I find nothing odd about saying that they would make a plunder. One made a big plunder the other one a lesser plunder. This is a relative term to which only the authors opinion is the determinate. They both did confiscate wealth from Tyre. However God decreed that Babylon did not recieve enough to comprensate them fully (in his estimation) and so he allowed them to plunder Egypt as well.
29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled:
yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
Seems like the Bible states otherwise. It doesn't say their 'wasn't' enough wages. It says there were NO wages.
Well they were punished very shortly... I do find this as the only legitamate point you have made so far. The only way this issue can be resolved is if we could question God specifically. Job tried that and it didn't end well.
Well, I'm doing it now, and I'm not getting anything as bad as Job did. So now it's societal influence that God was trying to wipe out?
To be honest when I look at this and I see that all of the hard facts that are predicted were fulfilled that is enough. I do not start disecting every single claim with my interpretation of what God should have done or not. As long as the events are reasonably similar to the prediction that equals God to me since the absence of any competeing explenation leaves only it. I can understand why a critic would take a different stance.
But they weren't really that similar. Instead of the Babyloians doing it as predicted, they didn't. They didn't plunder Tyre at all, or even cause damage, as explained earlier, they hit mainland villages that weren't considered Tyre.
Chapter 27
The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, 2 Now, thou son of man, take up a lamentation for Tyrus;
3 And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many isles, Thus saith the Lord God; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty.
4
Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have perfected thy beauty.
1. Tyre's destruction were predicted. Both Tyre's physical and social destruction were accomplished.
I fail to see how the social drop of Phoenicia could be considered 'destruction.' Even Alexander didn't destroy the city, he took it over. It took a century before Hellenism came in and changed everything.
2. Your contention that it was later rebuilt in no way contradicts this prediction. As for my position v/s time. If you will reread my first post I said I did not know that much about this specific prophecy but I did post someone elses take on it. I then over time became more familiar with the prophecy and adjusted my claims.
You switch very conveniently when you state that the destruction of the city is predicted, but when we turn to the verses where it states the city would sink into the sea and never be seen again, you turn back to the destruction being 'cultural.'
Sometimes it's a metaphor, sometimes it's history, sometimes it's both. But you only decide which applies to each line when it is convenient to be doing so. You are still doing this and this is after the 'over time' you have become more familiar with the prophecy.
Are you contending that nothing in this entire prophesy is not 'literal'? If not, than why is the sinking of the city into the "sea" and the "pit" not suppose to be taken literally, but when they are "literal," you use as it evidence. For example: "Tyre's physical destruction" was accomplished. They nations literally "plundered" the area. But the falling into the sea thing?... No that was a metaphor.. not to be taken literally, since it didn't actually happen.
Look at this site for some specific details and why this issue is far more complex and detailed than you have stated here.
Jerusalem's Destruction--587 or 607
Why? It's a biased source.
Do you know that these events are predicted and interconnected with other prophets like, Jeremiah and Daniel?
Again, I'm not concerned with the rest of the prophesies. If I was, I would make a thread for them.
I found that "they" as referring to nations was the consistent view of commentators.
Okay, so besides Alexander, who destroyed building in the city? There has to be more than one, because it says "They," as in "nations," will do it.
12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and
they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy
dust in the midst of the water.
I never said I knew. I said what I found to be the most widely held interpretation. This is almost an argument from silence. Many things in the bible are not verifiable. I only defend the position that what is verifiable is consistent.
Just to drop some of the points: I'll except here on out that 'nations' and 'they' mean what you want them to mean.
Are the Babulons kin to the Romulons? He did invade and plunder Egypt in either 572 or 586. He did break the stregnth of that nation for about 40 years which is another detail of the prophecy. This is a good example of what I have been saying. The verse says this: "Behold, I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon". You interpret this as him ruling Egypt apparently because you have a bias which choses the interpretation that produces conflict.
First: Who are the Romulons?
Second: If it wasn't Nebuchadrezzar who 'broke the strength of the nation for 40 years,' then the prophesy is directly incorrect. It doesn't matter if it was any other Babylonian king or anything other nation. This one is explicitly incorrect.
Third: Yeah... my bias... interprets this :
Chapter 29
"8 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring a
sword upon thee, and cut off man and
beast out of thee.
9
And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it.
10 Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and
I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia."
Oh, and you can't really use the 'physical or cultural' argument at your choosing, because neither of them EVER happened. EVER. And there isn't a 'they' referring to 'nations'. This is god saying '
I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate."
I with my own bias see this as giving him the power to overcome the resistance of Egypt to whatever degree that accomplished God's purpose. What I personally do is consider this a wash and unresolvable but we are still left with a prediction that he would attack and pluder Egypt which he did so I am satasfied. What I mean is there is plenty left to justify faith even without consideration of any unsolvable details.
Except you are, again, ignoring the fact that God says, pretty implicitly, that there would be the total destruction of Egypt. I'm sure he did attack, probably even plundered. That's not what Bible says would happen.
Nope. 1. This is a very common and well known tactic of bible critics. They universally apply extremely arbitrary strict standards of semantics to biblical verses. 2. We are not even reading them in their original language which means language use is an obvious relevant issue. 3. I believe this is related to a specific claim that I did look up and I believe posted a language comparison and description from a scholar. 4. I did not nor would I assert I am a qualified language expert. I don't even handle English well. That does not mean it can't be researched.
Which post? I don't remember seeing that one.
1. It... 4. I know of no biblical scripture that provably false and I have found every one I have researched to be highly accurate.
And yet, this still has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And no. 4 isn't true. The first few passages of the bible incorrectly states the creation of things that don't make sense... for example, light before stars. But again, this is besides the point. (We can ditch this issue, if you are looking to make the posts shorter).
The more I check into this the more detailed, layered, and complex these events are which renders your statement above inaccurate.
The prophesy doesn't say when Tyre falls, under who will do the destroying of Tyre, except the Babylonains, who failed.
So how is this an inaccurate statement: "Saying that any cultural given an infinite amount of time will eventually be lost isn't really much of a prediction."
If you don't mind could you shorten your claims to a few of your best. I am getting burned out and have trouble getting to the bottom of a shotgun pattern of claims. I would rather cover a few topics more deeply than many topics only the surface layers of which I have time for. However it is your thread I believe.
I'm afraid not, but feel free to take your time on the responses.
