-
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?
- Thread starter dust1n
- Start date
Me Myself
Back to my username
Then one must judge each word of the bible by itself, without pretending it is the unaltered word of God.
Pertinent is this quote: "Of the original Tyre known to Solomon and the prophets of Israel, not a vestige remains except in its rock-cut sepulchres on the mountain sides, and in foundation walls.. Even the island, which Alexander the Great, in his siege of the city, converted into a cape by filling up the water between it and the mainland, contains no distinguishable relics of an earlier period than that of the Crusades. The modern town, all of which is comparatively new, occupies the northern half of what was once the island, while nearly all the remainder of the surface is covered with undistinguishable ruins." (Lands of the Bible, 1880 p.529)
In 332 BCE, Alexander the Great used the debris from the mainland portion of the demolished city of Tyre to fill in the sea so he could attack the island city.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
As this issue seems to depend on the nature of the destruction of Tyre then I wil submit the following.
5. Phoenician Tyre would never again be found
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:21
Written: Between 587-586 BC
In Ezekiel 26:21, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would be brought to an end and would never again be found. When Alexander the Great destroyed the city in 332 BC, he brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The Empire was never revived or "found" again. As for the city itself, it has been torn down and built upon by a succession of foreign powers. Today, finding artifacts from the original Phoenician Tyre is difficult. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition: "The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town." - Copyright © George Konig, Ray Konig, 100Prophecies.org
Ezekiel 26:21:
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."
6. Phoenician Tyre would never be rebuilt
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:14
Written: Between 587-586 BC
In Ezekiel 26:14, the prophet says the Phoenician city of Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt. This was fulfilled when Alexander the Great conquered Tyre in 332 BC. His conquest brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The empire never recovered from the attack. And so, it could never rebuild Tyre. Other nations and empires have built and rebuilt cities on or near the original Phoenician site. - Copyright © George Konig, Ray Konig, 100Prophecies.org
Ezekiel 26:14:
I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.
Notes: The above examples of Bible prophecies fulfilled by the Phoenician city-state of Tyre are from the second edition of 100 Prophecies and are copyrighted by the authors, George Konig, Ray Konig, and 100prophecies.org. Click here to learn more about the new, expanded and revised third edition of the 100 Prophecies book.
Ezekiel's Tyre Prophecy Defended
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Did you grab your toys and go home? I was looking forward to a reply.
dust1n
Zindīq
Sorry about that.
When, anywhere, in the relevant passages does it talk about the destruction of the Phoenicians, the culture, or the empire? He is talking specifically about Tyrus. And that again ignores the fact that GOD said that the Babylonians would destroy Tyre, not the Romans.
And even then, Alexander did not destroy Phoenicia:
"
Cyrus the Great conquered Phoenicia in 539 BC. The Persians divided Phoenicia into four vassal kingdoms: Sidon, Tyre, Arwad, and Byblos. They prospered, furnishing fleets for the Persian kings. Phoenician influence declined after this. It is likely that much of the Phoenician population migrated to Carthage and other colonies following the Persian conquest. In 350 or 345 BC a rebellion in Sidon led by Tennes was crushed by Artaxerxes III. Its destruction was described by Diodorus Siculus.
Alexander the Great took Tyre in 332 BC after the Siege of Tyre. Alexander was exceptionally harsh to Tyre, executing 2,000 of the leading citizens, but he maintained the king in power. He gained control of the other cities peacefully: the ruler of Aradus submitted; the king of Sidon was overthrown. The rise of Hellenistic Greece gradually ousted the remnants of Phoenicia's former dominance over the Eastern Mediterranean trade routes. Phoenician culture disappeared entirely in the motherland. Carthage continued to flourish in North Africa. It oversaw the mining of iron and precious metals from Iberia, and used its considerable naval power and mercenary armies to protect commercial interests. Rome finally destroyed it in 146 BC, at the end of the Punic Wars.
Following Alexander, the Phoenician homeland was controlled by a succession of Hellenistic rulers: Laomedon (323 BC), Ptolemy I (320), Antigonus II (315), Demetrius (301), and Seleucus (296). Between 286 and 197 BC, Phoenicia (except for Aradus) fell to the Ptolemies of Egypt, who installed the high priests of Astarte as vassal rulers in Sidon (Eshmunazar I, Tabnit, Eshmunazar II).
In 197 BC, Phoenicia along with Syria reverted to the Seleucids. The region became increasingly Hellenized, although Tyre became autonomous in 126 BC, followed by Sidon in 111. Syria, including Phoenicia, were seized by king Tigranes the Great of Armenia from 82 until 69 BC, when he was defeated by Lucullus. In 65 BC Pompey finally incorporated the territory as part of the Roman province of Syria."
Phoenicia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When, anywhere, in the relevant passages does it talk about the destruction of the Phoenicians, the culture, or the empire? He is talking specifically about Tyrus. And that again ignores the fact that GOD said that the Babylonians would destroy Tyre, not the Romans.
And even then, Alexander did not destroy Phoenicia:
"
Cyrus the Great conquered Phoenicia in 539 BC. The Persians divided Phoenicia into four vassal kingdoms: Sidon, Tyre, Arwad, and Byblos. They prospered, furnishing fleets for the Persian kings. Phoenician influence declined after this. It is likely that much of the Phoenician population migrated to Carthage and other colonies following the Persian conquest. In 350 or 345 BC a rebellion in Sidon led by Tennes was crushed by Artaxerxes III. Its destruction was described by Diodorus Siculus.
Alexander the Great took Tyre in 332 BC after the Siege of Tyre. Alexander was exceptionally harsh to Tyre, executing 2,000 of the leading citizens, but he maintained the king in power. He gained control of the other cities peacefully: the ruler of Aradus submitted; the king of Sidon was overthrown. The rise of Hellenistic Greece gradually ousted the remnants of Phoenicia's former dominance over the Eastern Mediterranean trade routes. Phoenician culture disappeared entirely in the motherland. Carthage continued to flourish in North Africa. It oversaw the mining of iron and precious metals from Iberia, and used its considerable naval power and mercenary armies to protect commercial interests. Rome finally destroyed it in 146 BC, at the end of the Punic Wars.
Following Alexander, the Phoenician homeland was controlled by a succession of Hellenistic rulers: Laomedon (323 BC), Ptolemy I (320), Antigonus II (315), Demetrius (301), and Seleucus (296). Between 286 and 197 BC, Phoenicia (except for Aradus) fell to the Ptolemies of Egypt, who installed the high priests of Astarte as vassal rulers in Sidon (Eshmunazar I, Tabnit, Eshmunazar II).
In 197 BC, Phoenicia along with Syria reverted to the Seleucids. The region became increasingly Hellenized, although Tyre became autonomous in 126 BC, followed by Sidon in 111. Syria, including Phoenicia, were seized by king Tigranes the Great of Armenia from 82 until 69 BC, when he was defeated by Lucullus. In 65 BC Pompey finally incorporated the territory as part of the Roman province of Syria."
Phoenicia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
:bow:
dust1n
Zindīq
Seems like God's expectations fell short of Nebachadnezzer.
dust1n
Zindīq
Well, not only is this not true, as all of my sources indicate, but your source is from 1880.
dust1n
Zindīq
LOL, you already used that joke on the first page.
Uh uh. That was in my frubal message to you.
Just wound up posting it because I thought other people should know too.
dust1n
Zindīq
OH haha, you are right! Sorry, me brain fried last night, hurt bad pain qualia. :sad:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Your interpretation of what God expected of Nebachadnezzer is what fell short. There is a reason God used "they" over and over in this prophecy.
This oracle clearly offers two pairings: the I/they of Adonai YHWH the sovereign, leading the nations; the he/personified-possession army of Nebuchadnezzar, who though still under Adonai YHWH's sovereign control, is given credit for being able to "will" do things on his own, with his army under him and subsumed under his identity. The oracle therefore indicates that Nebuchadnezzar will do specific actions, and that "nations" will perform certain actions. Nebuchadnezzar brings one of those nations, but the language tells us that the actions of 3-5 and 12-14 may be performed by any nations God brings against Tyre and need not be actions of Nebuchadnezzar.
Verses 3-5 and 12-14 are "I/they" verses -- and form a minor chiastic structure around the central core of verses describing Nebuchadnezzar's actions alone. The linguistic pattern of this passage indicates that the "they" of v. 12 are the nations of v. 4. Not only is the pronoun ("they") the same, but in addition, only in these verses is Adonai YHWH the sole leader, and two unique actions -- net spreading, scraping -- are the same as those ascribed to the nations in 3-5.
Slaying of the enemy is ascribed throughout the oracle, as would be expected of a common element of war. Bottom line: "they" in v. 12 does not refer to Nebuchadnezzar and his army; they, as one of the "nations" brought by Adonai YHWH, would have qualified to fulfill those passages, but so could any other nation brought against Tyre in its history following.
Ezekiel's Tyre Prophecy Defended
I would probably save us time if you would please read the explenation at this site to see if there is a very obvious explenation for an issue before it is sited as proof for anything.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Please see the above post for an explenation of this issue. The site provided has a very exhaustive analysis of this prophecy. Another can be found here: Apologetics Press - Tyre in Prophecy
The Truth: Fulfilled Prophecy: Tyre
dust1n
Zindīq
Except this never happened...
26
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.
It also again suggesting that God was ****** off enough at Tyrus to condemn to complete and utter destruction with no return ever (even though it returned), that he waited over 3 centuries to kill the great-great-great-great-great grandchildren of the people who, in fact, prevented the 'he' (as in Nebuchadrezzar) from doing verse 10-11 says that 'he' will do.
The whole 'pronoun' argument seems to indicate that pronoun usage wasn't very strict, or even nonsensical. The 'they' could easily be referring to the 'horses' as much as it could be the 'nations.' In fact, it's grammatically incorrect to use a pronoun for a noun that was mentioned about 10 lines ago. It makes more sense that the 'they' is referring to the horses of Nebuchadrezzar.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Most Christians do not regard each single word as Holy and perfect, only the original revelation. This is consistent with the Chicago statement of faith. I regard the Bible as containing holy teaching and revelation and most scholars suggest it does indeed contain virtually all the original revelation within the textual tradition but approx 5% of additional information has been added. Since the invention of computers at the very least the modern bible can be compared with the oldest text. It is remarkably though not perfectly reliable. Most imperfections are known and footnoted.