Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lebanon In End Time Bible Prophecy
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 106 of 178 (345362)
08-31-2006 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by ReformedRob
08-30-2006 11:05 PM


Island was the Main City of Tyre
quote:
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.
How do you figure?
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.
From what I've read Neb's campaign ended in compromise and he didn't succeed in breaking down the walls or demonlishing their houses etc, which is why in Ezekiel 29:18-20 God supposedly gave Egypt to Neb.
After the destruction of Jerusalem, Nebuchadrezzar engaged in a 13 year long siege of Tyre (585-572 BC), which ended in a compromise, with the Tyrians accepting Babylonian authority.
The way Ezekiel wrote it sounds like the island fortress was the main city, not the mainland.
Also Ezekiel 26:4-5 reads that the island is what would be scraped bare, not the mainland settlements.
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...

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ReformedRob, posted 08-30-2006 11:05 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ReformedRob, posted 08-31-2006 7:51 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 178 (345411)
08-31-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Max Udargo
08-30-2006 10:31 PM


Re: Quibbling
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.
The Book of Daniel has been subjected to the harshest critique for one reason only... it's so accurate that no secular person could believe that the prophecies came before the actual event. The book of Mormon isn't even in the same category as any book of the Bible. You're comparing apples to oranges. We might as well be speaking about the Vedas when you attempt to juxtapose the Bible with the BoM. But yes, the BoM has been distorted upwards of 30 known times, but the Bible has not.
Maybe you aren't aware of the coeffecients and variables neccesary to produce the Bible in plenary. There has been much debate spanning several generations concerning the validity and reliability of the Bible. Because the Bible is considered a religious tome, many scholars feel that it is biased and cannot be trusted for face value without some corroborating, extra-biblical evidence. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent. This standard, however, is seldom applied to any other ancient document even though many, if not most, contain some level of religious element to them. I wish we would see the same scrutiny applied to all of antiquity to mirror the contempt shown for the Bible.
Some of the varibales that need to be considered is to notice that most of the writers were not contemporaneous-- meaning they did not have some corroboration. They lived at different times, and in different lands. Not all these books were written by one man and at one time, like we see with the Qur'an. All of these books were written by different people and at different times in history. Despite this, we see a congruence that is unmatched by human will and an engineering that is overshadowed by divine authority.
But you might ask: “How do we know that the Bible we have today is even close to the original? Haven’t copiers down through the generations inserted or deleted or perhaps embellished the documents so that the original message of the Bible has been obscured?”
I would say that these are frequently asked questions and they are completely honest and inquisitive questions. These questions deserve an honest and thorough answer.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work.” -2nd Timothy 3:16-17
I don't think people fully appreciate how difficult transposing documents from papyrus to papyrus was. Transcribing was considered a professional career in antiquity. No printing presses or photocopy machines existed, and so, it was the scribe who was trained to copy documents. In an age where illiteracy was prevalent the scribe was a very learned individual, which is obviously a rarity at that time. The task, for the scribe, was usually an undertaking, assigned to a devout Jew. It is also important to remember that the Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and therefore, were extremely careful in transposing documents. They did not hastily write things down. This was an arduous and meticulous task. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Tanakh dates from 900 AD. During the early part of the tenth century, there was a group of Jews, known as the Massoretes, whom I mentioned in an earlier post. These Jews were meticulous in their copying, as were the scribes before them. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy any given book of the Tanakh, and when they completed it, they would count the total number of letters. Then they would find the middle of the book by extrapolate backwards using the number/letter system. If even one ”jot’ (equivalent to an apostrophe) or ”tittle’ (equivalent to the dotting of an ”i’ or crossing of a ”t’) were missing, they would take the document and throw it away. If the book were not an exact replica, they would start over. Not to mention, that at least two scribes wrote together for added assurance. All the present copies of the Hebrew text are in remarkable agreement. Moreover, comparisons of the Massoretic text to the Greek ”Septuagint’ and the Latin ”Vulgate’ revealed the careful transposing. Very little deviation has ever been found. As if the Massoretic text wasn’t trustworthy enough, the most remarkable discovery came by the most unlikely of discoverers.
Then in the late 1940's probably the most outstanding discovery of the 20th century came about in the caves of Qumran by the dead sea. It was the discovery of the Dead sea scrolls. The scrolls have revealed that the monastic commune, known as the Essenes made their home away from home in those hills. It is believed that when the Romans came through they fled into the hills, thinking the Romans would destroy their ancient documents. The Essenes hid the jars in this mostly inhabited area for safekeeping.
As I've shared with other people, dissenters of Christianity and Judaism have alleged that the Bible was written by King James in order to keep a tight reign on his kingdom. This is, of course, a preposterous notion. Nonetheless, even though it is unfounded the theory is still being propagated every now and again. The DSS dispelled any notion of such when complete copies of the prophetic books were discovered in the caves, empirically proving the accuracy of the prophecies.
Where the DSS ties into the Massoretic text is shown in the comparison. The Essenes and Masorites were extremely close to one another in accuracy. Only 17 letters were found different by contrast. You might think that is a lot, but when I say they were different, it’s like the difference between ”honor’ and ”honour.’ They produced no change to the meaning of the text whatsoever. Out of it all only one word was truly questionable, but even it did not change the effect of the meaning. Therefore, we can easily deduce that the Massorites were extremely loyal in their copying of the text.
The Bible is not in disrepute with secular history, in fact, its been the Bible to guide secular history. For instance, the Hittite civilization was thought to be nothing more than a fable because no relics of the empire were ever found. That all changed when their civilization was unearthed of modern-day Turkey, which is incidentally, the exact place that the Bible places them. On and on and on, arcaeology has been the friend of the Bible, so much so that I can't see why people waste their time trying to go against God's unfailing Word.

“"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 103 by Max Udargo, posted 08-30-2006 10:31 PM Max Udargo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Max Udargo, posted 08-31-2006 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Max Udargo
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 178 (345438)
08-31-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2006 11:29 AM


Re: Quibbling
Even with the Dead Sea Scrolls, we only have verification of text back to about 200 B.C. That's long after Ezekiel.
If your account of the accuracy of transcriptions is accurate - which I kind of doubt because you're obviously confused about that Hittite thing - then it is certainly impressive how scribes were able to copy sacred texts with such accuracy over such lengths of time.
But that doesn't really say anything about the origins of those texts. Ezekiel was a bitter, resentful little man who predicted everybody who was better off than him was going to get bushwhacked by God. Because his dark vision mapped reasonably well to the Jewish experience of history over the next few hundred years, his writings were preserved, copied and venerated. The writings of Melvin, the happy prophet who predicted everybody was going to live together in peace and the Jews were going to be the happiest people on earth, were quickly consigned to the dustbin.
I'm afraid I don't find your prophets very impressive.
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 11:29 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 1:47 PM Max Udargo has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 178 (345456)
08-31-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Max Udargo
08-31-2006 1:02 PM


Cherry picking the rules
Even with the Dead Sea Scrolls, we only have verification of text back to about 200 B.C. That's long after Ezekiel.
This is my problem: The rules concerning the validity of any given document is under special scrutiny when it pertains to the Bible. Why? Why aren't any other manuscripts from antiquity subjected to your scrutiny? Its miraculous that any ancient documents from this long ago have survived. The only reason we have older, intact documents is because they are cuneiform. But why not apply the same scrutiny to anything else?
If your account of the accuracy of transcriptions is accurate - which I kind of doubt because you're obviously confused about that Hittite thing - then it is certainly impressive how scribes were able to copy sacred texts with such accuracy over such lengths of time.
We have to remember that the men who transposed the documents believed wholeheartedly that they were dealing with the very Word of God. And Moses gave explicit instructions not to ever alter anything that comes from God. You can call them superstitious or whatever, but this superstition is the very thing that kept the documents free from corruption.
But that doesn't really say anything about the origins of those texts. Ezekiel was a bitter, resentful little man who predicted everybody who was better off than him was going to get bushwhacked by God. Because his dark vision mapped reasonably well to the Jewish experience of history over the next few hundred years, his writings were preserved, copied and venerated. The writings of Melvin, the happy prophet who predicted everybody was going to live together in peace and the Jews were going to be the happiest people on earth, were quickly consigned to the dustbin.
What in the world are you talking about? First of all, how is Ezekiel dark and embittered? Secondly, who's Melvin? Thirdly, your aversion towards Ezekiel but your wanting of Melvin's "happy little world" of prophecy speaks more about your motivation for scrapping Ezekiel than anything else. History is what it is. And when it comes to God, He lives in the past, present, and future simultaneously. So, if the outcome for us who travel in a linear motion along a timeline is negative, then it is humanity that is at odds with God, not God at odds with humanity.
I'm afraid I don't find your prophets very impressive.
That's usually what happens when people don't know enough about them to make an informed decision. If I turned to an arbitrary place in a novel, read three pages, and gave my thesis on the book, how accurate would I be about the entire content? Its the same thing with the Bible. You can't just read blurbs here and there expect to understand the entire plot. And everybody claims to have read the Bible. Its only until I quiz them that there retentive ability prove to be abysmal. Go figure.

“"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 108 by Max Udargo, posted 08-31-2006 1:02 PM Max Udargo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Max Udargo, posted 08-31-2006 2:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Max Udargo
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 178 (345468)
08-31-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2006 1:47 PM


Re: Cherry picking the rules
This is my problem: The rules concerning the validity of any given document is under special scrutiny when it pertains to the Bible. Why? Why aren't any other manuscripts from antiquity subjected to your scrutiny? Its miraculous that any ancient documents from this long ago have survived. The only reason we have older, intact documents is because they are cuneiform. But why not apply the same scrutiny to anything else?
What ancient documents do you think get a free ride? Do we accept without question the theology we find in cuneiform tablets? Do we assume their myths are true stories? Do we believe The Iliad when it says an invisible Athena swooped onto the battlefield to deflect a spear thrown at Achilles? What ancient, non-Biblical prophets are now widely accepted as having accurately predicted the future?
I have assumed that Ezekiel, or somebody on his behalf, wrote the Book of Ezekiel around the time Ezekiel is said to have lived. This still means he was probably writing about Nebu's siege of Tyre after the fact, and I find none of his other "prophecies" particularly impressive. And his prophecy about Egypt is just plain wrong, unless you are going to argue it will be fulfilled at some future date.
We have to remember that the men who transposed the documents believed wholeheartedly that they were dealing with the very Word of God. And Moses gave explicit instructions not to ever alter anything that comes from God. You can call them superstitious or whatever, but this superstition is the very thing that kept the documents free from corruption.
I can see how these men would be deeply motivated to transcribe sacred texts accurately, but where did the text come from originally, and how many iterations of oral retalling did it go through before it was written down, and how many written iterations did it go through before it achieved the status of sacred text? Did scribes in the 6th century B.C. have the same dedication as the scribes you describe who lived a thousand years later? How do you know?
What in the world are you talking about? First of all, how is Ezekiel dark and embittered? Secondly, who's Melvin? Thirdly, your aversion towards Ezekiel but your wanting of Melvin's "happy little world" of prophecy speaks more about your motivation for scrapping Ezekiel than anything else. History is what it is. And when it comes to God, He lives in the past, present, and future simultaneously. So, if the outcome for us who travel in a linear motion along a timeline is negative, then it is humanity that is at odds with God, not God at odds with humanity.
Kind of begging the question, don't you think?
And I'm having trouble believing you are really so confused about Melvin. The point, again, is obviously that we can expect a selection process over time that weeds out writings that have huge failings as prophecy, so that, in the end, we would expect to find a near 100% success rate among those books that are revered as sacred texts.
Which makes it all the stranger that Ezekiel's bad Egypt prophecies have survived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 1:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 7:12 PM Max Udargo has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 178 (345521)
08-31-2006 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Max Udargo
08-31-2006 2:14 PM


Re: Cherry picking the rules
What ancient documents do you think get a free ride?
Name me one that isn't affiliated with the Bible in any way where people question whether or not its a legitimate document with some historical significance.
Do we accept without question the theology we find in cuneiform tablets? Do we assume their myths are true stories? Do we believe The Iliad when it says an invisible Athena swooped onto the battlefield to deflect a spear thrown at Achilles? What ancient, non-Biblical prophets are now widely accepted as having accurately predicted the future?
That's because no one subjects it to special scrutiny. So why the Bible? The fact that people ardently seek imperfections in the Word must bespeak of the fact that on some level there is some inherent fear that it just might be true. Nobody attacks strawmen because they don't pose an actual threat. Is there something about the Bible that poses a threat to secular thought? If not, why such a campaign to stop it and not Greek mythology?
I have assumed that Ezekiel, or somebody on his behalf, wrote the Book of Ezekiel around the time Ezekiel is said to have lived. This still means he was probably writing about Nebu's siege of Tyre after the fact, and I find none of his other "prophecies" particularly impressive. And his prophecy about Egypt is just plain wrong, unless you are going to argue it will be fulfilled at some future date.
So, you are basically telling me that the only reason you think it was written after the fact is because prophets or prophecy couldn't possibly exist because it is not within your understanding to explain them? As for not being impressed by his prophetic ability, perhaps you'll change your mind when this comes to pass:
Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him . Persia, Cush, and Phut are with them, all with shield and helmet; Gomer and all his troops; the house of Togarmah from the far north and all his troops-many people are with you . Sheba and Dedan, the merchants of Tarshish and all their young lions will say to you, ”Have you come to take plunder?’ -Ezekiel 38
Indeed the alliances are already being drawn in the sand.
I can see how these men would be deeply motivated to transcribe sacred texts accurately, but where did the text come from originally, and how many iterations of oral retalling did it go through before it was written down, and how many written iterations did it go through before it achieved the status of sacred text? Did scribes in the 6th century B.C. have the same dedication as the scribes you describe who lived a thousand years later? How do you know?
The Mishna, like, 2,000 years of oral translation. As far as Ezekiel or the other prophets, probably anywhere from an instantly to a few years. As for how I do know, I don't know for sure. I believe it. But my belief isn't some flippant decision, nor is impinged upon some blind faith, but rather an informed faith. We should be careful about the things we know and the things we think we know. 95% of our knowledge derives from faith. Not a one of us should lose sight of that.
And I'm having trouble believing you are really so confused about Melvin.
I seriously have no idea who Melvin the prophet is.
The point, again, is obviously that we can expect a selection process over time that weeds out writings that have huge failings as prophecy, so that, in the end, we would expect to find a near 100% success rate among those books that are revered as sacred texts.
Failure doesn't seem to stop Nostradamus' predictions from being the most recognized in all the world. Aside from the Tyre prophecy, what other biblical prophecies do you feel that have failed to come to pass?
Which makes it all the stranger that Ezekiel's bad Egypt prophecies have survived.
Which verses are you referring to?

“"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 110 by Max Udargo, posted 08-31-2006 2:14 PM Max Udargo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Max Udargo, posted 08-31-2006 8:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 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

  
Max Udargo
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 178 (345543)
08-31-2006 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Hyroglyphx
08-31-2006 7:12 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.
Name me one that isn't affiliated with the Bible in any way where people question whether or not its a legitimate document with some historical significance.
Well, as I say like, two sentences later, 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.
It seems to me the Bible gets a better deal than this, since so many want to insist it still has validity as a theological document. I've not heard anyone make that claim for The Iliad my whole life.
That's because no one subjects it to special scrutiny. So why the Bible? The fact that people ardently seek imperfections in the Word must bespeak of the fact that on some level there is some inherent fear that it just might be true. Nobody attacks strawmen because they don't pose an actual threat. Is there something about the Bible that poses a threat to secular thought? If not, why such a campaign to stop it and not Greek mythology?
I have to say, it's a bit disturbing to see how you twist reality to accomodate your need to believe.
There is no campaign to "stop" Greek mythology because nobody still believes it's true. Nobody is trying to revise our political history by suggesting our nation was founded on "the principles of Greek mythology." Nobody is insisting that children be taught in public schools that their civil rights come from Zeus. Nobody is arguing that time should be set aside every day in public schools so children can pray to Zeus. Nobody is arguing that Zeus guides the development of life on this planet, or that he created the planet, and that children should be taught that alongside evolution. Nobody is insisting Zeus should determine who you sleep with. The Church of Zeus is not a major player in American politics. Zeus isn't interfering with stem cell research. The priests of Zeus don't go on television and con old ladies out of their social security checks. Katherine Harris hasn't claimed that Zeus "chooses our rulers."
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.
So, you are basically telling me that the only reason you think it was written after the fact is because prophets or prophecy couldn't possibly exist because it is not within your understanding to explain them?
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.
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.
Indeed the alliances are already being drawn in the sand.
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.
We should be careful about the things we know and the things we think we know. 95% of our knowledge derives from faith. Not a one of us should lose sight of that.
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.
I'm told there are a billion people in China. I've never been to China, much less counted the Chinese, but I still accept this fact based on evidence rather than faith. It's not direct evidence, but there's lots of indirect evidence, and ways of testing the evidence to make sure it's logical and consistent. And I still won't say with absolute certainty that there are a billion people in China. That's just what I'm told by a lot of different, diverse sources, and it's consistent with everything else I know about China and the world around me.
That's very different than believing that some guy who lived 2,500 years ago anticipated the geopolitical machinations of PNAC based on one document filled with long lists of archaic place-names.
Failure doesn't seem to stop Nostradamus' predictions from being the most recognized in all the world. Aside from the Tyre prophecy, what other biblical prophecies do you feel that have failed to come to pass?
Another one of those questions that gets answered in the next sentence, eh? Really, you'd save yourself some time...
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.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2006 7:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-01-2006 4:31 PM Max Udargo has not replied

  
Max Udargo
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 178 (345546)
08-31-2006 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ReformedRob
08-31-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
How you comin' on that breakdown of Ezekiel's Egypt prophecy?
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ReformedRob, posted 08-31-2006 7:51 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ReformedRob, posted 08-31-2006 8:57 PM Max Udargo has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 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

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 116 of 178 (345553)
08-31-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ReformedRob
08-31-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Tell me, is there some reason I should accept a physic professor who teaches at an univserity that is not accredited by a place that is reconised by the US dept of education as being legit for a reinterpreting about Tyre?
He is a physic professor at trinity which is accredited by the The National Association of Private, Nontraditional Schools & Colleges.
NAPNSC has been, for more than 20 years, a legitimate effort at establishing an accrediting agency for nontraditional schools. NAPNSC has failed in its 7 or so attempts at gaining recognition from the US Dept. of Education.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ReformedRob, posted 08-31-2006 7:51 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ReformedRob, posted 08-31-2006 9:27 PM ramoss has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 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

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 118 of 178 (345576)
08-31-2006 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by ReformedRob
08-31-2006 9:27 PM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
No,
I was just pointing out your use of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
From the references you cut and paste, I see no reason to accept anything he claimed. All verbosity, and no substance.
His explaination does not match what is written in Eziekel in context.
I mean, the whole basis of his arguement is trying to parse the text of Ezeikal to try to seperate the nations from King Neb. The history of that is related from Jacob Katzenstein has nothing to do with the supposed prophecy. It is just an attempt to redefine the prophecy by Bloom, not something that is written by Katzenstein.
Bloom fails totally. He fails because 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.
Also, trying to bring in the motivation of the troops not getting paid is merely a distraction. That does not change the fact that Tyre did not fall to Neb, but only tells the reason Neb couldn't do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by ReformedRob, posted 08-31-2006 9:27 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by ReformedRob, posted 08-31-2006 11:10 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 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

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


Message 120 of 178 (345635)
09-01-2006 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by ReformedRob
08-31-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
quote:
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.
I did. That's why I asked, "How do you figure?" Why would the "they" in verse 12 refer back to the preceding paragraph?
Since a prophet supposedly receives his/her message while asleep or in a trance, I feel that when Ezekiel writes: "this is what the Sovereign Lord says:" it encompasses one vision or session. So Chapter 26 contains four visions or four instances of hearing from God.
So in a normal reading of the paragraph concerning Neb, why do you feel that the "they" refers back to the nations.
quote:
Where is the awe of the prophecy of Tyre being attacked by many nations, put into the sea and never regaining her glory?
Nations come and go. It is the pattern of history.
quote:
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.
Please provide the verses concerning Sidon.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ReformedRob, posted 08-31-2006 7:51 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by ReformedRob, posted 09-01-2006 5:02 AM purpledawn 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