Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A close reading of the text of Ezekiel 26:1–14 reveals the following facts:
1. The rubble from Tyre would be put into the sea. This was fulfilled in 332 BC by Alexander the Great’s army, 250 years after Ezekiel was written.
The fact that you ignore is that the prophecy specifies that Nebuchadnezzar would dump the rubble, not Alexander.
Quote:
2. The passage does not state that Nebuchadnezzar would capture the island city and get its wealth.
It specifically states that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and that it would never be rebuilt and would plunder it's riches. (see bolded below)
Quote:
On the other hand, it does not say Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre at al..l
Oh yes it does. Read it for yourself....
Therefore thus says the Lord God: ‘Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up. 4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. 5 It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,’ says the Lord God; ‘it shall become plunder for the nations. 6 Also her daughter villages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.’ 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, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people. 8 He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defense against you. 9He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 Because of the abundance of his horses, their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen, the wagons, and the chariots, when he enters your gates, as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hooves of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people by the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 Theywill plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise;they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; theywill lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water. 13 I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken,’ says the Lord God.
We see above that the prophecy specifically says that it is to be Nebby that does the destroying and goes on to specifically say what HE will do. No mention of Alexander.
Quote:
—he conquered “Old Tyre.”
There is no such place as 'Old Tyre'. What Nebuchadnezzar destroyed was a mainland residential suburb used to store water and goods for Tyre. It wasn't even called Tyre. It was called Ushu. The city of Tyre was on an island off the coast. Your Bible even tells you that it was an island city and not on the mainland...
5 It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea
Quote:
It simply states he did not get anything of value from it. This is exactly what Ezekiel 29:17ff states. There is no contradiction.
Yes there is. The contradiction is that the prophecy says that Nebby will destroy the city and plunder it's riches...but even you admit the he got nothing. Your Bible also tells you that, as compensation for getting nothing, Nebby would be given Egypt and that he would destroy it to such an extent that it would be utterly desolate and that neither man nor beast would pass through it for a period of 40 years - that it would be desolate and surrounded by desolate cities. It never happened. Egypt has never been a desolate wasteland for 40 years nor surrounded by desolate cities.
Quote:
3. The total destruction of Tyre would be accomplished gradually by one nation after another.
Nope!
‘Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar... king of Babylon, He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defence against you.
He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes
he will break down your towers. his horses, their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen he enters your gates, as men enter a city that has been breached.
With the hooves of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people by the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. Theywill plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise;
they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; theywill lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water
It couldn't be clearer. It not only says that Nebby is going to destroy the city of Tyre but also how he is going to do it.
Quote:
4. In the end Tyre would be destroyed down to the bare rock and never rebuilt.
It wasn't destroyed to bare rock, never to be found again as your Bible prophesied. It exists today and is the second most populated city in Lebanon. I have been there and far from it never being rebuilt again the old Tyre lies under the present city, clearly rebuilt.
Your apologetics of trying to make out that it was Alexander that did the destruction actually creates two problems where before there was only one because...
1. Nebuchadnezzar never destroyed the city as prophesied (never even got inside the walls and gave up after a failed three year siege) and...
2. Alexander didn't leave it a bare rock. He actually rebuilt it due to it's strategic military importance as an island fortress.
Quote:
The final destruction took place in AD 1291, almost 2,000 years after Ezekiel was written.
1. It was supposed to be destroyed by Nebby.
2. It was never destroyed.
Quote:
Thus it turns out that, with a close investigation of the text and history, Ezekiel 26 is actually a proof text for the inerrancy and supernatural origin of the Bible!
Only if you overlook everything that the prophecy says and claim that Tyre was something it wasn't ie, a mainland suburb called Ushu rather than an island fortress called Tyre.
You sound like just the rest. I honestly can't tell you apart. You're a Texan, a Shinra, a Rafius, a Nozz, a badlander, it's all in the same snarky, condescending arrogant tonal nature that drones together in one collective voice of 100% negatively.
You could start by just once, just ONE time, stay on topic and make the conversation about the OP, not about me. Your thoughts about my personal character have ZERO to do with the OP.
Ah. So I'm not on Ignore. Good man. Jeff it's never personal. We are critiquing your reasoning and arguments. Not you. That you take the critique personally is perhaps understandable, but it isn't personal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Nothing you post here demonstrates that the the Bible is a book of fairy tales. Do you write off any ancient text as fiction if one element doesn't fit in the narrative? Or maybe it doesn't fit because we haven't uncovered all the pieces of the puzzle. Rather you NEED it to be a book of fairy tales. You dumped a lot of vague points Like with the old Tyre argument, you leave out important specifics like:
It is much the same with all the rest of your vague "evidence". All I see here is the typical atheist arrogance. And that's the only point that should be addressed. If you want a debate about Cesear's coins or whatever, start a new thread.
We do sometimes err on trying to wrest History from what seems very mythological or at least propagandist accounts, when we have littl else, but we do put a lot of caveats in. With the stories of Arthur, there are a lot of doubts. Faith in Arthur is not unknown but it is not the way to do history.
Now, that article is a nice one. Yes - I am sure that the writer - Ezekiel, perhaps - was writing the prophecy at 'That Time' which was after the Alexandrine assault on Tyre (1) He was describing what he saw. The causeway Alexander built, the landward part of Tyre and the Island city - all destroyed. A place for spreading nets. Yet, his prediction that it would stay that way was dead wrong. The city itself was viable soon enough that a later Macedonian ruler had to besiege it again. And it was a place to go to in Gospel times.
And it's all the same city. The causeway silted up and became built over, so the whole thing - island, mainland and causeway is all rebuilt and thriving.
The prophecy was wrong. Unless you are going to pull a Eusebius and claim that the rebuilt city wasn't the original one.
I expect people are sick ofmy discussions of Gospel -text errors, so I shan't be starting any new threads on it. But I'm wiling to disuc any such, should you or anyone else want to challenge them. Where ever you like.
If the Mods can stand it, Sam, so can I.
(1) this is the real point - the prediction was supposed to be in the time of Nebuchadnezzar -or at least before Alexander, and his attack was supposed to be a prophecy. But because we can date the specific time it had to be written - just after the end of the Alexandrine siege -means that the claim to be a prophecy is doubly wrong.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-27-2017 at 12:58 PM..
Ah. So I'm not on Ignore. Good man. Jeff it's never personal. We are critiquing your reasoning and arguments. Not you. That you take the critique personally is perhaps understandable, but it isn't personal.
Then you must not read a lot of the posts on here. Like the recent one that directly called me a coward. I've been called much worse on here. Anyone would take that personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
We do sometimes err on trying to wrest History from what seems very mythological or at least propagandist accounts, when we have littl else, but we do put a lot of caveats in. With the stories of Arthur, there are a lot of doubts. Faith in Arthur is not unknown but it is not the way to do history.
Now, that article is a nice one. Yes - I am sure that the writer - Ezekiel, perhaps - was writing the prophecy at 'That Time' which was after the Alexandrine assault on Tyre (1) He was describing what he saw. The causeway Alexander built, the landward part of Tyre and the Island city - all destroyed. A place for spreading nets. Yet, his prediction that it would stay that way was dead wrong. The city itself was viable soon enough that a later Macedonian ruler had to besiege it again. And it was a place to go to in Gospel times.
And that's why it is pointless to ever debate evidence with someone like you. Atheists will never admit that anything in the Bible is true. You just conveniently claim that the prophecy was written after the fact. Easy peasy. And if you can't claim that then you'll just say it's coincidence like how every prophecy involving Israel has come true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And it's all the same city. The causeway silted up and became built over, so the whole thing - island, mainland and causeway is all rebuilt and thriving.
It's not the same city. Just because someone decided to build a NEW city around the same spot and happen to give it the same name doesn't mean the city was completely rebuilt. If a great Phoenician civilization was never conquered and still existed in all its original glory today then and only then you would be correct.
If we are to believe the rhetoric of atheists or secularists then American society should be a bastion peaceful, tolerable and loving levels than ever before. After all, according to them, church and religion have been the source of hatred, bigotry, anger, discrimination and intolerance. Now with a new generation raised in secularism outside of the church, we should all be getting along great and helping each other achieve a standard of personal happiness, tolerance and equality for all. Right?
WRONG. I see the exact opposite in society now. Extreme intolerance. And I only have to look at what happened to Jeff Varner as a prime recent example. Here's the back story. Varner was a contestant on the current season of TV's Survivor. Varner was a very popular player on the show and this was his 3rd time to be on a season. He has had a successful career post Survivor as a news anchor and now real estate agent. From what I know of Jeff, he is a compassionate caring person with a heart for the gay and transgender community and fighting against unjust laws.
Which makes last week's episode shocking and a bit baffling. Here is what went down:
In a nutshell, as a move to make Zeke look bad, he asked him flat out why Zeke has kept his transgender status a secret. Jeff's tribemates immediately turn on him blasting him that he had no right to out Zeke.
I agree. It was an awful mistake and Jeff quickly regretted it especially when it dawned on him that he had outed Zeke to the entire world and this could possibly cause harm to Zeke in his future experiences in life.
After the episode aired, the reaction on social media was venomous, hateful and very ugly. I saw comments telling Jeff to rot in hell, he deserved no forgiveness and Jeff even got death threats. Jeff has been extremely remorse and apologetic. He didn't shy away from interviews but was an emotional wreck in many of them because he knows that his one mistake will affect Zeke for the rest of his life. I now finally myself almost completely supportive of Jeff and not so much for Zeke. Zeke went on a national tv show knowing full well that there was a good chance that he would be outed on the show. And he was fine with that because playing Survivor was his dream. Jeff at the time had falsely assumed that Zeke had already outed himself to the world on the previous season of Survivor (Jeff's season was being filmed while that season aired so he knew nothing about Zeke).
Varner has received ridiculous amounts of hate mail. He was fired from his job a few days lately directly because of this incident. He also had to get months of therapy and may have become suicidal over this.
This ONE mistake. The thing that appalls me is the extreme intolerance and lack of forgiveness. This was a man who made a single error in judgement, and the majority think he should suffer the rest of his life. And that is the new culture we live in. These lines are drawn in the sand, and if you dare cross it, you are ruined forever. There is no making amends. No forgiveness.
Jeff Varner will most likely never be able to work in broadcasting again, and will probably have a hard time finding a new job. My heart goes out to him. Everyone has said something wrong that they wish they could hit the rewind button and suck those words back in. And they will even turn on one of their own if that line is breached just like they did Jeff. Is this the future we really need? Strip Christianity's message of love and forgiveness from every trace of public exposure and adopt extreme intolerance and no mercy even if you say one wrong thing? Such a future will only eventually lead to our demise.
One question, have you actually been watching "Survivor?" Did you see what Varner said before Tribal?
Then you must not read a lot of the posts on here. Like the recent one that directly called me a coward. I've been called much worse on here. Anyone would take that personally.
And that's why it is pointless to ever debate evidence with someone like you. Atheists will never admit that anything in the Bible is true. You just conveniently claim that the prophecy was written after the fact. Easy peasy. And if you can't claim that then you'll just say it's coincidence like how every prophecy involving Israel has come true.
It's not the same city. Just because someone decided to build a NEW city around the same spot and happen to give it the same name doesn't mean the city was completely rebuilt. If a great Phoenician civilization was never conquered and still existed in all its original glory today then and only then you would be correct.
Seeing as you called me a liar many times but refused to give one example other than my change of mind about responding to you, have called me a hater and wrong about everything, claim that evolution is a lie with not a single bit of evidence disproving it, you have accused every single atheist of being mean to Christians based on some unknown person having a disagreement with a street preacher, you have insulted just about everyone who disagrees with you, you want to sets of rules, one for yourself and one for others and on the politics forum you have shown complete distance for liberals and Democrats and then whin about being called a coward. Maybe if you didn't attack entire groups and the hide behind not calling any individual in that group that label you might not be called a coward.
You still have not proven that in a religious world like you desire that a gay man can on TV out a Transgender man and no one would care. Maybe if when you call me a liar you would be brave enough to provide me with examples when I request that, no you said that I tell nothing but lies. Until you can explain how a raging flood could create the white cliffs of Dover I will take the truths you claim of the Bible with a grain of salt. Nothing in your OP proved your accusation and you only used to to vent your disgust with non religious posters. This was written for others as you are banning me if I am not mistaken.
It's not the same city. Just because someone decided to build a NEW city around the same spot and happen to give it the same name doesn't mean the city was completely rebuilt.
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 It's not the same city. Just because someone decided to build a NEW city around the same spot and happen to give it the same name doesn't mean the city was completely rebuilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Aaaaaahahahaha!!! Ye gods!
I'm a prophet, however.
"The prophecy was wrong. Unless you are going to pull a Eusebius and claim that the rebuilt city wasn't the original one. "
That's exactly what he did. after thot - I almost didn't put that caveat in, but did, just as a block to a possible response..because I didn't really think Jeff would ever pull that one.
In which case no city exists today - Rome, Paris -Noo York, though they do contain a relic or two of the old cities, but Bible apologists point to existing ruins of Tyre as proof that the old city was never rebuilt. All of those were destroyed, or were simply replaced - by different cities that just bore the same name.
Tell me Jeff, did you think that one up (I can hardly believe you took the cue from me - I wouldn't touch a feedline like that for a weekend with Messalina (1) or did you lift it from some apologetics site?
It's a nice demonstration of the Religious apologetics method.
(1) claim that you have evidence and can debunk our line.
(2) after trying to argue ...say..that Custer won Greasy grass, but the evidence fails - change the meaning of the claim. 'Won' means that his fame will last forever, That the 'Code Napoleon' still exists, but Wellington only got the boot. Or Luke's belated excuse for the kingdom of God not coming as it was promised, was that it had come, but nobody noticed.
It's still going on today. From Cayse's claim that Atlantis was rising (Bimini) but not just in one go (like the 2nd coming, we are still waiting) to The Last Days signalled by setting up Israel are going on sixty years later, and nothing to notice - but that self -fulfilled prophetic state.
In any case, as Jeff argues, the State of Israel hasn't been set up at all - just a different one with the same name. What that type of apologetic does is make all fulfilled prophecy pretty meaningless. n.b the argument applies when it suits religious apologetics, but not when it doesn't. q.v double standards, cherry -picking and inherent dishonesty in religious arguments.
Jeff is now worth a regiment, with a signals battalion and a catering corps to us.
P.s There is another aspect to this. The NT prophecies are all (with one exception) demonstrably fabricated after the event. From Judas death (touchstone example) to James' council of Jerusalem speech (Acts 15.16-18) by way of Matthew's Bethlehem massacre prophecy. Damn' I forgot what the point was. I think it was how , when some Bible - claim fails - there is an attempt to wangle terms, meanings oe whatever in order to avoid admitting that it is wrong.
This is quite interesting as Jeff here can't possibly imagine how the more open -minded believers hoping the prophecy would stand up are going to gape at the excuse that a "different" city of the same name was slapped on the ruins of the forever -destroyed one. Jeff may feel he's won for his own ongoing denial of his beliefs being wrong (though a bit more Doubt will have piled up, needing to be ignored) but at the expense of damaging Bible apologetics-credibility overall.
Now, the Mods have been incredibly forbearing here with the digression, but to scrabble an on-tiopic relevance. What will a Theistic society look like? Lies and fiddling. A non -theistic one? Facts and straightforward acceptance of them.
(1) At my age? By all accounts, she made excellent gruel and cocoa.
Last edited by mensaguy; 04-29-2017 at 01:55 PM..
Reason: Fixed quote
It's built in the same place with the same name...but it's a different city!! How can anyone who comes out with such idiotc tripe like that even begin to wonder why people laugh at them!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
