Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lebanon In End Time Bible Prophecy
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 86 of 178 (345218)
08-30-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ramoss
08-30-2006 7:42 PM


Re: Revelations
ramoss writes:
Begging your pardon, but the Revelation of John is dated between 90 and 95 C.E. Ken Gentry is just plain wrong.
Actually you dont know that.
It's just your opinion, a statement and not even an argument.
A conclusion, where is your support? Why is he wrong.
ramoss writes:
No one from the mainstream scholarship thinks that the book of Revelation is from before 70 C.E.
Truth is not subject to a vote. It's not a popularity contest. The scientific method attests to this. One forms a falsifiable hypothesis, tests it to verify or deny the hypothesis which is then submitted for peer review. The popularity of a view is not an indication of the veracity of it but the veracity lies in the strenth of the arguments presented.
If Gentry is wrong as you opine, tell us all where and why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ramoss, posted 08-30-2006 7:42 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ramoss, posted 08-30-2006 7:56 PM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 89 of 178 (345224)
08-30-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ramoss
08-30-2006 7:56 PM


Seminaries are not paper mills
1) I recommended to everyone to review Gentry's work which is not the appeal to authority fallacy. His reasoning is sound.
2) You engage in the Ad Hoc/Ad Hominem with the paper-mill accusation. Seminaries are not paper mills. You just have a bias that Christian Scholars are wrong.
3) You made the accusation against Gentry you have the burden of proof. I merely recommended people review his work to see his reasoning and decide for themselves.
4) I will try to summarize his thesis but not today...plus it is off topic this is the Lebanon in End Time Prophecy...maybe we should continue this in another thread.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ramoss, posted 08-30-2006 7:56 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 90 of 178 (345229)
08-30-2006 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Max Udargo
08-30-2006 8:01 PM


Re: Quibbling
The wording of the prophecy has been fulfilled. Alexander did use the ruins of the city to build the causeway out to the island fortress using the city fulfilling the wording of 'many nations will attack... and scrape the rock bare' (paraphrase mine)
And read your history, Nebudchanezzar took the city easily and quickly in 585. The prophecy does not say that Nebudchanezzar will break and destroy the walls and scrape the city bare but many nations will. The part including Nebudchanezzar is separate from that part of the prophecy.
Everyone keeps making the same mistakes. The island fortess is the city (wrong). The island fortess wasnt scraped bare (wasnt supposed to be). Only Nebudchanezzar is to do it (wrong many nations were to do it not Nebudchanezzar). Nebudchanezzar didnt take the island fortess (wasnt supposed to).
We aren't debating anymore and I am repeating myself. We are now dealing with your will as you do not present arguments but unsupported opinions and glib. I do appreciate a sense of humor but it is misapplied here. Unless someone has a new argument to present about Tyre I think my case has been made even if you disagree
max writes:
So let me ask you this:
How many "prophets" were there who got it all just terribly wrong? How many lost texts are there of guys who shot off their mouths and missed by a mile?
You tell me it's your assertion that there are prophets who got it wrong and lost texts. Don't just present your assertions as if they are just common knowledge and if anyone disagrees with you there is something wrong with them as you do. This is a debate forum...present your case. You have the burden of proof to back up your assertions.
In answer to your glib question. None. Not one single biblical prophecy has failed.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Max Udargo, posted 08-30-2006 8:01 PM Max Udargo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Max Udargo, posted 08-30-2006 8:53 PM ReformedRob has replied
 Message 130 by MangyTiger, posted 09-01-2006 10:56 PM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 92 of 178 (345238)
08-30-2006 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2006 8:36 PM


Re: Phoenicians
Nice Nemesis!
You beat me to it. I was going to review the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis and show the fallacies of the Higher Critical schools dating methods and the late dating of the Tanak (Old Testament for me).

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2006 8:36 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2006 9:22 PM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 95 of 178 (345247)
08-30-2006 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Max Udargo
08-30-2006 8:53 PM


Re: Quibbling
It's simple Neb. is a subset within the set. Tyre will be attacked by many nations one of which is Neb.
And thanks for proposing a new argument btw!
However you still missed it, because the prophecy changes from Neb and 'his horses' and 'he will'etc... used exclusively throughout in verses 7-11 to the many nations using 'They' in verse 12 going back to the many nations where in verses 12-14 the walls are torn down and put in the sea etc the bare rock etc...
max writes:
My point was that you can always claim 100% success if nobody remembers your failures. Who's going to preserve the writings of bad prophets? Seems to me your sample is almost certainly skewed. Can I prove it? Well, of course not, that's my point. But Jeane Dixon became the world's most famous psychic because she made a couple of good predictions which were widely advertised, and her thousands of failed predictions were quickly forgotten.
you answered yourself here. The very fact that we are debating the wording of a 2600 year old prophecy answers your question. And there have been plenty of false prophets recorded over the centuries.
Joseph Smith in the 1800's predicted a temple would be built in Jackson county Missouri before the 'generation then living passed away' Doctrine & Covenants section 84:1-4. It didnt happen, we know about it. It was written down. Jean Dixon's prophecies were written down and many were false. Ezekiel was written arount 580 BC and Daniel 606 BC. The Tyre prophecy wasnt completely fulfilled until Alexander the Great in 322 BC. Explain that?
Daniel had many predictions recorded that were falsifiable but came true. He predicted the succession of empires after Babylon with the kingdom of God coming in the Roman empire. Hew was so accurate they intentionally late date him until after Antiochus Epiphanes but they still cant explain Jesus coming in the 4th empire.
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Max Udargo, posted 08-30-2006 8:53 PM Max Udargo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Max Udargo, posted 08-30-2006 9:33 PM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 97 of 178 (345252)
08-30-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2006 9:22 PM


Re: Phoenicians
I have been taking everyone on alone it seems and correcting previous mistakes by well meaning defenders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2006 9:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 99 of 178 (345256)
08-30-2006 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Max Udargo
08-30-2006 9:33 PM


Re: Quibbling
No parsing of texts...prove it...dont assert it we covered that. The fact is it never says Nebudchanezzar would tear down the walls and put them in the sea but only attack the city and kill which he did. The many nations would scrape the city into the sea which Alexander did. it is just being responsible with the wording of the prophecy instead of arbitray.
And false prophets are recorded in the bible all over the place. The book of Acts, Jeremiah, etc...
It is simple, my sample is not skewed, I understand perfectly well what you mean but the weight and evidence of history precludes that.
Explain the prophecies in Daniel away for instance...it is a falsifiable sample.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Max Udargo, posted 08-30-2006 9:33 PM Max Udargo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Max Udargo, posted 08-30-2006 10:13 PM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 100 of 178 (345260)
08-30-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Max Udargo
08-30-2006 9:33 PM


Re: Quibbling
I almost forgot
Even though the mormons try to suppress there are still false prophecies faithfully recorded in their scripture like the one I cited and there are a couple more about the civil war turning into a word war and a boarding house to be built which Joseph and certain men would have stock in both of which never happened and are still there in their scriptures.
Much like Daniel, a falsifiable data set. To be honest you must approach this subject without the apriori conclusion that the prophecies in the bible are not from God, but approach it objectively that maybe they are, maybe they arent and research both sides.
You seem to have your mind already made up and the Tyre example is a good indicator. The wording clearly says many nations would result in the glory of Tyre being taken away and they would scrape the city into the sea and Neb's part would be to attack the city and kill. The wording is clear who does what and Neb is the subset of the set not the whole set. And when presented with this you resort to a non-argument and merely accuse me of parsing arbitrarily when I gave a reasoned argument suppored by evidence and logic to support my conclusion. If I am wrong in my evidence or logic point it out dont just attack the conclusion without support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Max Udargo, posted 08-30-2006 9:33 PM Max Udargo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Max Udargo, posted 08-30-2006 10:31 PM ReformedRob has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 102 of 178 (345273)
08-30-2006 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Max Udargo
08-30-2006 10:13 PM


Re: Quibbling
It's just reasonable because verses 3-6 say many nations and scraping the rock bare and the nets.
7-11 talk about Nebudchanezzar saying 'he' singular pronoun directly linked to it's immediate antecedant
12-14 return to many nations saying 'they' plural pronoun and return to the same wording and context of scraping the rock bare and the nets again of vs 3-6
Simple and reasonable. If not explain why I am being unreasonable or concede the point graciously!
Plus no way to reasonabley explain the Alexander fulfillment 260 years later.
As for Egypt. A new topic I'll get to work on that one for ya! But I am not sure it belongs in this thread but as it was asked previously in this thread also I'll tackle that one as well coming up ok?
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Max Udargo, posted 08-30-2006 10:13 PM Max Udargo has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 105 of 178 (345289)
08-30-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ramoss
08-30-2006 10:36 PM


Re: Phoenicians
Ramoss, read the previous posts you are grievously behind. I will repeat myself for the last time about Tyre
vs 3-6 say many nations
vs 7-11 say Neb.
vs 12-14 return to many nations and return to the context of vs 3-6
Neb did take the city easily and quickly in 585 BC fulfilling vs 7-11. The island fortress was not the city. Ezekiel correctly states Neb not take the island fortress but it wasnt prophesied that he would...it was prophesied he would take the city which he did. Check your history 585 BC. You are confusing the island fortress with the city which it isnt. The island fortress was not the glory of the city state and center of commerce, the mainland city was.
Alexander fulfilled the many nations parts and scraping the rock bare of vs 3-6 and 12-14.
As for Daniel, I have dealt with it extensively in another thread but I'll summarize it here for you
The letter of Aristeas the gives the date for the Septuagint does not say Torah alone but the law and other books. And the work was done during the reign of Philadephias from 285-247 BC.
"The Letter Of Aristeas
R.H. Charles-Editor
Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913
"The Memorial of Demetrius to the great king. 'Since you have given me instructions, O king, that the books which are needed to complete your library should be collected together, and that those which are defective should be repaired, I have devoted myself with the utmost care to the fulfilment of your wishes, and I now have the following proposal to lay before you. The books of the law of the Jews (WITH SOME OTHERS) are absent from the library. They are written in the Hebrew characters and language and have been carelessly interpreted, and do not represent the original text as I am informed by those who know; for they have never had a king's care to protect them. It is necessary that these should be made accurate for your library since the law which they contain, in as much as it is of divine origin, is full of wisdom and free from all blemish...
"'King Ptolemy sends greeting and salutation to the High Priest Eleazar...I have determined that your law shall be translated from the Hebrew tongue which is in use amongst you into the Greek language, that these books may be added to the other royal books in my library." (emphasis mine)
The Letter Of Aristeas
Daniel was included in the Septuagint
""The Septuagint.
The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that called "The Septuagint" ("Interpretatio septuaginta virorum" or "seniorum"). It is a monument of the Greek spoken by the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria; not of classic Greek, nor even of the Hellenistic style affected by Alexandrian writers. If the account given by Aristeas be true, some traces of Palestinian influence should be found; but a study of the Egyptian papyri, which are abundant for this particular period, is said by both Mahaffy and Deissmann to show a very close similarity between the language they represent and that of the Septuagint, not to mention the Egyptian words already recognized by both Hody and Eichhorn. These papyri have in a measure reinstated Aristeas (about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars. Upon his "Letter to Philocrates" the tradition as to the origin of the Septuagint rests. It is now believed that even though he may have been mistaken in some points, his facts in general are worthy of credence (Abrahams, in "Jew. Quart. Rev." xiv. 321). According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria...
Being a composite work, the translation varies in the different books. In the Pentateuch, naturally, it adheres most closely to the original; in Job it varies therefrom most widely. In some books (e.g., Daniel) the influence of the Jewish Midrash is more apparent than in others." BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Daniel couldnt be in the Septuagint dated around 200 BC if it hadnt been written yet.
Plus the reasoning given by Scholars to date Daniel is flawed. They simply state his prophecies of Antiochus Epiphanies are too accurate so they must be after the fact. That is apriori prejudice.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ramoss, posted 08-30-2006 10:36 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by purpledawn, posted 08-31-2006 7:01 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 112 of 178 (345530)
08-31-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by purpledawn
08-31-2006 7:01 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Purple Dawn, You should read the previous posts so we dont have to repeat so much here.
Re Ezekiel Tyre prophecy
1) verses 3-6 refer to many nations not Nebudchanezzar
2) vs 7-11 are Nebudchanezzar which only says Neb would kill.
3) vs 12-14 are many nations again which was obviously fulfilled with the Muslim campaign and Alexander who did conquer the island fortress and scrape the mainland city into the sea.
Instead of marveling that Ezekiel predicted this over two hundred years prior. An attempt at all costs is made to find a word out of order etc... that is why people keep saying Neb was supposed to do it all and didnt (see previous posts) when he was only supposed to kill on the mainland (which he did) Others i.e. many nations were supposed to put the city into the sea and remove the great status which Alexander did. Even though there are 13 markers in Ezekiel that are evidence to date it at the time it claims because of his accuracy people late date it which is prejudice and apriori reasoning. The critics have been relentless. First stating there never was a siege against Tyre in the form of an argument from silence which was later answered and refuted. Then came quibbling about the form of Nebudchanezzar's assault which has been answered and continues to be asserted. Where is the awe of the prophecy of Tyre being attacked by many nations, put into the sea and never regaining her glory?
purpledawn writes:
They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. "Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets...
Two things here, one,...Ezekiel 27:2 says Tyre, 'You who are situated at the entrance of the sea...' and two, I would suggest a study of the Hebrew of 'out in the sea' and you'll find similar phrasing in other passages referring to Sidon which was not on an island as in the sea.
Here is the best most succinct scholastic summary I could find. All please read before responding further.
"1) The first challenge to Ezekiel's prophecy involves his statement that Nebuchadnezzar would attack Tyre. While this argument had force at the turn of the century, Jacob Katzenstein notes: "The many doubts about the authenticity of Ezekiel's words concerning a siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar were shattered after Unger published a tablet which is an official receipt for provisions 'for the king and the soldiers who went with him against the land of Tyre.'"[16] The wording of the tablet strongly implies that the king himself headed the campaign and at least part of the following 13-year siege.
2) Once an external source confirmed the historicity of this siege of Tyre, skeptics focused on the next oddity: Nebuchadnezzar is described as attacking Tyre using land siege equipment! Walther Eichrodt ridicules this, noting the host of ancient references that describe Tyre as "an island in the midst of the sea," and he proposes that these verses are a "war song" added by later disciples to spice up the passage.[17]
Archaeologists and historians are not so quick to dispose of these verses: Bikai stresses that, due to severe space constraints on the island, the majority of the population and most of Tyre's factories and warehouses were located on the mainland.[18] Katzenstein discusses the letters of Qurdi-assur-lamur to Sargon which show the extensive interaction between the independent island port of Tyre and the Assyrian-controlled mainland.[19]
Perhaps the best collaboration with Ezekiel's description of the Babylonian attack and siege of Tyre comes from a campaign report of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon, who mentions building earthworks against Baal king of Tyre and withholding from them food and water. Moreover, it appears that the descriptive phrase "in the midst of the sea" does not require that Tyre be exclusively an island city: Esarhaddon Prisms A and B refer to Tyre's neighbor, the Phoenician coastal city-state Sidon as a "fortress town, which lied in the midst of the sea."[21] Also, Prism B includes Tyre in a list of cities located "on the coast of the sea." There seems to be some flexibility in ancient descriptions of coastal cities, so we should not try to press one description too far.
3) Critics then move on to their most serious charge: Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy the island city of Tyre. Clearly the prediction failed, and this failure is even admitted by Ezekiel himself (29:17-21) when he predicts that God will give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar's troops as payment for their hard work in besieging Tyre.
Before responding to this, we must note two features in the prediction. The first is the opening statement that God will bring "many nations" against Tyre, "like the waves of the sea" (verse 3). This is a clear indication that we should not expect one nation or one attack to produce the severe destruction and final state of desolation that Ezekiel predicts. Second, we note that the attacker changes from singular (he) to plural (they) between verses 11 and 12. Up through verse 11, Ezekiel describes Nebuchadnezzar entering the gates of the city, trampling its streets, and slaying people. Verses 12 and following describe later waves of attackers (they) who take booty, destroy the city, and throw its debris into the water.
A closer look at Ez. 29:17-21 reveals that God's (and Ezekiel's) stated concern is not that Tyre was not taken, but that the troops did not receive adequate pay for their efforts. The historical record is clear that Nebuchadnezzar finally subjugated Tyre even though he did not raze the island. Babylonian records refer to a new king ruling Tyre after the siege, to the royal family of Tyre living in Babylon (in exile), and to a Babylonian official who governs Tyre.[22]
In summary we can reconstruct the following: Nebuchadnezzar, like Esarhaddon a century before him, waged a conventional land-based attack against the mainland portion of greater Tyre. He successfully captured the mainland, but not before most of the occupants had a chance to flee to the island fortress, taking the best of their goods with them. After a 13-year siege, the island was started into submission, and became a vassal of Babylon. There was a change' of leadership and undoubtedly some tribute paid, but the island was not pillaged. Given the minimal return for their effort, God rewarded Nebuchadnezzar's troops by granting them success against Egypt. Ezekiel 29:17-21 is not "making lemonade out of a lemon" or trying to cover for a failed prophecy; it is simply rewarding the first of the many waves of nations that will follow."
the citations:
[16] Katzenstein. The History of Tyre. p. 324. Citing Unger. Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 44 (1926), p. 316.
[17] Eichrodt. Ezekiel. p. 371.
[18] The mainland portion of greater Tyre was called Usu by Assyrians, "old Tyre" by Greeks.
[19] Katzenstein. History of Tyre. pp. 232-238.
[20] Katzenstein, ibid., p. 278. ANET, 1969, p. 292b.
[21] ANET, 1969, p. 290-1.
[22] Katzenstein, History of Tyre, p. 332ff. Patricia Bikai, Heritage of Tyre, p. 52. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 378, citing Zimmerli.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Jacob Katzenstein. The History of Tyre, from the Beginning of the Second Millenium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. Jerusalem. The Schkocken Institute for Jewish Research, 1973
Walther Eichrodt. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Philadelphia, PA. The Westminster Press, 1970.
Patricia M. Bikai. Phoenician Tyre. The Heritage of Tyre. p. 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Page not found » Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary
So the island was important but not the main city which Neb took in 585 BC and which was scraped into the sea so Alexander could attack and take the island fortress; All just as Ezekiel said.
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by purpledawn, posted 08-31-2006 7:01 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Max Udargo, posted 08-31-2006 8:36 PM ReformedRob has replied
 Message 116 by ramoss, posted 08-31-2006 9:09 PM ReformedRob has replied
 Message 120 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 3:17 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 115 of 178 (345549)
08-31-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Max Udargo
08-31-2006 8:36 PM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
The prophecy of Egypt is problematic. Nebudchanezzar did take raid memphis so that part is not problematic so I assume you refer to Ezekiel 29:10. The vast majority of Egyptologists are satisfied that during the reign of Amasis from 570-525 BC that it was a reign of prosperity.
Only one reference that is very interesting recently published by amateur egyptologist Jim Reilly claims to resolve some difficulties in Egyptologistical timelines and claims that Egypt was desolated in the 40 year time period of Amasis. It is a new hypothesis that reorders some things so we will see. Here is the link
http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/Book1.html
One should remember that egyptology is in flux and many difficulties like this were resolved with more research. Literally hundreds of difficulties like this have been resolved like the original claim that Nebbie never assaulted Tyre which was refuted. In other words the Bible just as Juggernaut Nemesis states is now in a state where it is used to guide archeological research.
William Foxwell Albright came to this conclusion as the result of his own archeological pursuits as did Nelson Gluek of Harvard. The bible has thousands of references verified by archeology and tens of thousands of manuscripts wheras Homer has eight. No other book(s) of ancient history have as much verified info as the bible by orders of magnitude.
So I believe further scholarship will verify the validity of Ezekiel 29:10-11. It is a case of presumption. The bible has earned the presumption by literally thousands of cases so where there is a singular difficulty like this one, the presumption goes to the established source. You no doubt will see this as a cop out which I understand but all the evidence is not in yet and I believe this case will follow in the footsteps of hundreds of previous cases where the bible was vindicated and the critics were hypercritical.
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.
Edited by ReformedRob, : spelling

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Max Udargo, posted 08-31-2006 8:36 PM Max Udargo has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 117 of 178 (345558)
08-31-2006 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by ramoss
08-31-2006 9:09 PM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Your attack is the ad hominem... and is against the writer of the article, Bloom and not the sources he cites.
two responses
1) If he is so inept you should be able to provide analysis showing where he is wrong or at least sources who disagree and
2) Bloom quotes H. Jacob Katzenstein, 'The History of Tyre' he does not promote an original thesis of his own. The relevant points made are Katzensteins not Blooms.
Yours was a lazy ad-hominem attempt to discredit. I'd like to see you refute the analysis not the man and provide counter analysis, evidence and sources of your own.
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ramoss, posted 08-31-2006 9:09 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by ramoss, posted 08-31-2006 10:31 PM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 119 of 178 (345583)
08-31-2006 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by ramoss
08-31-2006 10:31 PM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
what part of many nations in vs 3-6 dont you understand with the context of nets and bare rock?
what part of Neb with the pronoun he referring back to Neb dont you understand in vs 7-11?
what part of many nations, referred to by the plural pronoun they again with the repeated phrasing of nets and bare rock, again dont you understand in 12-14?
You dont present an argument with analysis, evidence and logic to support your conclusion. Asserting parsing is a conclusion...back it up. Why is it parsing?
ramoss writes:
I was just pointing out your use of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority
I never said Bloom was an authority. I anticipated your fallacious reasoning that is why I included the bibliography and footnotes in my post and you fell for it.
Bloom is irrelevant. The analysis is Katzenstein's, Bloom cites him and you cant refute Katzenstein by attacking Bloom. Your assertion, again without support, is at this point an opinion and an unreasonable one at that.
let's just look at the cites themselves
"The many doubts about the authenticity of Ezekiel's words concerning a siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar were shattered after Unger published a tablet which is an official receipt for provisions 'for the king and the soldiers who went with him against the land of Tyre.'"[16]
Bikai stresses that, due to severe space constraints on the island, the majority of the population and most of Tyre's factories and warehouses were located on the mainland.[18] Katzenstein discusses the letters of Qurdi-assur-lamur to Sargon which show the extensive interaction between the independent island port of Tyre and the Assyrian-controlled mainland.[19]
"in the midst of the sea" does not require that Tyre be exclusively an island city: Esarhaddon Prisms A and B refer to Tyre's neighbor, the Phoenician coastal city-state Sidon as a "fortress town, which lied in the midst of the sea."[21]
The historical record is clear that Nebuchadnezzar finally subjugated Tyre even though he did not raze the island. Babylonian records refer to a new king ruling Tyre after the siege, to the royal family of Tyre living in Babylon (in exile), and to a Babylonian official who governs Tyre.[22]
What you dont seem to grasp is that Katzenstein, the authority, supported the genuineness of Ezekiel's prophecy.
You havent responded to the analysis at all. Many nations of vs 3-6 & 12-14 resulted in the city being put into the sea and the removal of Tyre's former status never to be regained.
Nebuchadnezzar of vs 7-11 invaded the mainland and killed.
ramoss writes:
you can't dissocate one verse from what preceeds and follows it. The attempt to isolate the verses about King Neb from what comes before it and what comes after it is a vain attempt to rationalise things away.
That is your personal methodology not recognized anywhere.
One can according to context correctly exegete a prophecy. Nebudchadnezzar does not equal 'many nations'. 'He' in vs 7-11 refers directly back to it's antecedant Nebudchanezzar. 'They' in vs 12-14 along with the repeat of the phrasing bare rock and nets obviously refers back to many nations of vs 3-6. It is parallel phrasing very common in the Bible.
To attack this you need to show why it Katzenstein's analysis is unreasonable or fallacious. Not just assert it is in conclusionary statements. It amounts to the famous phrase 'Denial is not refutation'. You are no longer debating or refuting but only denying.
It is clear to any reasonable person reading this that we are dealing with your will. You have your emotions made up and dont want to be confused with the facts.
Good nite and God bless
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ramoss, posted 08-31-2006 10:31 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5751 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 121 of 178 (345649)
09-01-2006 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by purpledawn
09-01-2006 3:17 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
I suggested you read the previous posts which answered your question and you said:
purpledawn writes:
I did. That's why I asked, "How do you figure?" Why would the "they" in verse 12 refer back to the preceding paragraph?
yet in my post #102
resformedrob writes:
It's just reasonable because verses 3-6 say many nations and scraping the rock bare and the nets.
7-11 talk about Nebudchanezzar saying 'he' singular pronoun directly linked to it's immediate antecedant
12-14 return to many nations saying 'they' plural pronoun and return to the same wording and context of scraping the rock bare and the nets again of vs 3-6
the phrasing of vs 12-14 repeats the context and phrasing of vs 3-6 about the bare rock and nets as posted above amd the pronoun 'they' is plural obviously referring to the many nations. Whereas the pronoun 'he' in vs 7-11 is singular obviously referring to it's immediate antecedant Nebudchanezzar. So because of the pronouns and the phrasing it is more than reasonable it is obvious that Neb is in vs 7-11 and many nations are in vs 3-6 & 12-14.
I guess the post was too far back to be easily found but the same point was repeated several times for Max and Ramoss. Sorry if I sounded short. It seems I keep repeating the same points over and over and then someone asks the same question about the same point!
I would like to see a counter argument from anyone why plural 'they' would refer to Nebudchanezzar and explain the sudden change from singular 'he'. And explain why the repeated phrasing of the bare rock and nets dont refer to each other but the second usage refers to Nebudchanezzar.
The two points together make a strong, safe, reasonable and obvious argument that vs 3-6 & 12-14 are the many nations and vs 7-11 are Nebudchanezzar.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 3:17 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 7:31 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024