I know. Alexander killed 10,000 and enslaved 30,000.

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.

He paid some directly, made alliances with others promising future spoil, and simply took over other ports and their ships. Yes it cost him plenty. He maid to have timber brought from Lebanon to construct siege engines bigger than any ever made.. He had to pay his soldiers for these extra years or months of effort. But most of all Alexander's army was a lighting force. Every second he wasted at Tyre meant Darius was recruiting and training more men. This event literally cost him thousands on lives and no telling how much money and promises later paid. That is why he never even intended to attack it all at. He had little top gain an empire to lose. Watch Alexander with Collin Ferrell. It has nothing to do with Tyre but shows how close he came to not conquering Darius because of delays.

What is not common is not evidence of divine inspiration.

There are at least 100 accurate prophecies in the Bible alone for every annihilated fortress I can think of.

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.

1. The odds have been calculated for his getting those predictions right and even conservative estimates put it at 1 in 70,000.
2. No weapon that existed more than 500 years later nor tactic was mentioned. Every tactic, methodology, and weapon existed pre 1st century.
3. Even the Romans stopped using axes to break down towers long before than.
4. This is the last time I will mention this. QUIT stripping a prediction where are dozen plus predictions all came true to one at a time and inventing some bizarre reason why it is not impossible for it to be non miraculous. That is not a valid argument and is again evidence of bias.

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.

I have no idea why that matters but it is not true. The Navy helped tear down the walls, so did the catapults so big they had never been built before, so did the largest siege tower in history, so did Alexander's personal example of jumping onto the wall from the tower and leading his men from the front, so did an unprecedented causeway across the ocean, etc.... That is why it was considered impregnable and took a General so famous his battles are still taught at west point to do it, and even he almost gave up twice. It is one of the most remarkable and improbable events in military history.

 

[1robin]

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.

Come on this is six posts in a row and a few are very long. You are a robot.

1. You have not established any evidence Ezekiel knew a battle was coming.
2. You have not established he would have known where it was to occur.
3. You have not established by he predicted the island would fall at all even though no one could have taken it at that time.

That is not a premise you can build an argument on.

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.

The heck I can't. Prophecies are constantly written in more than one book about the same events or about related events. They were intended to be read as supporting each other. Though I do not remember doing so besides mentioning there was another. My comments you responded to were one prophecy that had many parts.

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.

That was not an attempt to open a discussion about Babylon. It was to show that annihilation of a fortress and its occupants not rebuilding it is so rare in the bible's almost 2000 year history two were recorded.

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.

No an evil God cannot even be God. God is a being with maximal great making properties. Evil is not a great making property. There is a debate (a rare one) where Craig and another Christians took on two atheists at Oxford I believe. In the question period someone asked if Satan could not simply be God but evil. Craig said evil is not a great making property and the whole place laughed themselves silly. BTW that is one of the few debates where votes were taken. The Christians won by a lot. This is also an irrelevant subject. Demons and Satan are created creatures and do not possess great making properties which means they cannot predict the future accurately at 100%/ Which is why palm reader, people talking to the dead, and false prophets always have errors among anything they get right.

 

[1robin]

The Tyre prophecy was probably written after the fact and is most likely political propaganda. But being such it does not invalidate the prophetic tradition. People have been making predictions for thousands of years just by simple observation. There is nothing supernatural about it, but even if these prediction were not supernatural does not mean the prophets weren't inspired.

There is always less evidence than we would like to have but Ezekiel's prophecy is one with more than most. Every scrap of reliable evidence suggests it was written before the events. Not on concerning Nebuchadnezzar but he was not even alive to record what Alexander did afterwards, yet every detail was exact. There exists no credible evidence it was written after any of the facts. That is only wishful speculation.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[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.

I searched three previous pages of posts and cannot find the statement you said I made.

You said that in your post 76.

I meant that the killing and enslaving everyone is consistent with the apocalyptic predictions made, not that any body counts were mentioned.

No one would have thought that fortress would have been utterly destroyed.

Ezekiel had no idea that Alexander would ever be born, let alone build a causeway to the island, which turned out to be a bad idea since the siege machines that he put there were not able to breach the walls, and it took ships to do that. All of the historical sources that I checked at the Internet show that the walls were breached from ships, not from the causeway.

Ezekiel must have believed that only ships would be used to defeat the island settlement, so he would not have predicted anything about a causeway being built to the island fortress to defeat it, or to help defeat it. So if what Ezekiel expected would happen had actually happened, meaning that the remains of the island fortress would be cast into the sea, without a causeway being built, his prophecy would have probably failed since without the causeway, it is probable that the island fortress would have been rebuilt by whoever conquered it, certainly not by the inhabitants, and certainly not by allies of Tyre.

Quite naturally, after Alexander built the causeway, and expanded it, that would have discouraged attempts to rebuild the fortress since it would have been accessible by land.

You could argue that the building of the causeway proves that God inspired the Tyre prophecy since even though it was not used to defeat the island fortress, its presence helped to ensure that the fortress would never be rebuilt. It is true that the presence of the causeway helped to ensure that the fortress would never be rebuilt, but that does not reasonably prove divine inspiration. You cannot show that the odds against anyone building a causeway to the island by say 1200 A.D., or even by 100 B.C., are so high that Ezekiel's prediction that the island fortress would never be rebuilt was inspired by God.

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 nothing subsequent to those events was mentioned since just being cast into the sea was sufficient to reap disgrace on the enemy. Similarly, if the remains of the island fortress had been cast into the sea, and nothing else happened, that would have been sufficient to reap disgrace on the enemy. A causeway being built to the island was not necessary in order for the walls of the fortress to be cast into the sea, and in fact, the causeway had little or nothing to do with parts of the walls falling into the sea since ships did most of the damage to the fortress.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

The heck I can't. Prophecies are constantly written in more than one book about the same events or about related events. They were intended to be read as supporting each other. Though I do not remember doing so besides mentioning there was another. My comments you responded to were one prophecy that had many parts.

What evidence have you used from other prophecies to try to verify the Tyre prophecy?

If a few prophecies could be reasonably proven to have been inspired by God, that might be plausible evidence that all of them were inspired by God, but you have not provided any reasonable evidence that any of them were inspired by God.

When you debate prophecy A, you cannot intelligently claim that B verifies A, and then when you debate B claim that C verifies B, and then when you debate C claim that D verifies C, but that is what you are trying to do. You have to start somewhere. If you want to start with the Tyre prophecy, that is fine. If you want to stop debating the Tyre prophecy, and debate some other prophecy, that is fine, but you cannot get away with claiming that a group of prophecies that we have never discussed reasonably proves the prophecy that we are discussing, which is the Tyre prophecy.

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.

That was not an attempt to open a discussion about Babylon. It was to show that annihilation of a fortress and its occupants not rebuilding it is so rare in the Bible's almost 2,000 year history two were recorded.

But the Babylon prophecy was adequately refuted by skeptics centuries ago.

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.

No an evil God cannot even be God.

An evil God cannot be the God of the Bible, but that is exactly my point, which is that God is not the kind of God that the Bible claims he is.

Logically, any eternal being who has creative abilities would qualify as a God regardless of his nature.

God is a being with maximal great making properties. Evil is not a great making property. There is a debate (a rare one) where Craig and another Christians took on two atheists at Oxford I believe. In the question period someone asked if Satan could not simply be God but evil. Craig said evil is not a great making property and the whole place laughed themselves silly. BTW that is one of the few debates where votes were taken. The Christians won by a lot. This is also an irrelevant subject. Demons and Satan are created creatures and do not possess great making properties which means they cannot predict the future accurately at 100%. Which is why palm reader, people talking to the dead, and false prophets always have errors among anything they get right.

Craig is just plain stupid regarding that particular issue. Consider the following:

Perfect Being Theology | Reasonable Faith

I’ve already acknowledged a degree of play in the notion of a great-making property. For example, is it greater to be timeless or omnitemporal? The answer is not clear. But our uncertainty as to what properties the greatest conceivable being must have does nothing to invalidate the definition of “God” as “the greatest conceivable being.” Here Anselm’s intuition which you mention seems on target: there cannot by definition be anything greater than God.

Now you might think, “But what good is it defining God as the greatest conceivable being if we have no idea what such a being would be like?” The answer to that question will depend on what project you’re engaged in. If you’re doing systematic theology, then you have that other control, namely, Scripture, which supplies considerable information about God, for example, that He is eternal, almighty, good, personal, and so on. Perfect Being theology will aid in the formulation of a doctrine of God by construing those attributes in as great a way as possible. On the other hand, if your project is natural theology, which makes no appeal to Scripture, then you will present arguments that God must have certain properties.

Nothing there, or elsewhere in the article, reasonably disproves my arguments. All that is required for my arguments to be true is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and evil. Obviously, an evil God who is omnipotent, and omniscient, would easily be able to pretend to be good, to predict the future, and to do good works.

If God is an evil God who is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?

 

[Agnostic75]

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

Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre

Quote:

"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."

That site must be run by idiots.

On the contrary, the website only quoted Arrian, and does not have any commentary at all. As most ancient historians know, Arrian is widely acknowledged by scholars as one of the best ancient sources on Alexander, and some scholars say that he is the best ancient source on Alexander. Wikipedia says;

Anabasis Alexandri, 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.

Following is some more information about Arrian:

Arrian Campaigns of Alexander (Anabasis) Summary

Arrian: Campaigns of Alexander (Anabasis)

Summary by Michael McGoodwin, prepared 2002

Arrian does not attempt to analyze why Alexander did what he did, nor does he provide much character study or the antecedents of the war. His model was Xenophon's Anabasis. He intended this work to be his masterpiece, believing Alexander to be a splendid subject who had not been adequately represented theretofore. He wanted to write a factual account free of mythology and romance. His main sources were Ptolemy I son of Lagus (future king of Egypt, writings are non-extant) and Aristobulus (Greek engineer, non-extant), both of whom were commanders who accompanied Alexander. However, he also said he drew on, or is thought to have drawn on, the Ephemerides (diaries of the campaigns mostly by Eumenes--non-extant), Alexander's own correspondence, Callisthenes (non-extant, draws on Homeric myth), Trogus, Nearchus (commanded Alexander's fleet from the Indus River to the Persian Gulf, published 310, non-extant), Cleitarchus (non-extant, exhibits a penchant for sensational, fabulous, and romantic), Chares (non-extant, chamberlain who wrote of court life), Ephippos (who wrote of Alexander's drinking), Diodorus (extant history written 1st C BCE), Justin (wrote 3rd C AD), Quintus Curtius Rufus (wrote 1st C CE, sensational and emotive style), Plutarch (Life of Alexander 2nd C CE, interested in character, thus a good companion to Arrian, a good miscellanist), Diodorus, and others. He was also influenced by Xenophon's Anabasis and Theopompus (376-c. 320, wrote Philippica).

So there is good reason to believe that Alexander had the religious motive that Arrian mentioned for attacking the island fortress, not just strategic motives. Arrian also mentioned some strategic motives.

 

[Agnostic75]

Alexander was not after minor cities.......

Then why did he attack the island fortress?

.......he was after Babylon. If he captured it, and killed Darius he would instantly own all the cities in 4/5ths of the known world.

As I will show later in this post, Alexander achieved most of what you said during the year after he conquered Tyre, and he also conquered the island fortress of Tyre, which he considered to be very strategic, and a necessary prerequisite for pursuing Babylon, and Darius.

Arrian is the best ancient source on Alexander. He said:

Major Battles of Alexander's Asian Campaign

He set out from Marathus and took possession of Byblus on terms of capitulation, as he did also of Sidon, the inhabitants of which spontaneously invited him from hatred of the Persians and Darius. Thence he advanced towards Tyre; ambassadors from which city, despatched by the commonwealth, met him on the march, announcing that the Tyrians had decided to do whatever he might command. He commended both the city and its ambassadors, and ordered them to return and tell the Tyrians that he wished to enter their city and offer sacrifice to Heracles. The son of the king of the Tyrians was one of the ambassadors, and the others were conspicuous men in Tyre; but the king Azemilcus himself was sailing with Autophradates.

The reason of this demand was, that in Tyre there existed a temple of Heracles, the most ancient of all those which are mentioned in history. It was not dedicated to the Argive Heracles, the son of Alcmena; for this Heracles was honoured in Tyre many generations before Cadmus set out from Phoenicia and occupied Thebes, and before Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, was born, from whom Dionysus, the son of Zeus, was born. Dionysus would be third from Cadmus, being a contemporary of Labdacus, son of Polydorus, the son of Cadmus; and the Argive Heracles lived about the time of Oedipus, son of Laius. The Egyptians also worshipped another Heracles, not the one which either the Tyrians or Greeks worship. But Herodotus says that the Egyptians considered Heracles to be one of the twelve gods, just as the Athenians worshipped a different Dionysus, who was the son of Zeus and Core; and the mystic chant called Iacchus was sung to this Dionysus, not to the Theban. So also I think that the Heracles honoured in Tartessus by the Iberians, where are certain pillars named after Heracles, is the Tyrian Heracles; for Tartessus was a colony of the Phoenicians, and the temple to the Heracles there was built and the sacrifices offered after the usage of the Phoenicians. Hecataeus the historian says Geryones, against whom the Argive Heracles was despatched by Eurystheus to drive his oxen away and bring them to Mycenae, had nothing to do with the land of the Iberians; nor was Heracles despatched to any island called Erythia outside the Great Sea; but that Geryones was king of the mainland around Ambracia and the Amphilochians, that Heracles drove the oxen from this Epirus, and that this was deemed no mean task. I know that to the present time this part of the mainland is rich in pasture land and rears a very fine breed of oxen; and I do not think it beyond the bounds of probability that the fame of the oxen from Epirus, and the name of the king of Epirus, Geryones, had reached Eurystheus. But I do not think it probable that Eurystheus would know the name of the king of the Iberians, who were the remotest nation in Europe, or whether a fine breed of oxen grazed in their land, unless some one, by introducing Hera into the account, as herself giving these commands to Heracles through Eurystheus, wished, by means of the fable, to disguise the incredibility of the tale.

To this Tyrian Heracles, Alexander said he wished to offer sacrifice. But when this message was brought to Tyre by the ambassadors, the people passed a decree to obey any other command of Alexander, but not to admit into the city any Persian or Macedonian; thinking that under the existing circumstances, this was the most specious answer, and that it would be the safest course for them to pursue in reference to the issue of the war, which was still uncertain. When the answer from Tyre was brought to Alexander, he sent the ambassadors back in a rage. He then summoned a council of his Companions and the leaders of his army, together with the captains of infantry and cavalry, and spoke as follows:

"Friends and allies, I see that an expedition to Egypt will not be safe for us, so long as the Persians retain the sovereignty of the sea; nor is it a safe course, both for other reasons, and especially looking at the state of matters in Greece, for us to pursue Darius, leaving in our rear the city of Tyre itself in doubtful allegiance, and Egypt and Cyprus in the occupation of the Persians. I am apprehensive lest while we advance with our forces towards Babylon and in pursuit of Darius, the Persians should again conquer the maritime districts, and transfer the war into Greece with a larger army, considering that the Lacedaemonians are now waging war against us without disguise, and the city of Athens is restrained for the present rather by fear than by any good-will towards us. But if Tyre were captured, the whole of Phoenicia would be in our possession, and the fleet of the Phoenicians, which is the most numerous and the best in the Persian navy, would in all probability come over to us. For the Phoenician sailors and marines will not dare to put to sea in order to incur danger on behalf of others, when their own cities are occupied by us. After this, Cyprus will either yield to us without delay, or will be captured with ease at the mere arrival of a naval force; and then navigating the sea with the ships from Macedonia in conjunction with those of the Phoenicians, Cyprus also having come over to us, we shall acquire the absolute sovereignty of the sea, and at the same time an expedition into Egypt will become an easy matter for us. After we have brought Egypt into subjection, no anxiety about Greece and our own land will any longer remain, and we shall be able to undertake the expedition to Babylon with safety in regard to affairs at home, and at the same time with greater reputation, in consequence of having appropriated to ourselves all the maritime provinces of the Persians and all the land this side of the Euphrates."

By this speech he easily persuaded his officers to make an attempt upon Tyre. Moreover he was encouraged by a divine admonition, for that very night in his sleep he seemed to be approaching the Tyrian walls, and Heracles seemed to take him by the right hand and lead him up into the city.

The article says:

"When the answer from Tyre was brought to Alexander, he sent the ambassadors back in a rage."

Then, Alexander addresses his military leaders, and discusses his strategic reasons for attacking the island fortress. Later, Arrian mentions a religious motive that Alexander had for attacking the island fortress.

Alexander obviously disagreed with you because he said that it would be a bad idea to pursue Babylon, and Darius, without first conquering the city of Tyre.

Alexander attacked Tyre in 332 B.C. The Battle of Gaugamela occurred in the next year, which was 331 B.C. Wikipedia says that the Battle of Gaugamela "was a decisive victory for the Hellenic League and led to the fall of the Persian Empire." Wikipedia also says that Alexander conquered Babylon in 331 B.C.

So Alexander's plans from 332 B.C. - 331 B.C. worked quite well regarding Tyre, Darius, and Babylon. Most people would trust his judgment regarding military matters far more than they would trust yours.

 

[Agnostic75]

1. The odds have been calculated for his getting those predictions right and even conservative estimates put it at 1 in 70,000.

2. No weapon that existed more than 500 years later nor tactic was mentioned. Every tactic, methodology, and weapon existed pre 1st century.

3. Even the Romans stopped using axes to break down towers long before than.

4. This is the last time I will mention this. QUIT stripping a prediction where are dozen plus predictions all came true to one at a time and inventing some bizarre reason why it is not impossible for it to be non miraculous. That is not a valid argument and is again evidence of bias.

Regarding item 1, I will not comment on it since nothing specific is mentioned.

Regarding items 2, and 3, you cannot show that the odds against anyone defeating the island fortress within 500 years are so high that Ezekiel's prediction that it would be defeated was inspired by God. What is not common is not evidence of divine inspiration. The odds are astronomical that very unusual things will sometimes occur, and 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 you cannot reasonably prove that Ezekiel accurately predicting that someone would defeat the island settlement within 500 years beat astronomical odds.

Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre in about 586 B.C. Five hundred years later would be 86 B.C. Do you have any historical evidence that the island looked like a bare rock by 86 B.C.? If by that date, the island fortress walls had been completely dismantled to make room for residential development, that would not have been odd, partly because the walls would have blocked much of the view of the water.

There were a number of temples at the island fortress. Perhaps some of them had not been destroyed, or dismantled by 86 B.C. If that was the case, all of the island would not have looked like a bare rock.

Regarding item 4, many of Ezekiel’s predictions came true, but none of them were divinely inspired. Nothing that he said about Nebuchadnezzar was unusual. Consider the following:

Nebuchadnezzar II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, or in what month, did his attacks begin? If Ezekiel wrote the prophecy in 586 B.C., on what exact date, or in what month did he write it?

There is no way that you can reasonably prove that the odds against Ezekiel learning about Nebuchadnezzar’s plans to attack the mainland settlement are so high that God must have told him about Nebuchadnezzar’s plans. For all we know, Nebuchadnezzar had planned to attack the mainland settlement years before he attacked it, and by the time that he did attack it, many people in, and outside of Babylon knew about it.

Once that Ezekiel, or anyone else, had heard about Nebuchadnezzar’s plans to attack the mainland settlement, surely many people expected him to severely damage it.

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, 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.

Now that is utterly absurd even for you. It is not surprising that Nebuchadnezzar wanted to attack the mainland settlement. Your commander argument is irrelevant since when Nebuchadnezzar decided to attack the mainland settlement, his commanders had to do what he told them to do.

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

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. Remaining true to the vision of his inaugural address, the great king spent the tolls he collected and the taxes he gathered in creating a city which, he hoped, would be recognized as a wonder of the world (and, indeed, his hopes were realized in later writers adding the walls of Babylon and, in particular, the Ishtar gate to the list of the Seven Wonders of the World). In the forty-three years of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar II made the most of the time employing a vast army of slave labor to surround his city with walls so thick that chariot races were conducted around the tops and which stretched fifty-six miles in length, encircling an area of two hundred square miles. The bricks of the walls were faced with a bright blue and bore the inscription, “I am Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.”

Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that it would have been surprising if a powerful king like Nebuchadnezzar had not severely damaged the mainland settlement.

Please reply to my posts 154, 156, 162, 176, 177, 178, and 179.