Lebanon In End Time Bible Prophecy

Even the most critical of secular analysis places Yechezk'el (Ezekiel) comfortably between 586 BC and 538 BC. Yeshayahu (Isaiah) is similarly placed with ease in between 760 and 700 BC. Daniel and Jeremiah as well as the minor prophets all are in their respective place within history that prophesy before the prognostications come to pass. This is known empirically with the careful transpositions of the Vulgate, Septuagint, the Massoretic texts, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is no piece of antiquity more attested for than that of the Tanakh.

---

“"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

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"

I suppose you can try to divide the contiguous verses into two parts, if that's more convenient for your interpretation. So you're drawing a line where? Between verses 6 and 7 in Chapter 26? Nebuchadnezzar is not mentioned specifically until verse 7. So 1-6 is one prophecy and 7-21 is another?The problem, you see, is that there's total desolation for Tyre on both sides of that whimsical divide. Verse 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." This is the predicted result of Nebuchadnezzar's attack. It echoes verses 4 and 5 from before when Nebu was mentioned: "And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, 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 the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea..."So I see no evidence here we're talking about two or more prophecies. You're grabbing at the "many nations" thing, but that's just Ezekiel making the point that his hero is going to lead a massive army made up of many peoples from the empire.And the more I read it, the more it seems obvious to me this is Ezekiel spinning a past event as divine retribution. Having been told his hero stomped the Tyreans, Ezekiel is letting us know it was because they offended the God of Jerusalem (26:2). And he's really, really rubbing it in. 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.

Okay... So I could be right, given that the siege of Tyre occurred between 585 and 572 BC. Ezekiel was probably "prophesying" about an event that had already happened.But something tells me that wasn't the point you were trying to make...

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... 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"

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

Well, if you feel free to parse texts any arbitrary way you like, I'm sure that helps with your 100% success rate. Doesn't change the fact that Ezekiel's "prophecy" failed when Nebuchadnezzar failed to raze Tyre.But I don't think it was a prophecy anyway. Nebu had already ended his siege of Tyre, Ezekiel heard on Chaldean FOX News that it was a smashing success, and he lost himself in delirious gloating, while asserting that it had all happened because the God of Jerusalem made it happen.And I'm surprised and a bit suspicious you still don't get my point about your skewed sample.The Mormons work very hard to supress Mr. Smith's failed prophecies and bogus translations of prank plates, and if they had more control over what gets printed - like if all printed records were written by priestly scribes of the Mormon church - then Mr. Smith's track record would be an undisputable 100% as well.

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"

I almost forgotEven 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.

So by your logic, verse 10 incorporates both Nebu's siege and Alex's later rampage: "By reason of the abundance of his (Nebu's) horses their (the many nations, later) dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he (Nebu) shall enter into thy gates..."Because "he" means Nebu and "they" means "the many nations." Regardless of context.So verse 11 is all about Nebu because it says "he," but the next verse is taking us back to verse 1 and forgetting all about Nebu and now we're talking about Alexander and maybe some other people, because it says "they."You know what? Even if that were the original meaning, which I highly doubt, I'm still not impressed. The Pheonicians had just got their butts kicked by Good King Nebuchadnezzar, as far as Ezekiel was concerned, and he's just gloating and talking trash. He obviously had some issues with the Tyreans. Those damn Tyreans were so rich and happy and successful. God HATES that.But let's say this prophecy was fulfilled. Too bad he didn't stop there, eh? Too bad he had to say all that silly stuff about Egypt, eh? Nebuchadnezzar was going to kick Egypt's butt too, according to God, but it didn't quite work out that way, so I'm sure you have some clever ways to parse the text so that God never said Nebuchadnezzar was going to kick Egypt's butt. But clearly it says that Egypt was going to be decimated and for 40 years not a soul would walk the land of Egypt. Now when exactly did that happen? Was that Alexander?Because I don't remember any 40-year period in history when Egypt was uninhabited. Which doesn't fit very well with the Bible's 100% success rate at predicting the future.

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 antecedant12-14 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 3-6Simple 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"

I'll have to review Daniel, but you're wrong if you don't think the Mormons have adjusted the text of the Book of Mormon to eliminate embarrassments. There's been a lot written about differences between early BoM editions and later.But still, the Mormons have had to develop their myths in a different environment. Information is not managed by a monolithic class of priestly scribes. The Mormons can't get away with as much.And no, I don't think objectivity requires me to seriously consider the possibility some ancient Near-Eastern war god actually runs the universe. Do you seriously consider the possibility Odin or Zeus runs the universe? The only difference between Odin and Zeus on the one hand and Yahveh on the other is cultural bias. Of course none of this nonsense is true. The only reason it matters is because people are forced to pretend it's true in order to preserve the value religion brings to their lives.So you assert this crazy thing, that some guy named Ezekiel was predicting the future, and I think it's important to require you to prove such a wild assertion.-

You are missing a few pieces of information1) Eziekel was specifically talking about King Neb leading the assult against Tyre. That did not happen, and Eziekel acknowledges that.2)The book of Daniel was not written by Daniel, but was written between 165 and 160 bce.The Septigant that is refered to before that period of time specifically says that it was the Torah, and that would not include the Book of Daniel ((Or eziekel for that matter).

Ramoss, read the previous posts you are grievously behind. I will repeat myself for the last time about Tyrevs 3-6 say many nationsvs 7-11 say Neb.vs 12-14 return to many nations and return to the context of vs 3-6Neb 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 youThe 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 AristeasDaniel 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.comDaniel 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"