Why is "Tyre" still here? Is God's judgment flawed, did he lie, or am I missing something?

[George-ananda]

.. I wonder how you know God's intentions in his revelations and these human misinterperations you speak of.

When did I ever say I know God's intentions in these revelations.

Do you know what God said?

I've never been blessed with any personal revelation.

Do I see the difference? Between what God said to you and what the Old Testament writers said?... no. You do though. Explain to me this difference and then back it up.

Once again, God has not talked to me about it.

Or simplied further... please, instruct me to the correct interpretation of the bible. What criteria am I missing out on that never seems to be spoken?

Ah, now the heart of the issue. I believe in God but I do not believe in the infallability of the scriptures. Much to many people's frustration there is no one 'correct interpretation of the bible' as you put it. We have to each use or own judgement with the challenging parts of the bible.

I personally consider the bible BUT I also consider the teachings of great saints/holy men/eastern-masters who have actually spoken within in the last two thousand years and are still speaking.

 

[dust1n]

I suppose there are probably different answers that could apply such as metaphors and so on, but the Bible doesn't have any spiritual significance to me.

However, does a text have to be literal to be true? I don't think it does have to be. One can learn spiritual truths from a fable.

The whole text doesn't have to be liberal. But in what wait could the telling of the Prophesy of Tyre is a fable for anything? What sort of spiritual truth could you possibly draw from that. I submit that their may be contexts I don't understand or translation that could shed new light, I don't seem to be easily finding any. And plus, wouldn't all the surrounding prophesies also have to be metaphors now? What sense would it make to have multiple literal tellings of prophesies with one metaphorical prophesy right in the middle?

 

[dust1n]

Sorry, will get back to the other two responses, just in a hurry and need to bump thread.

 

[Breathe]

The whole text doesn't have to be liberal. But in what wait could the telling of the Prophesy of Tyre is a fable for anything? What sort of spiritual truth could you possibly draw from that. I submit that their may be contexts I don't understand or translation that could shed new light, I don't seem to be easily finding any. And plus, wouldn't all the surrounding prophesies also have to be metaphors now? What sense would it make to have multiple literal tellings of prophesies with one metaphorical prophesy right in the middle?

Can't say I know, my friend; it doesn't really hold any spiritual weight for me, so I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.

 

[gnostic]

Although many reference works will claim otherwise, the original city of Tyre was on the mainland. It was not the island, and certainly not on the neck of land connecting the two, since that only came into existence in 332BC (more on that later). This can be seen from Joshua 19:29, the first mention of Tyre in the Bible:

And then the coast turneth to Ramah, and to the strong city Tyre; and the coast turneth to Hosah; and the outgoings thereof are at the sea from the coast to Achzib

The books in the Bible are not really known for geographical accuracy.

And despite the chronological events of Joshua, the book itself - Book of Joshua - was probably written in the 2nd half of the 7th century BCE...during the reign of Josiah. Much of the deuteronomical history of the bible were written during Josiah's time, so that would include Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, books of Samuel, I think that of Kings too.

So it is really not an old book.

But getting back to the point. Tyre proper was on the island itself.

Tyre was a maritime city-state, and transports of trade on the ships were of utmost importance to the island kingdom. With that in mind, the best harbours (2 of them) were on the island itself, not on the mainland.

 

[1robin]

The books in the Bible are not really known for geographical accuracy.

And despite the chronological events of Joshua, the book itself - Book of Joshua - was probably written in the 2nd half of the 7th century BCE...during the reign of Josiah. Much of the deuteronomical history of the bible were written during Josiah's time, so that would include Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, books of Samuel, I think that of Kings too.

So it is really not an old book.

But getting back to the point. Tyre proper was on the island itself.

Tyre was a maritime city-state, and transports of trade on the ships were of utmost importance to the island kingdom. With that in mind, the best harbours (2 of them) were on the island itself, not on the mainland.

The quote you listed was from another source and I stated that I did not agree or disagree. It really is not the core issue. The issue is did God literally mean that the buildings, or the culture of tyre would never be rebuilt. Since the bricks in the walls or the island that it sat on did not offend God but the culture of the people at that time did, it would make more sense that the culture would not return. Or it could be as stated in my last post that this language was a sensational metaphor common at the time in many cultures makeing a point about the cities devestation.

I strongly disagree with you biblical inaccuracy point. The bible is used as a main reference work for secular archeologists, it has 25,000 historically corroberated details, and is known as almost supernaturally accurate. Some very prominent Christians started as ardent opponents of the bible who set out to prove it's inaccuracy and became Christians because they could not do it. ex C.S. Lewis.....This however is a little different topic.

 

[dust1n]

When did I ever say I know God's intentions in these revelations.

Maybe I misunderstood...

All we know is that the old testament writers said that God said that it would never be rebuilt. That is not the same as God said. Do you see the difference?

The human in the middle is fallable.

I've never been blessed with any personal revelation.

Then how did you happen upon the first post you made? How do we know that what God said and what the OT writers said are not the same?

Once again, God has not talked to me about it.

Ah, now the heart of the issue. I believe in God but I do not believe in the infallability of the scriptures. Much to many people's frustration there is no one 'correct interpretation of the bible' as you put it. We have to each use or own judgement with the challenging parts of the bible.

So how is it possible to extract any legitimate, verifiable meaning from the book?

I personally consider the bible BUT I also consider the teachings of great saints/holy men/eastern-masters who have actually spoken within in the last two thousand years and are still speaking.

Well, that's good.

Honestly, I was hoping for someone to take a much stringent route in argument. It's no fun if we all agree it probably isn't real..

 

[dust1n]

I made my evaluation based on your complete lack of knowledge of the concept of infallability which is well know. If it is inaacurate I withdraw the general nature of my statement.

Focusing on what I do or do not know isn't going to help your argument much, nor are you going to find much legitimacy in your evaluations.

I said specifically that the bible is beleived to be approx 95% accurate.

By who? By you? By what source?

That means most of it can be confirmed if the nature of the claim is something that can be verified at all. No I don't know about the Tyre prophecy specifically. My statement was to correct your idea of infallability. I will get to your last points in a bit.

I don't know why. I know what infallability is. IF you think that the portion of the Bible is flawed, than back up that assumption. Otherwise, we would hold that what the dictions say, the dictions mean.

I have no opinion but can you prove your what you believe to be true.

No, and it's not up to me to invalidate his claim. It's up to him to validate it. He didn't. He just picked a random spot on Google map and said 'this is it!' for all me or you will ever know based on the link provided.

Tyre could have fallen for any reason that has nothing to do with what I said. The fact that the dates and details being predicted and found to be accurate is suggestive of divine knowledge with exception of your contention which we are discussing. I never said because Tyre was destroyed that means God did it. Many times God just predicts what someone else will do.

Ah, so you are suggesting that the dates matching up in the Bible is so perfect that it could only be God doing it? Well, I suppose that's a little better. The prediction isn't exactly correct. The Babylonians did not defeat Tyre. That attacked it for 13 years before giving up. It wasn't even until 300 years later until Alexander the Great came in and destroyed the city. What dates and details are correct other than he brought the army to Tyre, destoryed the mainland but not the island, thought he still seiged it. Besides that, what prediction is amazing accurate? What dates were there that are so amazing accurate?

You ignored the dates and the details of the prophecy and selected something that I hadn't even claimed to make your point is where cherry picking comes from.

What dates?! This is the only mention of time in the whole chapter? What details am I ignoring? Tell me and stop sending me to random ******** websites.

"English Standard Version (ESV)
26 In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem, ‘Aha, the gate of the peoples is broken; it has swung open to me. I shall be replenished, now that she is laid waste,’ 3 therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves...

Yes if you could prove that it was written later than the event that is a valid argument against the revelations supernatural explanation.

Or I could hold onto to my original assertion that the fact that most of the prophesy is clearly wrong. That would also be a valid argument against the revelations supernatural explanation. I mean.. the revelation goes as far to say the Babylons would attack. Or course, they were also suppose to destroy to the ground, but that didn't happen. It did happen a couple centuries later. Of course, I don't know why you'd want to destory a city three hundred years after you said you would. The original offenders of God would all be dead. It wasn't even the same culture as when the prophesy was made.

Many professionals more qualified than both of us over the years have combed through this prophecy and if any serious issue about when it was written exists I have never heard of it atleast.

I'd like to see the source to these professionals and their arguments. If any of them or worth a damn, than I would concede.

I found atleast one very well written explanation that disagrees with you. But even if your point of contention is correct there is still some 90% of the prophecy left to contend with as well as thousands of others.

Things correct about prophesy:

"7 “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar[a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers."

Incorrect things about the prophesy:

"10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the Lord; I have spoken, declares the Lord God.
15 “Thus says the Lord God to Tyre: Will not the coastlands shake at the sound of your fall, when the wounded groan, when slaughter is made in your midst? 16 Then all the princes of the sea will step down from their thrones and remove their robes and strip off their embroidered garments. They will clothe themselves with trembling; they will sit on the ground and tremble every moment and be appalled at you. 17 And they will raise a lamentation over you and say to you,
“‘How you have perished,
you who were inhabited from the seas,
O city renowned,
who was mighty on the sea;
she and her inhabitants imposed their terror
on all her inhabitants!
18 Now the coastlands tremble
on the day of your fall,
and the coastlands that are on the sea
are dismayed at your passing.’

19 “For thus says the Lord God: When I make you a city laid waste, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you, 20 then I will make you go down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of old, and I will make you to dwell in the world below, among ruins from of old, with those who go down to the pit, so that you will not be inhabited; but I will set beauty in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no more. Though you be sought for, you will never be found again, declares the Lord God.”"

Babylon never destroyed the main island of Tyre. We know it was an island.. secular sources hold to that, as does Ezekial. Ezekial 29 NVI

"17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: 18 “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre. Every head was made bald, and every shoulder was rubbed bare, yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had performed against her."

Reference to Tyre as an island in the Bible:

Ezek 27:4, 25, 26, 32 ESV - Your borders are in the heart of the - Bible Gateway”

Done

The below is taken from a site which has an exhaustive explanation of the prophecy and agrees with my assertion. That doesn't prove anything but it definately suggests you might be wrong.

Ramesses speaks of the Sherden and Washesh being "made non-existent" but then goes on to say that they were captured. Is this contradictory? Of course not. The "made non-existent" part is manifestly "trash talk". In the Victory Stele of Merneptah, we also see trash talk like, "Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent..."

So was God talking Trash about Tyre to Ezekial, or did Ezekial word what God said flawed and made it sound like he was talking trash...

..cont..

 

[dust1n]

Clearly literal descriptions (conquered, seized) are mixed with clearly metaphorical ones (made non-existent), and that is what I now argue we have here. The threat to be "built no more" is trash talk like that of Ramesses speaking of his non-existent, captured people. In fact, Ezekiel goes on a skein of what we now regard as "trash talk" in the next several verses:

15 Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee? 16 Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee. 17 And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it! 18 Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure. 19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; 20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; 21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.
​

Islands shaking and trembling at the sound of a fall, the princes descending from their thrones and sitting in dust (signifying actually the fear of other nations over Tyre's conquest); the figures of desolation and of water flowing over, and descent into a dungeon -- all of these bespeak ancient "trash talk" and threats like that of turning Edom's streams into pitch (Is. 34:9). Therefore there is no need for my previous arguments with respect to the identities of the ancient and modern cities, or never "finding" the city again. Ezekiel does not predict a permanent destruction but uses the ancient metaphors of war to describe the seriousness of Tyre's predicament.
Ezekiel's Tyre Prophecy Defended
Bolding by me
The non-allowance for normal language usage of the time is a common complaint of the theological scholars against
the less educated who none the less are still willing to make incorrect claims and declare victory before their
mistakes/claims can be fully investigated.
I strongly suggest you read the entire scholarly article. It is very well written and informative.

But this what Ezekial 'trash-talking.' This was supposedly Ezekial taking down divine revelation... or Ezekial got that part wrong, and trash-talked instead.

Alexander didn't even destory Tyre fully. Tyre was still a functioning city through the time of Jesus and Paul, and continued on slowly, and is now bigger than it would ever be. It all seems a little bit silly that God was referring to a culture that would be destoryed, even though we waited 300 years to do it, when the culture would have been dead anyway...

 

[George-ananda]

Well, that's good.

Honestly, I was hoping for someone to take a much stringent route in argument. It's no fun if we all agree it probably isn't real..

Hey, I knew where you were coming from in the beginning; you wanted to prove conservative biblical literal fundamentalist types wrong on this issue.

I think too many people lose too much energy concerning themselves with the errors of fanatical fundamentalists. They're not worth much of my energy. There's eastern religions and a lot of positive spiritual people in modern times that I think are worth spending energy on.

 

[dust1n]

Hey, I knew where you were coming from in the beginning; you wanted to prove conservative biblical literal fundamentalist types wrong on this issue.

No, I wanted a diverse range to discuss it with. I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things about my personal intentions.

I think too many people lose too much energy concerning themselves with the errors of fanatical fundamentalists. They're not worth much of my energy. There's eastern religions and a lot of positive spiritual people in modern times that I think are worth spending energy on.

Great opinion and all, but I'm really only concerned with the subject of Tyre.

 

[George-ananda]

No, I wanted a diverse range to discuss it with. I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume things about my personal intentions.


Great opinion and all, but I'm really only concerned with the subject of Tyre.

I'll leave you alone to grind your ax.

 

[1robin]

Focusing on what I do or do not know isn't going to help your argument much, nor are you going to find much legitimacy in your evaluations.

Your the one who keeps harping on this. I mentioned it to explain an assuption I made, at your request.

By who? By you? By what source?

Dr James White Textual scholar. When I mean accurate I mean textually.

I don't know why. I know what infallability is. IF you think that the portion of the Bible is flawed, than back up that assumption. Otherwise, we would hold that what the dictions say, the dictions mean.

I said that a bible verse needs to be researched and and known scribal errors or translational errors should be taken into account. It's your claim this is more your role than mine.

No, and it's not up to me to invalidate his claim. It's up to him to validate it. He didn't. He just picked a random spot on Google map and said 'this is it!' for all me or you will ever know based on the link provided.

Why is he more liable in proveing his claim than you are. Not that I care.

Ah, so you are suggesting that the dates matching up in the Bible is so perfect that it could only be God doing it? Well, I suppose that's a little better. The prediction isn't exactly correct. The Babylonians did not defeat Tyre. That attacked it for 13 years before giving up. It wasn't even until 300 years later until Alexander the Great came in and destroyed the city. What dates and details are correct other than he brought the army to Tyre, destoryed the mainland but not the island, thought he still seiged it. Besides that, what prediction is amazing accurate? What dates were there that are so amazing accurate?

This statement makes a valid point I was speaking about similar prophecys that I know morte about that do include dates. This one does not contain specific dates so your point is valid. However I will add that when the bible does supply specific dates I am unaware of their being a known mistake. This is an argument for the devine source of them but not conclusive for this one in isolation.

What dates?! This is the only mention of time in the whole chapter? What details am I ignoring? Tell me and stop sending me to random ******** websites.

"English Standard Version (ESV)
26 In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem, ‘Aha, the gate of the peoples is broken; it has swung open to me. I shall be replenished, now that she is laid waste,’ 3 therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves...

See previous response.

Or I could hold onto to my original assertion that the fact that most of the prophesy is clearly wrong. That would also be a valid argument against the revelations supernatural explanation. I mean.. the revelation goes as far to say the Babylons would attack. Or course, they were also suppose to destroy to the ground, but that didn't happen. It did happen a couple centuries later. Of course, I don't know why you'd want to destory a city three hundred years after you said you would. The original offenders of God would all be dead. It wasn't even the same culture as when the prophesy was made.

I thought you had given up took your toys and went home. Now that you are back I will have to refamiliarise myself with this prophecy.

I'd like to see the source to these professionals and their arguments. If any of them or worth a damn, than I would concede.

How can I provide the names of people who didn't do something. You can look at a list of accepted biblical commentaries for a list of scholars who accept the premise of this prophecy.

Things correct about prophesy:

"7 “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar[a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers."

Incorrect things about the prophesy:

"10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the Lord; I have spoken, declares the Lord God.
15 “Thus says the Lord God to Tyre: Will not the coastlands shake at the sound of your fall, when the wounded groan, when slaughter is made in your midst? 16 Then all the princes of the sea will step down from their thrones and remove their robes and strip off their embroidered garments. They will clothe themselves with trembling; they will sit on the ground and tremble every moment and be appalled at you. 17 And they will raise a lamentation over you and say to you,
“‘How you have perished,
you who were inhabited from the seas,
O city renowned,
who was mighty on the sea;
she and her inhabitants imposed their terror
on all her inhabitants!
18 Now the coastlands tremble
on the day of your fall,
and the coastlands that are on the sea
are dismayed at your passing.’

19 “For thus says the Lord God: When I make you a city laid waste, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you, 20 then I will make you go down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of old, and I will make you to dwell in the world below, among ruins from of old, with those who go down to the pit, so that you will not be inhabited; but I will set beauty in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no more. Though you be sought for, you will never be found again, declares the Lord God.”"

Babylon never destroyed the main island of Tyre. We know it was an island.. secular sources hold to that, as does Ezekial. Ezekial 29 NVI

"17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: 18 “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre. Every head was made bald, and every shoulder was rubbed bare, yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had performed against her."

Reference to Tyre as an island in the Bible:

Ezek 27:4, 25, 26, 32 ESV - Your borders are in the heart of the - Bible Gateway”

This location issue is not important if we are discussing my language usage explanation. Language was used continuously throught the bible for effect. Every scholar of the bible would agree with that. It is a big frustration when a proffesional biblical scholar discusses the bible with a critic because they don't allow for language usage, biblical terms to be defined by the bible, and the over all theological narrative's context. This is a well known issue that I see is still alive and well.

So was God talking Trash about Tyre to Ezekial, or did Ezekial word what God said flawed and made it sound like he was talking trash...

..cont..

That one I have no clear answer for. IMO and from the bible it is easy to see that much of the language is used as much for effect as the information. Revelations hands down is the most ominous language I have ever heard.

 

[dust1n]

I'll leave you alone to grind your ax.

Cute.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Dustin, one, I didn't read everyone's reply. Though I did read the OP. Do you feel that it was to be a perpetual destruction?
Has Tyre never been destroyed in the sense described? Has your research indicated it has thrived from then until now?

 

[dust1n]

Your the one who keeps harping on this. I mentioned it to explain an assuption I made, at your request.

I never made that request.

Dr James White Textual scholar. When I mean accurate I mean textually.

Ok, that guys says 90% of the bible is infallible. Now back to Tyre.

I said that a bible verse needs to be researched and and known scribal errors or translational errors should be taken into account. It's your claim this is more your role than mine.

It isn't my claim though. The dictions of the words in the passeges speak clearly. We both see what they literally mean. Thats all I see. IF this passage is flawed, than you have to show it is flawed, thus fixing the contradiction of the text and reality. IF this passage is a giant metaphor, than you'd have to source evidence for it. It's not my claim that the Bible is flawed in ascribing this story or that it is a giant metaphor.

Why is he more liable in proveing his claim than you are. Not that I care.

Clearly, you don't.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This statement makes a valid point I was speaking about similar prophecys that I know morte about that do include dates.

Thanks. I wonder why you brought up dates at all when you accussed me of ignoring the details...

Tyre could have fallen for any reason that has nothing to do with what I said. The fact that the dates and details being predicted and found to be accurate is suggestive of divine knowledge with exception of your contention which we are discussing... You ignored the dates and the details of the prophecy and selected something that I hadn't even claimed to make your point is where cherry picking comes from.

This one does not contain specific dates so your point is valid. However I will add that when the bible does supply specific dates I am unaware of their being a known mistake. This is an argument for the devine source of them but not conclusive for this one in isolation.

So what exactly is being predicted. Ezekial says God's prediction is as such. The very beginning of it was right. The rest of it was entirely wrong.

I thought you had given up took your toys and went home. Now that you are back I will have to refamiliarise myself with this prophecy.

Take your time. Let me know if you find those dates as you refamiliarise.

How can I provide the names of people who didn't do something. You can look at a list of accepted biblical commentaries for a list of scholars who accept the premise of this prophecy.

I was asking for a list of names of accepted biblical commentaries. If I am look them up myself, than that really doesn't leave much of a reason to make a thread and discuss it, does it? Btw, I've been through a number of them already. If there is a particular point from one of them you'd like to discuss, bring it up.

This location issue is not important if we are discussing my language usage explanation.

Both issues are important for the discussion. It seemed location was very important in your previous points. Do you concede that modern day Tyre exists in the same location the Tyre during the time period mentioned in the Bible did?

Language was used continuously throught the bible for effect. Every scholar of the bible would agree with that. It is a big frustration when a proffesional biblical scholar discusses the bible with a critic because they don't allow for language usage, biblical terms to be defined by the bible, and the over all theological narrative's context. This is a well known issue that I see is still alive and well.

But what effect was language was serving in this interest. Your point would be really valid had Tyre fallen to the Babyloanians... but it didn't. That culture survived. It was centuries later before Alexander attacked. Even then, the culture effectively survived and thrived then to, even during the Roman Empire. Whether physically or metaphorically, how does the language of the prophesy when Tyre wasn't wiped out at all until centuries after it was written provide any effect in the language. Whether metaphorical or physical, Tyre didn't fall in either sense... it did later but on completely different terms...

That one I have no clear answer for. IMO and from the bible it is easy to see that much of the language is used as much for effect as the information. Revelations hands down is the most ominous language I have ever heard.

But it isn't very easy to see it in this passage, is it?

 

[dust1n]

However, does a text have to be literal to be true? I don't think it does have to be. One can learn spiritual truths from a fable.

I was reading over this again, I now I am wondering something. What exactly what being metaphorically or figuratively true entail? Is the whole purpose of these means of language ultimately trying to elude to something that you can literally take out of it? I understand parables and the language's use of effect, but how could that apply to any of the prophesies of Ezekial, or Tyre, I guess, more specifically.

I'm assuming that a Christian or a Jew would be just as baffled as I am, when inspecting all of the details. Is the prophesy just wrong, out of context, shouldn't be in the Bible?

I base my spiritual beliefs and opinions on the intelligent teachings of Jesus (less the conservative dogma) and the many sages, teachers, swamis that I have found great respect for in various traditions.

Your thread is basically .....ha ha biblical fundamentalists try explaining this one.......You have probably heard enough smug superior, know-it-all attitude christian fundamentalists in your life that you now have an ax to grind. But please consider there may positive spiritual things to learn outside of that tradition.

Looking at this again, I don't understand your offense to my thread. Why would you come into a debate that you aren't interested in, about a book you admittedly pick and choose whatever you think is intelligent in the book to enjoy, and then complain about the nature of my debate? Was there another way you were hoping to approach the subject?

 

[dust1n]

Dustin, one, I didn't read everyone's reply. Though I did read the OP. Do you feel that it was to be a perpetual destruction?

I don't even feel it happened. But it sure sounds like God was intending for perpetual destruction, sure..

KING JAMES

15 Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee?

16 Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee.

17 And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it!

18 Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.

19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;

20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;

21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

What do you think? Maybe there is some mistranlations from the Hewbrew/Greek/Latin, whatev..

Has Tyre never been destroyed in the sense described?

No.

Has your research indicated it has thrived from then until now?

I wouldn't say it thrived entirely, in say, the sense that European cities did, obviously. But after God's supposed prediction of the Babyloanians comings into Tyre and destroying the mainland is correct. But he is incorrect about the actual island of Tyre itself, which was admitted by Ezekial two chapters later. It didn't fall then. Babylon didn't throw anything into the water to make a bridge, as predicted. And most importantly, Tyre didn't fall then, and it exists at its peak now, after God said it would exist no more (so says the Beeble.) Tyre was attacked a little over 300 years later by Alexander the Great, but the island, and by many others. Sometimes it fell, and sometimes it didn't, but the city was never abandoned, really. Check it out for yourself, I don't want to go through all the earlier research I did about its long existence. This seems to be the general consensus:

Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dust1n]

Bump.

 

[dust1n]

Bump.