Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lebanon In End Time Bible Prophecy
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 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

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 122 of 178 (345662)
09-01-2006 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by ReformedRob
09-01-2006 5:02 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
quote:
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.
Yes I read your answers, but that is a rather odd way to read a paragraph and as I said in Message 120, the paragraphs are written as separate encounters with God.
Yes there is the pronoun "he", but Neb was the leader. It isn't uncommon to talk of the leader and then switch to a plural when describing those actually doing the work.
Example from 2 Chronicles 36
17-19
He (God) brought up against them the king of the Babylonians, who killed their young men with the sword in the sanctuary, and spared neither young man not young woman, old man or aged. God handed all of them over to Nebuchadnezzar. He (Neb) carried to Babylon all the articles from the temple of God, both large and small, and the treasures of the king and his officials. They set fire to God's temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there.
This is the same pattern followed in our verses in Ezekiel 26:7-14.
What is written in Ezekiel 26:4 is not the same as what is written in 26:12
4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.
12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stone timber and rubble into the sea.
They aren't alike, why assume that the "they" refers back to a previous encounter with God?
What are the verses concerning Sidon that you alluded to in Message 112?
Concerning what I said in Message 106: Ezekiel 26:7-12 states that Neb would "ravage your settlements on the mainland". That doesn't read as though the mainland was the main city. From what I've read, I understand the island held the walls and the wealth.
If you also notice Ezekiel 26:5-6, the settlements still don't seem to be the main focus of these visions.
She will become plunder for the nations, and her settlements on themainland will be ravaged by the sword.
The island still seems to be the more important target.
Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ReformedRob, posted 09-01-2006 5:02 AM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ReformedRob, posted 09-01-2006 9:23 AM purpledawn has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 123 of 178 (345679)
09-01-2006 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by purpledawn
09-01-2006 7:31 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
You're selectively leaving out verses I cited that refute you
purpledawn writes:
What is written in Ezekiel 26:4 is not the same as what is written in 26:12
What I said is vs 3-6 (I meant 3-5...oops!) use the same phrasing as vs 12-14. Not vs 4 uses the same phrasing as vs 12 as you stated. And conveniently the verses you leave out refute you so I'll cite them.
lets compare 3-5 to 12-14 shall we?
3-5:
"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 cuases it waves to come up. 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. 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."
12-14:
"THEY will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; THEY WILL BREAK DOWN YOUR WALLS and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber and your soil in the midst of the water. I will put and end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. 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."
You cant see the same phrasing of 'the top of a rock' and 'a place for spreading nets' in both passages? And I even left out the same pronoun 'they' in vs 4 as vs 12 and the 'breaking down the walls' that is in both also. So there are repeated repeated phrases that contextually demonstrate that vs 12-14 refers back to 'the many nations' of vs 3-5.
And vs 6-11 speak of Nebudchanezzar only killing and not tearing down any walls.
Now then you didnt answer the question necessary for your position...why the sudden change from a consistent and repeated us of 'he', eight times successively, to 'they'? You provide no answer.
And your II Chronicles example is flawed and actually supports my position. When it says 'they' It is referencing the army of the Chaldeans who broke the walls of Jerusalem and not Nebudchanezzar so using 'they' is not a reference to Nebudchanezzar but the Chaldeans. The parallel passage in 2 Kings 25:10, the same account of Zedekiahs rebellion, makes this clear: "And all of the army of the Chaldeans who were with the captain of the guard broke down the walls of Jerusalem all around." compare with II Chronicles 36:19 from your example, "They they burned the house of God, broke down the wall of Jerusalem, burned all its places with fire, and destroyed all it's precious possessions." So the use of 'they' is appropriate, it isnt Nebudchanezzar that is being referenced but the Chaldeans.
And the island had the ports and the wealth as you say and the mainland was the majority of the population, farmland and storehouses. Again Nebudchanezzars part in 6-11 (and I originally said 7-11, I goofed it is 6-11!) was to take the mainland city and kill people.
Alexanders part was a fulfillment of the many nations, removing the great status, tearing down the walls, putting the city into the sea and plundering the wealth (the majority of which was on the island as you correctly stated)per versus 3-5 and 12-14.
You have to admit this makes sense and is reasonable.
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 122 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 7:31 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 09-01-2006 11:39 AM ReformedRob has not replied
 Message 125 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 11:50 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 124 of 178 (345701)
09-01-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by ReformedRob
09-01-2006 9:23 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
ReformedRob writes:
THEY will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise
"They" refers to the common soldiers - the ones who do the looting. Trying to distinguish "they" from "he" is grasping at straws.
THEY SHALL DESTROY THE WALLS of Tyre and break down her towers
Sounds like an attack on the fortress, not the outer city.
and you shall never be rebuilt
Never is a long long time. Tyre has been rebuilt. It had been rebuilt by the time Alexander supposedly "continued" the prophecy and it has been rebuilt again.
The fact that Tyre exists today negates the prophecy all by itself.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ReformedRob, posted 09-01-2006 9:23 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 125 of 178 (345705)
09-01-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by ReformedRob
09-01-2006 9:23 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
quote:
You're selectively leaving out verses I cited that refute you
I'm not leaving out anything. We are talking about who the word "they" in verse 12 refers back to. The "I" refers back to God, not a problem. God said he would make Tyre like the top of a rock, not they.
And THEY SHALL DESTROY THE WALLS of Tyre and break down her towers
THEY will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; THEY WILL BREAK DOWN YOUR WALLS and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber and your soil in the midst of the water.
The first one is general doom and the second one is stating what Neb's army would actually be doing. Each was a different session or oracle from God. Since when is "similar phrasing" as basis for determing the antecedent for a pronoun?
quote:
So there are repeated repeated phrases that contextually demonstrate that vs 12-14 refers back to 'the many nations' of vs 3-5.
Contextually verses 12-14 refer back to Neb's army just as I showed you with my example from 2 Chronicles in Message 122. I used the NIV translation and no, your version doesn't support your position either.
17 He brought up against them the king of the Babylonians, who killed their young men with the sword in the sanctuary, and spared neither young man nor young woman, the elderly or the aged. God gave them all into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. 18 He carried to Babylon all the articles from the temple of God, both large and small, and the treasures of the Lord's temple and the treasures of the king and his officials. 19 They set fire to God's temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there.
I don't know what translation you are using, but here is the KJV which is close to what you are saying.
17 Therefore he (God) brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand. 18 And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king, and of his princes; all these he (KOC) brought to Babylon. 19 And they (army of the KOC) burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof.
So yes in your version the "he" refers to the King of the Chaldees, and the "they" refers to his army. 2 Kings 25:10 supports that the "they" refers to the army.
It is still the same pattern as in Ezekiel. The singular pronouns refer to Neb, but the "they" refers to his army.
quote:
And the island had the ports and the wealth as you say and the mainland was the majority of the population, farmland and storehouses. Again Nebudchanezzars part in 6-11 (and I originally said 7-11, I goofed it is 6-11!) was to take the mainland city and kill people.
I still disagree. Now we look at the word "you" used.
8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons.
The island is the main target. By stating that Neb would ravage "your" settlements on the mainland, God is separating the settlements from the island. The "you" in "he will set up siege works against you" would refer to the island or main target.
quote:
Alexanders part was a fulfillment of the many nations, removing the great status, tearing down the walls, putting the city into the sea and plundering the wealth (the majority of which was on the island as you correctly stated)per versus 3-5 and 12-14.
Since I consider the "they" to refer to Neb's army, they (Neb's army) were supposed to throw the rubble into the sea.
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.
Reading the oracle normally as one would any other paragraph, the word "they" in verse 12 refers to Neb's army and not to many nations of the previous oracle.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ReformedRob, posted 09-01-2006 9:23 AM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 09-01-2006 11:59 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 132 by ReformedRob, posted 09-02-2006 12:47 AM purpledawn has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 126 of 178 (345708)
09-01-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by purpledawn
09-01-2006 11:50 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Doesn't much matter.
The military target would be the fortifications. That is the Island Fortress.
It still stood when Nebbi left.
It still stood when Alex left.
It still was there 18 years later when it was besieged yet again.
It still stood when the Crusaders arrived.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 11:50 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 1:28 PM jar has replied
 Message 133 by ReformedRob, posted 09-02-2006 1:02 AM jar has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 127 of 178 (345738)
09-01-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by jar
09-01-2006 11:59 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Well you know how I like my text. Plain and unadulterated.
I was looking to see if the text truly supported the idea that Neb was only to conquer the mainland. I don't see that it does.
I also don't see that these oracles from Ezekiel spoke of anything but extinction of the Island City. Nothing to be rebuilt there.
It was interesting taking a closer look at the text.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 09-01-2006 11:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 09-01-2006 1:32 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 128 of 178 (345740)
09-01-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by purpledawn
09-01-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
I also don't see that these oracles from Ezekiel spoke of anything but extinction of the Island City. Nothing to be rebuilt there.
Yeah, the Israelis ain't all that bright I know but they sure wasting a bunch of time, munitions and folk bombing and blockading something that has been gone so long.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 1:28 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 178 (345790)
09-01-2006 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Max Udargo
08-31-2006 8:28 PM


Re: Cherry picking the rules
Ok, in the first place, nemesis, let me suggest you read a post through all the way before you start composing a response, because I think it would save you time. Just a suggestion, of course.
LOL! Typically, as soon as realize that a post is directed towards me, I reply instantly and read it as I reply. A bit of a bad habit for me and you're right, it would probably save me some time.
the epic poems of Homer are examples of writings that were at first assumed to be totally mythological with no historical basis, but which were later recognized as having some historical merit when archeological finds substantiated some of the settings, and which, even though they are now believed to have some historical validity, are still assumed not to be valid sources of theology.
The issue isn't whether or not Gryphons or Cyclopes existed, the issue is why no one seems to really go into a lengthy treatise on whether or not the Illiad was written by Homer. But yes, almost all stories, mythology included, have a portion of truth to them. Almost all stories do. So, with that knowledge in mind, how much credit are your ready to lend the Bible?
I have to say, it's a bit disturbing to see how you twist reality to accomodate your need to believe.
Perhaps equally disturbing the way you reinvent yourself to feign total disbelief.
There is no campaign to "stop" Greek mythology because nobody still believes it's true.
Ah, and therein lies the dichotomy. No critic believes in Greek mythology because its absurd to them, hence, it poses no threat to them. The Bible on the other hand clearly poses quite a threat to the secular world. Why not just let us believe as we wish? Why make it a point to come on EvC day after day to posit that there is no God? See, the believer can always fall back on that it is his moral duty as apart of the Great Commission presented to us by Jesus Christ to speak about the gospel wherever we can. But what is the atheists excuse to engage in a mindless warfare of semantics? So, can I rightfully assume that somewhere in yourself is a shred of belief?
And, although there is nothing I hate more than depriving a Christian of the joys of a healthy persecution complex, I have to point out there is no "campaign" to "stop" the Bible. Whatever that means anyway.
Its a clandestine little war that has been going on since Yeshua forst came on the scene. Every beliver is aware of the immediate flaming he recieves the moment he comes to Christ. There's no complex about it. Its absolutely real. And your constant badgering of two believers on Ezekiel is evidence of such. Am I imagining that this dialogue has turned somewhat hostile against my beliefs? If I told you that I was Hindu and tried to get you to believe in Ganesha would you argue with me or would you sort of chuckle and dismiss me?
No, not at all. You can explain anything with God. Or, better put, you don't have to explain anything with God. Once you accept God, anything can happen. God makes everything magic.
That's a bit of a stretch wouldn't you say? If I'm on the ledge of a building and decide to make a leap of faith, one of two things will happen-- either I will be spared for my faith or I will go splat because of His physical laws.
I'm saying I have a more rational and likely explanation for Ezekiel's diatribe. An explanation that doesn't require magic. And I don't see why we need to bring magic into this unless absolutely necessary. Call me conservative.
Far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but Ockahm's razor really doesn't factor into your argument when we look at all of the prophecies. You can't just say that everytime a prophecy ended up being right that it must have actually been due to a later insertion. That's hardly objective and it flies in the face of anthropology and archeaology. Really what it comes down to is, you can't explain it in your terms, so we must therefore default to your logic. That's circular reasoning.
I have to admit I'm shaken. The various peoples of the Middle East have gotten along so well until recently, and the Jews have always enjoyed the acceptance and love of their neighbors in the region, so the recent flare-up of violence seems inescapably portentous. I mean, when was the last time Israel invaded Lebanon? We haven't seen this kind of upset in the region since... oh, at least the 1990s.
These prophecies were spoken thousands of years ago. To you, the man who has been living on a timeline anywhere from, (I'm guessing here) 18-75 years. Are you so arrogant to assume that because in your lifetime that the Middle East has been a firebrand that it must serve to invalidate the Scriptures? That's absurd.
There are different kinds of faith, but for most of us, 95% of our knowledge is not based on faith. I think it's just you.
Oh, I see, so you 'know' with the same veracity as whether or not your shoelaces are tied, that humans have visited the moon. Is that accurate? You know that a man named Plato existed with same empiricism as you know whether or not you ate cereal this morning for breakfast? Maybe you think that the word faith is a dirty little epithet, but I'm realistic about its definition. You seem to think that blind faith and an informed faith are homologous, but they aren't. As for your description of the Chinese, that is a prime example of what I'm referring to. That is faith on your part. It isn't a blind faith, but it is informed. Is it on the merits of evidence? Yes. But how would you know either way if those figures are accurate? You don't really 'know.' And this is why I said we should all be careful about espousing the things that we know or the things we think we know. By the way, I'm not contending that China has a large population or that humans have been on the moon, I'm just using them as examples.
The Eqypt prophecy follows soon after the Tyre prophecy. Very surprised you don't know that. Nothing selective about your memory or anything. Chapter 29.
I was asking for something specific about the prophecy. I believe I asked you for some verses. But no worries, I'll just read 29-30 and see where you feel a discrepancy lies.
Nostrodamus certainly isn't taken as seriously as John the Revelator. But Nostrodamus knew the first rule of prophecy: "Speak in spooky metaphors and vague symbols so your prophecies can be endlessly re-interpreted for all times and circumstances."
I doubt that most people don't even know who John the Revelator is, let alone are familiar with the prophecies. I would say a great many more know of Nostradamus. Kinda hard to get around it when half the time you're standing in the checkout line at the groocery store, there is some sensationalistic tabloid feature about good 'ol Nostradamus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGYPTIAN PROPHECIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, to explain: Prior to the prophecies recorded in this chapter, since Pharaoh-Necho had invaded Palestine, besieged and conquered Jerusalem and set up a puppet king named Eliakim, who's name Pharoah synthesized to Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim is very important in messianic prophecy, especially in Jeremiah. *(Also note that Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin are not the same people)*.
The rise of Nebuchadnezzar and the enlargement of the Chaldean empire was obviously recognized as a menace to the Egyptian empire. They would vie for supremacy. Now, in the first part of the chapter, in the 10th month of the 10th year of Jehoiachin's captivity we read:
"In the tenth year, in the tenth month on the twelfth day, the word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt and prophesy against him and against all Egypt. Speak to him and say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: 'I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, you great monster lying among your streams. You say, "The Nile is mine; I made it for myself." But I will put hooks in your jaws and make the fish of your streams stick to your scales. I will pull you out from among your streams, with all the fish sticking to your scales. I will leave you in the desert, you and all the fish of your streams. You will fall on the open field and not be gathered or picked up. I will give you as food to the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air. Then all who live in Egypt will know that I am the LORD.
'You have been a staff of reed for the house of Israel. When they grasped you with their hands, you splintered and you tore open their shoulders; when they leaned on you, you broke and their backs were wrenched."
-Ezekiel 29:1-7
Just like how Tyre symbolically represents a world of great commerce, so also does Egypt represent a place of bondage out of which God delivers. And here, Pharoah typifies Satan as the defiant prince of this world. (No, I'm not suggesting that Pharoah is Satan). In the sight of God, Pharoah had become like a crocodile lying in his rivers. In his pride and conceit he defied all who dared to disregard him. Now, Egypt had entered into a false alliance with Israel but had proven to be unfaithful in that pact. They would be overrun by the Babylonians. Judgement was upon them.
"Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will bring a sword against you and kill your men and their animals. Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the LORD. "Because you said, 'The Nile is mine; I made it,' therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. No foot of man or animal will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries." -Ezekiel 8-12
Pharoah had endeavored to illicit the help of the Israelites against Nebuchadnezzar. An estimated 17 years after the propecy was spoken did this come to pass, so that for 40 years much of Egypt was left desolate.
"Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the nations where they were scattered. I will bring them back from captivity and return them to Upper Egypt, [c] the land of their ancestry. There they will be a lowly kingdom. It will be the lowliest of kingdoms and will never again exalt itself above the other nations. I will make it so weak that it will never again rule over the nations. Egypt will no longer be a source of confidence for the people of Israel but will be a reminder of their sin in turning to her for help. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD."[/i] -Ezekiel 29:13-16
And after this time had passed the Lord brought them back into Egypt, but never again would Egypt be a major kingdom of power. This prophecy is still fulfilled because Egypt has never been the vast empire that it once was.
Where exactly is your objection in the prophecies? There are several prophecies in Ezekiel concerning Egypt. What precisely is troubling you?

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Max Udargo, posted 08-31-2006 8:28 PM Max Udargo has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 130 of 178 (345892)
09-01-2006 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ReformedRob
08-30-2006 8:24 PM


City vs. Island fortress
I've been away from the site for a week and am still trying to catch up. I've only got to Message 90 of 129 so apologies if somebody else points out what I say later in the thread.
You seem a little confused about the island part of Tyre - in your first message (Message 45) in this thread you claim that the island is the port of Sidon:
the second assault by Alexander the Great who got so mad at their escape to the Island of Sidon that he took all the remains of the city and built a causeway out to Sidon and killed them all. Look it up and try to refute it.
You seem to have realised that was nonsense and quietly dropped it.
You later moved on to claim the island is not actually the city but rather a fortress:
ReformedRob in Message 90 writes:
Everyone keeps making the same mistakes. The island fortess is the city (wrong).
You first make the claim that the island is a fortress and not the city in Message 66 and repeat it in Message 72, Message 77, Message 82 and Message 90.
Nowhere do you produce any evidence to support this claim.We can however look at the sources you cite in some of your messages:
Message 49:
The siege of Tyre had a lasting effect, for the mole stayed, silted up, and today Tyre is connected to the mainland.
Note that it says today Tyre is connected to the mainland - not "today Tyre is connected to the island fortress".
Message 54:
The difference was that the fortifications of Halicarnassus had been protected by a ditch of only fifteen meters wide and that the walls of Tyre were protected by the sea: the old city was built on an island.
To reach the Tyrian walls, the Macedonians built a mole.
Message 66:
After its capture, 10,000 of the inhabitants were put to death, and 30,000 were sold into slavery. Alexander's causeway, which was never removed, converted the island into a peninsula
Seems like your own sources regard the island as Tyre.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ReformedRob, posted 08-30-2006 8:24 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ReformedRob, posted 09-01-2006 11:24 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 131 of 178 (345903)
09-01-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by MangyTiger
09-01-2006 10:56 PM


Re: City vs. Island fortress
I made several small mistakes in my haste to reply quickly that dont negate the validity of the prophecy. My first posts were from memory like thinking Alexander killed them all and I was mistake but the substance of the prophecy shouldnt suffer for my mistakes.
Like you said keep reading the rest of the posts in which I make my position clearer and amend my haste.
And one more is coming to correct Purple Dawn and Ringo...again.
I jumped in and got involved in too many threads at once!
But to anyone objective it is obvious that vs 3-5 are Many nations using the plural pronoun 'they' and the clear context provided by the multiple wordings of 'bare top like a rock', 'destroy the walls' and 'fishermen spreading out the nets'. 4 specific phrasings repeated in vs 12-14. The only responses given are about the walls and ignore the other 3 phrasings.
As well vs 6 says "also" indicating a new topic from vs 3-5 and directly says that her daughter villages would be slain fitting perfectly the mainland and then vs 7 continues the same vein saying "For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebudchanezzar, King of Babylon" clearly indicating who it was who would be attacking the daughter villages i.e. the mainland. So vs 6-11 are the mainland and vs 3-5 & 12-14 are clearly and obviously Alexander using the mainland city to get to the Island and plunder the wealth of it which he did. Tyre was the mainland city and the fortress but the differences are obviously and easily exegeted from the context. Neb did the mainland city in context of vs 6-11 and Alexander did the Island in context of vs 3-5 and vs 12-14.

"...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 130 by MangyTiger, posted 09-01-2006 10:56 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 132 of 178 (345925)
09-02-2006 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by purpledawn
09-01-2006 11:50 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Ok, it is obvious you guys are being stubborn so here we go again
purpledawn writes:
Since when is "similar phrasing" as basis for determing the antecedent for a pronoun?
It's a simple thing called context foundational to any exegesis of anything! Next you'll have me show the methodology that 1+1=2.
And in vs 3-5 and 12-14 it's not just similar phrasing but parallel use of 6 instances of similar phrases for the many nations including 1)'they', 2)'bare like a rock', 3)'a place for fishing nets', 4)'breaking the walls', 5) 'plunder' & 6) 'they' followed by 'I (God)'
Additionally, vs 6 starts a new but related topic saying "Also her daughter vilages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the LORD. For thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north
Nebudchanezzar king of Babylon...(8)He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields...(11)he will slay your people by the sword"
Contextually it is obvious that this is Nebudchanezzar attacking the mainland. And in the NKJV and NASV, which are not paraphrases like the NIV and better for study as they try to translate word for word instead of bringing in the ambiguities of paraphrases, it does not say Neb would tear down the walls.
The poor translation of the NIV has caused your confusion with the II Chronicles passage. Chaldea was a southern portion of the Babylonian empire that was assimilated and later become synonymous with the Babylonian empire but in the II Chronicles passage it is not the Babylonian empire but a subset of it. The players there are 1) Nebudchanezzar, 2)The captain of his guard Nebuzaradan in charge of the Babylonian army, 3)The king of the Chaldeans and 4) The army of the Chaldeans. The context is God uses Neb to move against Zedekiah. The captain of the Guard Nebuzaradan, referred to as 'He'in II Chronicles 36:18 goes to Jerusalem with the Babylonian army and the king of the Chaldeans and his army. The captain acting on Nebs behalf takes the captives and wealth back to Babylon. The Chaldean army, referred to as 'they'in II Chronicles 36:19, break the walls.
II Kings 8,10,11,15&18 demonstrate it clearly "(8)And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month (which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon), Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem...(10)And the army of the Chaldeans who were with the captain of the guard broke down the walls of Jerusalem. (11) Then Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive the rest of the people who remained in the city and the defectors who had deserted to the king of Babylon, with the rest of the multitude...(15)The firepans and the basins, the things of solid gold and solid silver, the captain of the guard took away...(18)And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, Zephaniah the second priest and the three doorkeepers."
So in II Chronicles vs 18 'He' is the Captain of the Guard and 'they' in vs 19 is a different group, the Chaldean army. "(18)And all the articles from the house of God, great and small, the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king and of his leaders, all these HE took to Babylon. Then THEY burned the house of God, broke down the wall of Jerusalem, burned all its palaces with fire and destroyed all its precious possessions." (emphasis mine)
So your assertion that II Kings shows the example of He changed to they demonstrates the synomous interchangable use of 'he' and 'they' in Ezekiel 26 is false. In both cases 'he' and 'they' indicate different groups.
So we have Neb invading the mainland and killing in vs 6-11 as prophesied (it was never prophesied he would be successful against the island) and the many nations of vs 3-5 & 12-14 finishing the job with Alexander, scraping the mainland city into the sea and taking the island. All else is selective hypercriticism.
Prophecy fulfilled.
Edited by ReformedRob, : spelling
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 125 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 11:50 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by purpledawn, posted 09-02-2006 10:07 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 133 of 178 (345930)
09-02-2006 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by jar
09-01-2006 11:59 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Just wanted to alert you to my response to PD in Message 132, it applies to you also.

"...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 126 by jar, posted 09-01-2006 11:59 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 1:20 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 134 of 178 (345933)
09-02-2006 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by ReformedRob
09-02-2006 1:02 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
You haven't addressed the fact that Ezekiel predicted, three times in chapter 26, that Tyre would never be rebuilt:
quote:
Eze 26:14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.
quote:
Eze 26:21 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 part of "never" do you not understand? What part of "it's still there" do you not understand?
Prophecy unfulfilled.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ReformedRob, posted 09-02-2006 1:02 AM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by ReformedRob, posted 09-02-2006 1:42 AM ringo has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 135 of 178 (345941)
09-02-2006 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by ringo
09-02-2006 1:20 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
You mean to tell me that Tyre is still the same glorious city it has been since before Nebuchadnezzar? It is still the glorious city state and marvel of the world? There are no ruins there to this day?
This is the selective hypercriticism I spoke of. Even though the prophecy is well established to have been written when it claims, and many nations did attack it, the fact that Alexander scraped the mainland city into the sea, the third attack on the city, which removed it's glory never to be regained, cynics with an apriori agenda and methodology refuse to acknowledge the glorious awe and wonder of this.
What part of selective hypercriticism do you not understand?

"...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 134 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 1:20 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 1:56 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