• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is "Tyre" still here? Is God's judgment flawed, did he lie, or am I missing something?

dust1n

Zindīq
From KJV:


Ezekiel 26


1And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

2Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste:

3Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

4And 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.

5It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

6And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

7For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

8He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.

9And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

10By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

11With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

12And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

13And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

14And 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.

15Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee?

16Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee.

17And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it!

18Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.

19For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;

20When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;
21I 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.

(emphasis added, obviously. god doesn't emphasis with bold or italics)



Ok, this Biblical scholar ("Tyre" by Robert I Bradshaw) suggests that Tyre was 30,000 at its peak in Biblical times. If the current population (or measured in 2003) was 117,000 people AND the geographical location is PHYSICALLY bigger because of mineral deposits on its banks (Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), then in what since was Tyre 'never... found again'?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
From KJV:

Ok, this Biblical scholar ("Tyre" by Robert I Bradshaw) suggests that Tyre was 30,000 at its peak in Biblical times. If the current population (or measured in 2003) was 117,000 people AND the geographical location is PHYSICALLY bigger because of mineral deposits on its banks (Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), then in what since was Tyre 'never... found again'?

I had to delete the non-critical portion of the original post to reduce the legnth to fit.
As I have limited knowledge of this myself I present the following: Sources listed at the bottom.

Although many reference works will claim otherwise, the original city of Tyre was on the mainland. It was not the island, and certainly not on the neck of land connecting the two, since that only came into existence in 332BC (more on that later). This can be seen from Joshua 19:29, the first mention of Tyre in the Bible:

And then the coast turneth to Ramah, and to the strong city Tyre; and the coast turneth to Hosah; and the outgoings thereof are at the sea from the coast to Achzib

The "coast" of the AV text is not the land-sea boundary but the border of the tribe of Asher. Notice that the border reaches the sea somewhere towards Achzib. But if "the strong city Tyre" was on the island, the border must already have reached the sea there. So Tyre in the time of Joshua, by implication, was on land. The same was true in the time of Ezekiel and Nebuchadnezzar, as is apparent in Ezekiel 26:7-11, shortly before the original quote Steven made:

7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.
8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.
9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.
10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.
11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

If you think about it, this description of Nebuchadrezzar's siege of Tyre makes no sense if Tyre was an island. Ezekiel is describing the seige of a city on land, made using earth ramps (AV "casting a mount") and other seige technology, something the Babylonians did a lot. That would be quite impossible for an island city, especially since the sea is quite deep near the island. So Tyre in this chapter was the mainland city.

Further evidence that in ancient times Tyre was on the mainland comes from other sources outside the Bible. My second last posting on the Dawkins web-site thread went into a number of those (in answer to someone who claimed they support the "Tyre was always an island" theory). If anyone wants the detail of that, it's this comment

I believe that that Tyre, the one God said would be destroyed, doesn't exist any more. Indeed, I think it is possible even today to identify where it stood, and the land there is quite barren and empty. If you want to see, check out this Google maps view - it's the area between the road and the beach. Zoom out to see the wider geography and the relationship to present-day Tyre.

At 26:12, Ezekiel goes on to describe the final end of Tyre. It actually came about some 240 years or so after Nebuchadrezzar's 13-year-long siege of Tyre, which reduced it to a near-ruin, and led to the captivity of the Tyrian royal family in Babylon. Alexander the great completed the work Neb had started; as ancient writers inform us, he used the physical substance of a place called "Palaetyros" (Old Tyre) to build his great causeway (or "mole") from the mainland out to the island in order to conquer the island where the Tyrians then lived. In doing this his army and the many local people he conscripted as labourers fulfilled the words of 26:12 exactly:

And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

The prophetic words there are amazingly precise with respect to their fulfillment:

(a) Alexander's workers laid the broken-up pieces of Tyre in the water, they didn't just throw them - it was proper civil engineering they were engaged in. This was because the mole had a particular purpose to serve. They weren't just getting rid of what was left of old Tyre, they were also constructing a viable roadway for the army to cross to the island by.

(b) The causeway was constructed in the midst of the water (i.e. dividing the sea channel into north and south parts, compare Genesis 1:6-7), exactly as Ezekiel's phrase implies. Notice also that the similar phrase "midst of the sea" (26:5), describing what would become of Tyre, is in all its other scriptural contexts used about the crossing of the Red Sea by Israel. e.g. Exodus 14:22 -

the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

This is remarkably similar to Alexander's scheme - the causeway he built from the ruins of Old Tyre allowed his army to cross the sea channel (with water on left hand and right hand) on what he had made into dry ground. As a result he seized the island of (New) Tyre, and took the wealth which its people had thought was safe in the fortress.

The conclusion I have reached is that Ezekiel's words have in fact been fulfilled for over 2300 years, and are still true today. No caution about the words "ever" or "never" is actually required - they mean what they say! The original mainland Tyre is long gone, and I believe (since God says it) that it will indeed never be built again. If I am right about the location, even Lebanese law in fact prohibits it - the site is part of a legally protected Nature Reserve, and cannot be built on...

(For a more detailed account, refer to the article I wrote for the Testimony magazine: it was published in two parts, in the July and October 2007 editions, and included additional satellite photo evidence to support the point.)
Author's site name Christadelphian Armoury
Tyre rebuilt - Bible Discussion Forum - Page2 Tyre rebuilt - Bible Discussion Forum - Page 2

The issue seems to depend on definitions and locations. When evaluating a biblical claim, the bible must be allowed to define it's own terms. For ex......Forever sometimes means until the end of the age and so forth........
 

dust1n

Zindīq
The issue seems to depend on definitions and locations. When evaluating a biblical claim, the bible must be allowed to define it's own terms. For ex......Forever sometimes means until the end of the age and so forth........

All my sources I can find suggest that Tyre existed both as an island fortress and adjacent villages on the mainland. It shouldn't be too important though, because I can't find any real information to suggest that Tyre has moved. Wiki explains location such:


  • Ezekiel prophesied the permanent destruction of Tyre.(Ezekiel 26:3–14)
Tyre was an island fortress-city with mainland villages along the shore.[51] These mainland settlements were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II, but after a 13-year siege from 585–573 BC, the King of Tyre made peace with Nebuchadnezzar, going into exile and leaving the island city itself intact.[52] Alexander the Great used debris from the mainland to build a causeway to the island, entered the city, and plundered the city, sacking it without mercy.[53] Most of the residents were either killed in the battle or sold into slavery.[53][54] It was quickly repopulated by colonists and escaped citizens,[55] and later regained its independence.[56] Tyre did eventually enter a period of decline, being reduced to a small remnant. Echoing Ezekiel's words, historian Philip Myers writes in 1889:
The city never recovered from this blow. The site of the once brilliant maritime capital is now "bare as the top of a rock," a place where the few fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry.[57]
Older sources often refer to the locations as a "fishing village". However, it recovered and grew rapidly in the 20th century. The ruins of a part of ancient Tyre (a protected site) can still be seen on the southern half of the island[58] whereas modern Tyre occupies the northern half and also sprawls across Alexander's causeway and onto the mainland.[59] It is now the fourth largest city in Lebanon[60] with a population in excess of 100,000 people[61]

Bible prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If this is the case, than it doesn't really matter where on the island the people live. A lot of the ruins of Tyre were intentionally not built over for historical, cultural, and tourism reasons. But that doesn't mean anything divine is stopping people from building on those areas. It's out of respect. But it still holds, that the area, the same name, continue to prosper more than it has before, getting larger geographically and almost four times as populated than its previous peak.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Really... nobody? If Tyre is still here, wouldn't that by quite a screw up by the guy three religions claim to be infalliable? Does not Tyre's existence disprove the Abrahamic God's existence?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Really... nobody? If Tyre is still here, wouldn't that by quite a screw up by the guy three religions claim to be infalliable? Does not Tyre's existence disprove the Abrahamic God's existence?

God doesn't screw up. Old testament writers can screw up.

This Tyre thing would only be of interest to those fundamentalist that think the entie bible is infallible. Christian conservative fundamentalists and their dogma don't stand up to modern logical analysis. You sound smarter than them Dustin.

And why do intelligent people like to pick fights with these conservative biblical types.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Really... nobody? If Tyre is still here, wouldn't that by quite a screw up by the guy three religions claim to be infalliable? Does not Tyre's existence disprove the Abrahamic God's existence?
The only thing claimed to be infallable is the original revelation. A scribe making an incorrect translation or mispelling can change the whole meaning. The bible is believed to be over 95% accurate but that still leaves 5% that isn't accurate. I am not suggesting that has anything to with this but you seem to have an inaccurate view of infallability. The info I provided earlier seem to emphatically state that Tyre was a mainland city. Is it possible that maybe you are looking at a map from after the period in the bible. Regardless of the citys location the prediction of the destruction of tyre, a powerful and rich trade hub is hard to explain without God. There are over 2300 prophecys in the bible and the vast majority arent even contestable. Even if you found a detail wrong in one or two does that mean anything in the face of 2300 correct ones, plus the bible being the most tectually attested work by a large amount over any other document of ancient history. The bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.

Below is an account that explains the fullfillment of atleast the vast majority of the prophecy even if Tyre was an island.

Ezekiel referred to this event long before it happened. While also mentioning that God would send Nebuchadnezzar against the city (Ez 26:7), he spoke of the LORD’s promise to destroy Tyre, scrape her dust from her, make her smooth like the top of a rock and a good place for spreading out nets to dry (Ez 26:4, 14). Ezekiel also pointed out that Tyre’s world-wide trade would cease with this event (Ez 27 and 28). Illustrating Ezekiel’s description of Tyre’s destruction, Jidejian (1996:13–14) noted that over the past three centuries, Tyre has served as a “quarry” for the whole coast. Her stones may be found as far away as Beirut (40 mi north) and Akko (25 mi south in Israel).
The Biblical Cities Of Tyre And Sidon

Most of your bolded sriptures could easily be interpreted as the destruction of cultural Tyre not necessarily the physical location which in fact did happen even though there was no indication it would when the prophecy was made.
.
 
Last edited:

idea

Question Everything
It was destroyed... and then perhaps rebuilt...

(Old Testament | Ezekiel 27:Heading - 2)
CHAPTER 27
Ezekiel laments the fall of Tyrus and the loss of her riches and commerce.

1 THE word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
2 Now, thou son of man, take up a lamentation for Tyrus;
etc. etc.

(Old Testament | Ezekiel 29:18) Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled...


sounds like it will be destroyed again during the day of judgement...
(New Testament | Matthew 11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
 
Last edited:

dust1n

Zindīq
God doesn't screw up. Old testament writers can screw up.

This Tyre thing would only be of interest to those fundamentalist that think the entie bible is infallible. Christian conservative fundamentalists and their dogma don't stand up to modern logical analysis. You sound smarter than them Dustin.

And why do intelligent people like to pick fights with these conservative biblical types.

So, it is of your opinion then that the story of Tyre and God's wrath is made-up? What's the significance of a historical recounting of something that didnt' happen. Ezekial 25 doesn't seem be metaphoric in nature? Am I missing something as to what 'Tyre' is? Or was it just a typo in four different verses on behalf of OT writers?

If this is a translation issue, I'd love to know if something can be trasnlated in more than one way.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
The only thing claimed to be infallable is the original revelation. A scribe making an incorrect translation or mispelling can change the whole meaning. The bible is believed to be over 95% accurate but that still leaves 5% that isn't accurate. I am not suggesting that has anything to with this but you seem to have an inaccurate view of infallability.

Fair enough, others won't subscribe to that.

The info I provided earlier seem to emphatically state that Tyre was a mainland city. Is it possible that maybe you are looking at a map from after the period in the bible.

Right. I know that it was originally mainland and island. When the Babylonians seigied for thirteen years, a lot of the mainland was abandoned and the population swarmed the island. Alexander built the bridge to the island using the remnants of the mainland was attacked. Today, Tyre exists both on the island and on the mainland when Ezekial told the prophecy. The only argument you have is that the location of the city has 'moved', and the only source you have of this is another guy on another form who said, "I think the Tyre God destoryed is here," in which it looks like he choose a random uninhabited spot. HE gives no reason for this. Its pretty obvious that 'location' argument holds no merit, unless you have evidence, but generally you can tell the city is on the old city of Tyre, because there is a bunch of ruins on them. If those ruins aren't from Tyre, what are they from?

Regardless of the citys location the prediction of the destruction of tyre, a powerful and rich trade hub is hard to explain without God.

No, it's not. All it took was a couple of armies. That was easy to explain without God.

There are over 2300 prophecys in the bible and the vast majority arent even contestable.

And that has nothing to do with the topic.

Even if you found a detail wrong in one or two does that mean anything in the face of 2300 correct ones, plus the bible being the most tectually attested work by a large amount over any other document of ancient history. The bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.

Continuation of irrelevancy... And I don't think "the city exists after god said it would never exist" qualifies as a singular detail that doesn't mean anything, unless, of course, you like to pick or choose your bible.

Below is an account that explains the fullfillment of atleast the vast majority of the prophecy even if Tyre was an island.
Ezekiel referred to this event long before it happened. While also mentioning that God would send Nebuchadnezzar against the city (Ez 26:7), he spoke of the LORD’s promise to destroy Tyre, scrape her dust from her, make her smooth like the top of a rock and a good place for spreading out nets to dry (Ez 26:4, 14). Ezekiel also pointed out that Tyre’s world-wide trade would cease with this event (Ez 27 and 28). Illustrating Ezekiel’s description of Tyre’s destruction, Jidejian (1996:13–14) noted that over the past three centuries, Tyre has served as a “quarry” for the whole coast. Her stones may be found as far away as Beirut (40 mi north) and Akko (25 mi south in Israel).
The Biblical Cities Of Tyre And Sidon

LOL. Tyre's world-wide trade? Really, you don't see many Japanese or Indonesian artifacts from ancient Tyre. The quarry only supplied rocks for about 65 miles north and south by this information. How was that no built back. Again, the population is over triple, geographically there is more land, there is more buildings, there is more commerce, so in what since was Tyre destroyed indefinitely? And still, there are people who claim that Tyre does not exist.

Most of your bolded sriptures could easily be interpreted as the destruction of cultural Tyre not necessarily the physical location which in fact did happen even though there was no indication it would when the prophecy was made.
.

NIV Ez 26:19

19 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you, 20 then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place[c] in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord.”

That's a metaphor for destorying a culture to you? Why does no one else seem to hold this entirely fringe interpretation?


"Hey Steven! When I turn you into a desolate city, like any city no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you... I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, and never found again."
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So, it is of your opinion then that the story of Tyre and God's wrath is made-up? What's the significance of a historical recounting of something that didnt' happen. Ezekial 25 doesn't seem be metaphoric in nature? Am I missing something as to what 'Tyre' is? Or was it just a typo in four different verses on behalf of OT writers?

If this is a translation issue, I'd love to know if something can be trasnlated in more than one way.

My point was not about Tyre at all but a blanket comment about the Old Testament. You can spend the rest of your life finding flaws in the old testament and show where the writers statements about God and God's alleged intentions do not square with modern logical analysis.

The testament is thousands of years old and many parts did not age well and are almost embarassing now. The Old Testament today has a vastly overrated importance because at some point Christianity became the overwhelming religion of the Western world and Jesus was born a Jew and respected Jewish scriptures. If Jesus would have happened to be born into a different ethnic group then the non-Jewish world would be uninterested in the old testament.

I base my spiritual beliefs and opinions on the intelligent teachings of Jesus (less the conservative dogma) and the many sages, teachers, swamis that I have found great respect for in various traditions.

Your thread is basically .....ha ha biblical fundamentalists try explaining this one.......You have probably heard enough smug superior, know-it-all attitude christian fundamentalists in your life that you now have an ax to grind. But please consider there may positive spiritual things to learn outside of that tradition.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Fair enough, others won't subscribe to that.
You aren't really familiar with christianity are you? This is the most universally accepted view of infallability. Even the famous Chocago statement of faith not long ago stated it emphatically. This statement is the official protestant position and the catholics don't even believe in the suffeciency of scripture. That's 90% of Christianity.



Right. I know that it was originally mainland and island. When the Babylonians seigied for thirteen years, a lot of the mainland was abandoned and the population swarmed the island. Alexander built the bridge to the island using the remnants of the mainland was attacked. Today, Tyre exists both on the island and on the mainland when Ezekial told the prophecy. The only argument you have is that the location of the city has 'moved', and the only source you have of this is another guy on another form who said, "I think the Tyre God destoryed is here," in which it looks like he choose a random uninhabited spot. HE gives no reason for this. Its pretty obvious that 'location' argument holds no merit, unless you have evidence, but generally you can tell the city is on the old city of Tyre, because there is a bunch of ruins on them. If those ruins aren't from Tyre, what are they from?
I can not speak for his conclusions.


No, it's not. All it took was a couple of armies. That was easy to explain without God.
What about the actual dates and circumastances? You are cherry picking to make a point.



And that has nothing to do with the topic.
Ok


Continuation of irrelevancy... And I don't think "the city exists after god said it would never exist" qualifies as a singular detail that doesn't mean anything, unless, of course, you like to pick or choose your bible.
The bible makes many statements where a literal interpretation is not what was intended. It is a well know issue.



LOL. Tyre's world-wide trade? Really, you don't see many Japanese or Indonesian artifacts from ancient Tyre. The quarry only supplied rocks for about 65 miles north and south by this information. How was that no built back. Again, the population is over triple, geographically there is more land, there is more buildings, there is more commerce, so in what since was Tyre destroyed indefinitely? And still, there are people who claim that Tyre does not exist.
I might have to grant you the world wide point. It is more accurate to say it was a major extremely important and powerful trade center. The geography did not offend God and cause a judgement. The culture and people did so that may very well be what was destroyed permenently. This is a very reasonable interpretation but I am not saying it is correct. If you really want an answer to your legitimate questions I am sure there are a hundred sites that have competent scholars who will thuroghly cover it.



NIV Ez 26:19

19 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you, 20 then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place[c] in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord.”

That's a metaphor for destorying a culture to you? Why does no one else seem to hold this entirely fringe interpretation?
I don't know who holds it and I never said I did I said it is consistent with some interpretations. I don't see that interpretation to be inconsistent with the actual facts. There is another prophecy that concerned the destruction of Babylon. It has never been meaningfully inhabited since. I would suggest you compare the language of the two prophecies it may be markedly different. If it is the same it would add to your case.

"Hey Steven! When I turn you into a desolate city, like any city no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you... I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, and never found again."
Who or what are you talking about and why? I didn't see the point.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
My point was not about Tyre at all but a blanket comment about the Old Testament. You can spend the rest of your life finding flaws in the old testament and show where the writers statements about God and God's alleged intentions do not square with modern logical analysis.

But the whole Tyre issue isn't being subjugated to 'modern logical analysis'. It's being subject to logical analysis that the Greeks formed long before the Bible. It isn't a modern idea that ideas can be contradictory.

The testament is thousands of years old and many parts did not age well and are almost embarassing now. The Old Testament today has a vastly overrated importance because at some point Christianity became the overwhelming religion of the Western world and Jesus was born a Jew and respected Jewish scriptures.

But it is attributed the same divine truth as the NT, by Christians.

If Jesus would have happened to be born into a different ethnic group then the non-Jewish world would be uninterested in the old testament.

But he wasn't...

I base my spiritual beliefs and opinions on the intelligent teachings of Jesus (less the conservative dogma) and the many sages, teachers, swamis that I have found great respect for in various traditions.

Your thread is basically .....ha ha biblical fundamentalists try explaining this one.......You have probably heard enough smug superior, know-it-all attitude christian fundamentalists in your life that you now have an ax to grind. But please consider there may positive spiritual things to learn outside of that tradition.

That would be a bit presumptious. If the story is not a 'historical account' but a giant metaphor, than someone would be able to provide some evidence for such. But there is none. Otherwise, the Bible claims that God laid waste to Tyre and said, in his all-knowing state, that it would never be rebuilt. It, however, is rebuilt (even if it was away from the original site, as the unbacked claim does). Believing in both things simuletaneously would be a contradiction. My question is, legitimately, how you reconcile this contradiction, because the only info I can find online seems to be a dismisal of the fact the Tyre even exists. If you know of another biblical study that suggests something different, I'd be happy to review.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
You aren't really familiar with christianity are you? This is the most universally accepted view of infallability. Even the famous Chocago statement of faith not long ago stated it emphatically. This statement is the official protestant position and the catholics don't even believe in the suffeciency of scripture. That's 90% of Christianity.

Besides growing up around my entire life, willfully joining and leaving the church, reading the Bible, always living in the Bible Belt, dialect with hundreds of Christians, I'd say no, I'm not familiar with Christianity. I think I might be getting it confused with another religion...

I will hold onto your notion that the Bible is not infalliable, but that it is a poorly recorded collection of infalliable revelations, which could never be confirmed. My experiences have suggested most Christians I come in contact with do not think twice about the view in the first place. But that's besides the point. I'm accepting what you are saying. So, are you suggesting that the story of Tyre is an incorrect translation or misunderstanding amongst translation? Provide evidence as such... If it is correct, than God has performed a contradiction by stating that Tyre would never exist, and allowing it to exist.

I can not speak for his conclusions.

I wouldn't either. Cause all he did was choose an uninhabited area around modern-day Tyre where there is no buildings or even ruins... but with no reasoning as to why, which leaves me to believe it's BS, and he selected under his obvious bias.


What about the actual dates and circumastances? You are cherry picking to make a point.

No I'm not. You are suggesting Tyre couldn't have fallen without God's divine intervention. That makes no sense. How many city's have fallen without God's divine intervention? So why would it be necessary for a city with walls and thirty thousand people tops to be destoryed by divine intervention. Are you asking me why Ezekial was able to predict the situation? I don't know, it could have been a guess, and intelligent understanding of the politics at the time, or a number of things? But what does that matter if the most important parts of the prophesy are incorrect.

I have no idea how admitting that a city could fall without god isn't cherry picking. Are you asking about the dates in which it was predicted? I can look more up on that if that is what you are wanting to discuss, but I could imagine there is a hundred possible non-godly reasons why the prophesy is even there... for, like, example... it was added... after the fact? Assuming that, I would imagine, would be much safer than assuming divine intervention.



Ok


The bible makes many statements where a literal interpretation is not what was intended. It is a well know issue.

Yeah, and this isn't one of those statements that is generally contended. If it is not a literal account of history, than what is the possibility of meanings it could be? If it has a different intention, than we should be able to find one before our modern translations... now shouldn't we? Otherwise, what can you draw from the Chapter that anything in that section is suppose to read other than literal.



I might have to grant you the world wide point. It is more accurate to say it was a major extremely important and powerful trade center. The geography did not offend God and cause a judgement. The culture and people did so that may very well be what was destroyed permenently. This is a very reasonable interpretation but I am not saying it is correct. If you really want an answer to your legitimate questions I am sure there are a hundred sites that have competent scholars who will thuroghly cover it.

I don't know who holds it and I never said I did I said it is consistent with some interpretations. I don't see that interpretation to be inconsistent with the actual facts. There is another prophecy that concerned the destruction of Babylon. It has never been meaningfully inhabited since. I would suggest you compare the language of the two prophecies it may be markedly different. If it is the same it would add to your case.

Who or what are you talking about and why? I didn't see the point.

Well, I suppose I could do the research for ya at some point time and look up all the biblical scholars who hold your view point and has some evidence that Ezekial was meant to read as a parable, allegory, metaphor, etc. etc.. If you didnt' see the point in the last time, I was just making fun of the lines, because those aren't words that you would say directly to people as a metaphor before you destory them. It sounds like he was intent on destorying them. For example, would would it even mean if God was intending to say that he was going to destory the people and culture, and leave it uninhabited, like any other uninhabited city. Not any other uninhabited city is the result of the death of the people and the culture. Sometimes populations move from citys into different areas and bring their cultures. So if God is turning Tyre into an empty city like any other empty city, how could he be referring to the people and the culture, instead of the physical city? All abandoned city's have the same physical attributes. They don't all imply that the culture and people who were once there are gone. It would make sense that God was referring to a physical description of the death, not the second, because the second doesn't hold true to what god just said about the status of all uninhabited cities.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Otherwise, the Bible claims that God laid waste to Tyre and said, in his all-knowing state, that it would never be rebuilt.

All we know is that the old testament writers said that God said that it would never be rebuilt. That is not the same as God said. Do you see the difference?

The human in the middle is fallable.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
All we know is that the old testament writers said that God said that it would never be rebuilt. That is not the same as God said. Do you see the difference?

The human in the middle is fallable.

The difference... do I see it? I wonder how you do... I wonder how you know God's intentions in his revelations and these human misinterperations you speak of. Do you know what God said? Do I see the difference? Between what God said to you and what the Old Testament writers said?... no. You do though. Explain to me this difference and then back it up.

Or simplied further... please, instruct me to the correct interpretation of the bible. What criteria am I missing out on that never seems to be spoken?
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
Just curious, but wouldn't this particular topic be just as pertinent to Jews and Muslism as it would be Christians?
Probably not as important to Muslims (if important at all), since the Bible is considered to be imperfectly preserved in Islam, being altered by accident and occasionally deliberately.

Judaism, I have no idea, but I expect an interesting read as usual if any of our Jewish members answer.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Probably not as important to Muslims (if important at all), since the Bible is considered to be imperfectly preserved in Islam, being altered by accident and occasionally deliberately.

Thanks!

Judaism, I have no idea, but I expect an interesting read as usual if any of our Jewish members answer.
I'm curious as to whether or not it matters it to be true, but then by which means could you measure any of the truth and meaning present in text if it matters not if one circumstance is true?
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
I'm curious as to whether or not it matters it to be true, but then by which means could you measure any of the truth and meaning present in text if it matters not if one circumstance is true?

I suppose there are probably different answers that could apply such as metaphors and so on, but the Bible doesn't have any spiritual significance to me.

However, does a text have to be literal to be true? I don't think it does have to be. One can learn spiritual truths from a fable.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Besides growing up around my entire life, willfully joining and leaving the church, reading the Bible, always living in the Bible Belt, dialect with hundreds of Christians, I'd say no, I'm not familiar with Christianity. I think I might be getting it confused with another religion...
I made my evaluation based on your complete lack of knowledge of the concept of infallability which is well know. If it is inaacurate I withdraw the general nature of my statement.

I will hold onto your notion that the Bible is not infalliable, but that it is a poorly recorded collection of infalliable revelations, which could never be confirmed. My experiences have suggested most Christians I come in contact with do not think twice about the view in the first place. But that's besides the point. I'm accepting what you are saying. So, are you suggesting that the story of Tyre is an incorrect translation or misunderstanding amongst translation? Provide evidence as such... If it is correct, than God has performed a contradiction by stating that Tyre would never exist, and allowing it to exist.
I said specifically that the bible is beleived to be approx 95% accurate. That means most of it can be confirmed if the nature of the claim is something that can be verified at all. No I don't know about the Tyre prophecy specifically. My statement was to correct your idea of infallability. I will get to your last points in a bit.

I wouldn't either. Cause all he did was choose an uninhabited area around modern-day Tyre where there is no buildings or even ruins... but with no reasoning as to why, which leaves me to believe it's BS, and he selected under his obvious bias.
I have no opinion but can you prove your what you believe to be true.




No I'm not. You are suggesting Tyre couldn't have fallen without God's divine intervention. That makes no sense. How many city's have fallen without God's divine intervention? So why would it be necessary for a city with walls and thirty thousand people tops to be destoryed by divine intervention. Are you asking me why Ezekial was able to predict the situation? I don't know, it could have been a guess, and intelligent understanding of the politics at the time, or a number of things? But what does that matter if the most important parts of the prophesy are incorrect.
Tyre could have fallen for any reason that has nothing to do with what I said. The fact that the dates and details being predicted and found to be accurate is suggestive of divine knowledge with exception of your contention which we are discussing. I never said because Tyre was destroyed that means God did it. Many times God just predicts what someone else will do.
I have no idea how admitting that a city could fall without god isn't cherry picking. Are you asking about the dates in which it was predicted? I can look more up on that if that is what you are wanting to discuss, but I could imagine there is a hundred possible non-godly reasons why the prophesy is even there... for, like, example... it was added... after the fact? Assuming that, I would imagine, would be much safer than assuming divine intervention.
You ignored the dates and the details of the prophecy and selected something that I hadn't even claimed to make your point is where cherry picking comes from. Yes if you could prove that it was written later than the event that is a valid argument against the revelations supernatural explanation. Many professionals more qualified than both of us over the years have combed through this prophecy and if any serious issue about when it was written exists I have never heard of it atleast.


Yeah, and this isn't one of those statements that is generally contended. If it is not a literal account of history, than what is the possibility of meanings it could be? If it has a different intention, than we should be able to find one before our modern translations... now shouldn't we? Otherwise, what can you draw from the Chapter that anything in that section is suppose to read other than literal.
I found atleast one very well written explanation that disagrees with you. But even if your point of contention is correct there is still some 90% of the prophecy left to contend with as well as thousands of others.





Well, I suppose I could do the research for ya at some point time and look up all the biblical scholars who hold your view point and has some evidence that Ezekial was meant to read as a parable, allegory, metaphor, etc. etc.. If you didnt' see the point in the last time, I was just making fun of the lines, because those aren't words that you would say directly to people as a metaphor before you destory them. It sounds like he was intent on destorying them. For example, would would it even mean if God was intending to say that he was going to destory the people and culture, and leave it uninhabited, like any other uninhabited city. Not any other uninhabited city is the result of the death of the people and the culture. Sometimes populations move from citys into different areas and bring their cultures. So if God is turning Tyre into an empty city like any other empty city, how could he be referring to the people and the culture, instead of the physical city? All abandoned city's have the same physical attributes. They don't all imply that the culture and people who were once there are gone. It would make sense that God was referring to a physical description of the death, not the second, because the second doesn't hold true to what god just said about the status of all uninhabited cities.
Done

The below is taken from a site which has an exhaustive explanation of the prophecy and agrees with my assertion. That doesn't prove anything but it definately suggests you might be wrong.


Ramesses speaks of the Sherden and Washesh being "made non-existent" but then goes on to say that they were captured. Is this contradictory? Of course not. The "made non-existent" part is manifestly "trash talk". In the Victory Stele of Merneptah, we also see trash talk like, "Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent..."
Clearly literal descriptions (conquered, seized) are mixed with clearly metaphorical ones (made non-existent), and that is what I now argue we have here. The threat to be "built no more" is trash talk like that of Ramesses speaking of his non-existent, captured people. In fact, Ezekiel goes on a skein of what we now regard as "trash talk" in the next several verses:
15 Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee? 16 Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee. 17 And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it! 18 Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure. 19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; 20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; 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.
Islands shaking and trembling at the sound of a fall, the princes descending from their thrones and sitting in dust (signifying actually the fear of other nations over Tyre's conquest); the figures of desolation and of water flowing over, and descent into a dungeon -- all of these bespeak ancient "trash talk" and threats like that of turning Edom's streams into pitch (Is. 34:9). Therefore there is no need for my previous arguments with respect to the identities of the ancient and modern cities, or never "finding" the city again. Ezekiel does not predict a permanent destruction but uses the ancient metaphors of war to describe the seriousness of Tyre's predicament.
Ezekiel's Tyre Prophecy Defended
Bolding by me
The non-allowance for normal language usage of the time is a common complaint of the theological scholars against
the less educated who none the less are still willing to make incorrect claims and declare victory before their
mistakes/claims can be fully investigated.
I strongly suggest you read the entire scholarly article. It is very well written and informative.
 
Last edited:
Top