|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 4, 2018 15:03:34 GMT
Prophesied: 587-586 BC
Tyre’s Stones, Timber and Soil Will Be Cast Into the Sea
Ezekiel 26:12 ”They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.”
Fulfilled: 333-332 BC
Alexander the Great built a land bridge from the mainland to the island of Tyre when he attacked in 333-332 BC. It is believed he took the rubble from Tyre’s ruins and tossed it (stones, timber and soil) into the sea to build the land bridge. This bridge is still in existence.
Opinions? Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Aug 4, 2018 18:39:28 GMT
Pic
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 4, 2018 19:42:45 GMT
Nice try.
The Bible never mentioned Alexander. In Ezekiel 26:7, we read: "7 “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers."
So unless you can prove that Alexander the Great and Nebuchadnezzar are the same person, the Bible prophecy failed (again).
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 4, 2018 20:45:10 GMT
Nice try. The Bible never mentioned Alexander. In Ezekiel 26:7, we read: "7 “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers." So unless you can prove that Alexander the Great and Nebuchadnezzar are the same person, the Bible prophecy failed (again). Verse 3 is key. Ezekiel 26:3“Therefore, thus says the Lord God: See, I am against you, O Tyre! I will hurl many nations against you, as the sea hurls its waves.” So, many nations will be involved in the destruction of Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar DID defeat Tyre. Alexander the Great fulfilled the part of the bible’s claim that timber, stones and soil would be thrown into the sea leaving Tyre as a bare rock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 20:59:44 GMT
It is believed he took the rubble from Tyre’s ruins and tossed it (stones, timber and soil) into the sea to build the land bridge. Who believes this, and why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 21:02:04 GMT
Also, "throw them into the sea" and "build a bridge out of them" are two rather different things.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 4, 2018 21:11:51 GMT
Nice try. The Bible never mentioned Alexander. In Ezekiel 26:7, we read: "7 “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers." So unless you can prove that Alexander the Great and Nebuchadnezzar are the same person, the Bible prophecy failed (again). Verse 3 is key. Ezekiel 26:3“Therefore, thus says the Lord God: See, I am against you, O Tyre! I will hurl many nations against you, as the sea hurls its waves.” So, many nations will be involved in the destruction of Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar DID defeat Tyre. Alexander the Great fulfilled the part of the bible’s claim that timber, stones and soil would be thrown into the sea leaving Tyre as a bare rock. So the prophecy did fail. Ezechiel 26:14 says: "14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread the fishing nets. You will never be rebuilt, for I, the LORD, have spoken, declares the Lord GOD.’ " Doesn't look like a bare rock to me. Fishing nets might be spread there, but I'm pretty sure they already were before Ezechiel even knew how to write.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 4, 2018 21:51:44 GMT
Verse 3 is key. Ezekiel 26:3“Therefore, thus says the Lord God: See, I am against you, O Tyre! I will hurl many nations against you, as the sea hurls its waves.” So, many nations will be involved in the destruction of Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar DID defeat Tyre. Alexander the Great fulfilled the part of the bible’s claim that timber, stones and soil would be thrown into the sea leaving Tyre as a bare rock. So the prophecy did fail. Ezechiel 26:14 says: "14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread the fishing nets. You will never be rebuilt, for I, the LORD, have spoken, declares the Lord GOD.’ " Doesn't look like a bare rock to me. Fishing nets might be spread there, but I'm pretty sure they already were before Ezechiel even knew how to write. It seems you’ve conceded the first point and since you’ve been refuted you decide to move the goal posts. No problem lets debunk your latest desperate objection. I’m going to leave you with a excellent article which unpacks and breaks down the entire prophecy in question. If you’re genuinely enquiring and interested in the facts then have a read. www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/Ezekiel-261-14-A-Proof-Text-For-Inerrancy-or-Fallibility-of-The-Old-Testament.aspx#ArticleIn the mean time I’ll leave you with an overview of the conclusion reached in said article: <Conclusions> 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. 2. The passage does not state that Nebuchadnezzar would capture the island city and get its wealth. On the other hand, it does not say Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre at all—he conquered “Old Tyre.” It simply states he did not get anything of value from it. This is exactly what Ezekiel 29:17 states. There is no contradiction. 3. The total destruction of Tyre would be accomplished gradually by one nation after another. 4. In the end Tyre would be destroyed down to the bare rock and never rebuilt. The final destruction took place in AD 1291, almost 2,000 years after Ezekiel was written. Isn’t bible prophecy a fascinating topic?!
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 4, 2018 22:13:54 GMT
It is believed he took the rubble from Tyre’s ruins and tossed it (stones, timber and soil) into the sea to build the land bridge. Who believes this, and why? Ancient historians. Notably Diodorus Siculus and Quintus Curtius Rufus.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 4, 2018 22:18:33 GMT
So the prophecy did fail. Ezechiel 26:14 says: "14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread the fishing nets. You will never be rebuilt, for I, the LORD, have spoken, declares the Lord GOD.’ " Doesn't look like a bare rock to me. Fishing nets might be spread there, but I'm pretty sure they already were before Ezechiel even knew how to write. It seems you’ve conceded the first point and since you’ve been refuted you decide to move the goal posts. No problem lets debunk your latest desperate objection. I’m going to leave you with a excellent article which unpacks and breaks down the entire prophecy in question. If you’re genuinely enquiring and interested in the facts then have a read. www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/Ezekiel-261-14-A-Proof-Text-For-Inerrancy-or-Fallibility-of-The-Old-Testament.aspx#ArticleIn the mean time I’ll leave you with an overview of the conclusion reached in said article: <Conclusions> 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. 2. The passage does not state that Nebuchadnezzar would capture the island city and get its wealth. On the other hand, it does not say Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre at all—he conquered “Old Tyre.” It simply states he did not get anything of value from it. This is exactly what Ezekiel 29:17 states. There is no contradiction. 3. The total destruction of Tyre would be accomplished gradually by one nation after another. 4. In the end Tyre would be destroyed down to the bare rock and never rebuilt. The final destruction took place in AD 1291, almost 2,000 years after Ezekiel was written. Isn’t bible prophecy a fascinating topic?! It's a fascinating playground for goalpost movers. That's for sure. No I didn't. The text clearly says that it's Nebuchadnezzar who is supposed to do the stuff mentioned in Ezechiel 26:12. At least if the rules of language apply. The claim that it's not him was so ludicrous that I didn't bother mentioning it in my previous reply. So this point still stands. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre, and Ezechiel was wrong on that point. Apparently, according to the article you linked, he even apologized for being wrong, in chapter 29. But this is a creative interpretation. Speaking of creative interpretation: The article's "interpretation" of "never be rebuild" is very creative indeed. If the rules of language don't apply, and if we can assume that words and sentences mean whatever you want them to mean, then of course you can pretend that some bible prophecies came true. But if the rules of language do apply, then there is one conclusion to be drawn: Ezechiel's prophecy concerning Tyre was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 4, 2018 22:46:21 GMT
It seems you’ve conceded the first point and since you’ve been refuted you decide to move the goal posts. No problem lets debunk your latest desperate objection. I’m going to leave you with a excellent article which unpacks and breaks down the entire prophecy in question. If you’re genuinely enquiring and interested in the facts then have a read. www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/Ezekiel-261-14-A-Proof-Text-For-Inerrancy-or-Fallibility-of-The-Old-Testament.aspx#ArticleIn the mean time I’ll leave you with an overview of the conclusion reached in said article: <Conclusions> 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. 2. The passage does not state that Nebuchadnezzar would capture the island city and get its wealth. On the other hand, it does not say Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre at all—he conquered “Old Tyre.” It simply states he did not get anything of value from it. This is exactly what Ezekiel 29:17 states. There is no contradiction. 3. The total destruction of Tyre would be accomplished gradually by one nation after another. 4. In the end Tyre would be destroyed down to the bare rock and never rebuilt. The final destruction took place in AD 1291, almost 2,000 years after Ezekiel was written. Isn’t bible prophecy a fascinating topic?! It's a fascinating playground for goalpost movers. That's for sure. No I didn't. The text clearly says that it's Nebuchadnezzar who is supposed to do the stuff mentioned in Ezechiel 26:12. At least if the rules of language apply. The claim that it's not him was so ludicrous that I didn't bother mentioning it in my previous reply. So this point still stands. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre, and Ezechiel was wrong on that point. Apparently, according to the article you linked, he even apologized for being wrong, in chapter 29. But this is a creative interpretation. Speaking of creative interpretation: The article's "interpretation" of "never be rebuild" is very creative indeed. If the rules of language don't apply, and if we can assume that words and sentences mean whatever you want them to mean, then of course you can pretend that some bible prophecies came true. But if the rules of language do apply, then there is one conclusion to be drawn: Ezechiel's prophecy concerning Tyre was wrong. Educate yourself, ignoramus. www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=22&article=1790
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 4, 2018 23:16:11 GMT
This article contains more or less the same creative interpretation as the other one. Doesn't make Ezechiel's prophecy more valid.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 4, 2018 23:23:12 GMT
This article contains more or less the same creative interpretation as the other one. Doesn't make Ezechiel's prophecy more valid. LOL Well then refuting it should be pretty straightforward. Go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 4, 2018 23:44:35 GMT
This article contains more or less the same creative interpretation as the other one. Doesn't make Ezechiel's prophecy more valid. LOL Well then refuting it should be pretty straightforward. Go ahead. I already did.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 5, 2018 0:19:47 GMT
LOL Well then refuting it should be pretty straightforward. Go ahead. I already did. LOL You mean this? ”The text clearly says that it's Nebuchadnezzar who is supposed to do the stuff mentioned in Ezechiel 26:12” Refuted in the article here. 👇 “certain skeptics view Ezekiel’s prophecy as a failed prediction” ”After a closer look at the text, however, such an interpretation is misguided. Ezekiel began his prophecy by stating that “many nations” would come against Tyre (26:3). Then he proceeded to name Nebuchadnezzar, and stated that “he” would build a siege mound, “he” would slay with the sword, and “he” would do numerous other things (26:7-11). However, in 26:12, the pronoun shifts from the singular “he” to the plural “they.” It is in“ verse 12 and following that Ezekiel predicts that “they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters.” The shift in pronouns is of vast significance, since it shifts the subject of the action from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the many nations (they). Till and others(ie YOU) fail to see this shift and mistakenly apply the utter destruction of Tyre to the efforts of Nebuchadnezzar.” Chapter 29 isn’t really an apology, more of an acknowledgement from the prophet that Nebuchadnezzar never obtained wealth from his labour during the siege. The second article also notes this. Refuted by this. 👇 ” One of the most disputed aspects concerning Ezekiel’s prophecy is the statement that the city of Tyre would “never be rebuilt” (26:14), and “be no more forever” (28:19). The skeptic(ie YOU) points to modern day Tyre and suggests that these statements have failed to materialize. Till stated: “In fact, Tyre still exists today, as anyone able to read a map can verify. This obvious failure of a highly touted Old Testament prophet is just one more nail in the coffin of the Bible inerrancy doctrine” (n.d.).” Several possible solutions dissolve this alleged problem. First, it could be the case that the bulk of Ezekiel’s prophecy dealt with the mainland city of Tyre, the location of which has most likely been lost permanently and is buried under the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This solution has merit for several reasons. In approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels. “Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d.). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre. From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbour in its midst.... There is no harbour like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city.... In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907, emp. added.). From this twelfth-century A.D. text, then, we learn that by that period of time the city known as ancient Tyre lay completely buried beneath the sea and a new city, most likely on some part of the island, had been erected. George Davis, in his book Fulfilled Prophecies that Prove the Bible, included a picture of Syrian fishermen under which the following caption appeared: “Syrian fishermen hauling in their nets on the probable site of ancient Tyre, which perished as predicted by the prophet” (1931, p. 11). In his monumental work on the city of Tyre, Katzenstein mentioned several ancient sources that discussed the position of “Old Tyre.” He wrote: “Later this town was dismantled by Alexander the Great in his famous siege of Tyre and disappeared totally with the change of the coastline brought about by the dike and the alluvial deposits that changed Tyre into a peninsula” (1973, p. 15, emp. added). It very likely is the case that the specific site of ancient Tyre has been buried by sand and water over the course of the last 2,500 years and is lost to modern knowledge. That the prophet was speaking about the mainland city in reference to many aspects of his prophecy has much to commend it. It was to that mainland city that King Nebuchadnezzar directed most of his attention and destructive measures described in Ezekiel 26:8-11. Furthermore, it was the mainland city that Alexander destroyed completely and cast into the sea to build his causeway to the island city. In addition, Benjamin Tudela’s quote corresponds precisely to the statement that the prophet made in the latter part of chapter 26: “For thus says the Lord God: ‘When I make you a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you’” (26:19, emp. added). In addition, Katzenstein noted that the scholar H.L. Ginsberg has suggested that the name “Great Tyre” was given to the mainland city, while the island city was designated as “Little Tyre” (p. 20). He further noted 2 Samuel 24:7, which mentions “the stronghold of Tyre,” and commented that this “may refer to “Old Tyre,” or the mainland city (p. 20). Both articles have bitchslapped your claims.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 1:25:36 GMT
Who believes this, and why? Ancient historians. Notably Diodorus Siculus and Quintus Curtius Rufus. What made them believe it? Did they say?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 5, 2018 7:55:03 GMT
Both articles have bitchslapped your claims. On the contrary: Both articles display exactly the "creative interpretation" of prophetic failures I pointed out. And I am not the first to do so: They are so obvious that the article themselves acknowledge them. As for the different pronouns: Ezechiel didn't write his text in English. Conclusion: Thanks for proving my point, I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 8:12:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 5, 2018 8:55:31 GMT
Both articles have bitchslapped your claims. On the contrary: Both articles display exactly the "creative interpretation" of prophetic failures I pointed out. And I am not the first to do so: They are so obvious that the article themselves acknowledge them. As for the different pronouns: Ezechiel didn't write his text in English.Conclusion: Thanks for proving my point, I guess. No shit, Sherlock! Like English, Ancient Hebrew nouns can be either singular or plural in number. So what is your point? The conclusion is that each one of your ignorant arguments have been refuted, but you’re too much of a prideful, stubborn little antichrist to accept it.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 5, 2018 11:37:56 GMT
each one of your ignorant arguments have been refuted, but you’re too much of a prideful, stubborn little antichrist Christian to accept it. As you can see, I could say the same thing about you. I guess this makes us even, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
|