02 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnas'A proof was presented', but I refuted your 'proof' by showing that your 'prophecy' was actually a conditional promise which God did not fulfill because Israel did not meet the conditions set out by God.
Satan will be glad when you die. He likes company.
A proof was presented, you denied the word of the bible. You lost.
Your 'proof' was inadequate and has been soundly refuted.
The scientific equivalent of what you have done is to prove that water is flammable by lighting a can of petrolium. It's quite silly really.😛
Why do you now resort to threats of damnation instead of using reason?
02 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957Nice try, but you should have read some verses before and after it.
Joel 3:16 "A stranger shall never again enter Jerusalem."
Important law of hermeneutics: Never read just one verse. You'll almost inevitably take the verse out of context and misinterpret it.
By the way, in my Bible that phrase comes from Joel 3:17. Here it is in it's context:
12" Let the nations be wakened, and come up to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; For there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations.
... 15 The sun and moon will grow dark, And the stars will diminish their brightness. 16 The LORD also will roar from Zion, And utter His voice from Jerusalem; The heavens and earth will shake; But the LORD will be a shelter for His people, And the strength of the children of Israel. 17" So you shall know that I am the LORD your God,Dwelling in Zion My holy mountain. Then Jerusalem shall be holy, And no aliens shall ever pass through her again." (Joel 3:12-17 NKJV)
Joel 3:12 speaks of Jesus sitting down to judge the nations, which will only happen after His second coming. Verse 16 says, 'The LORD also will roar from Zion,' and verse 17 begins with, 'So you shall know that I am the LORD your God,Dwelling in Zion My holy mountain,' both of which will only be true in the millenial kingdom (thousand year rule of Christ on earth after His second coming).
So the statement that 'Jerusalem shall be holy, And no aliens shall ever pass through her again' refers to a time yet to come, after Christ's return. I also believe 'alien' here refers to anyone who does not belong to Christ.
Interesting try though.
02 Aug 08
Originally posted by bbarrI can see by your inadequate sources why you are ignorant of the prophecies fulfillment, but I'll humor you.
No, the prophecy was not fulfilled. If you're interested in confirming your error, please refer to the following:
Tyre in the Early Persian Period (539-486 B.C.E.)
H. Jacob Katzenstein
The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Winter, 1979), pp. 23-34
I have other peer-reviewed sources.
Why don't we start with you giving us the actual Scripture reference of the prophecy you refer to. Is it Ezekiel 26:3-14 that you refer to?
02 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Henry23Ezekiel 26:7-11. Never happened, the prophesy is false. If you think the source I provided above is inadequate, then give me evidence for it from a peer-reviewed archaeological source. In the absence of such evidence, I see no reason to take you or your claims seriously.
I can see by your inadequate sources why you are ignorant of the prophecies fulfillment, but I'll humor you.
Why don't we start with you giving us the actual Scripture reference of the prophecy you refer to. Is it Ezekiel 26:3-14 that you refer to?
02 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrBut Nebuchadnezzar's army did assail Tyre, and the description in Ezekiel 26 is an apt description of a thirteen year siege. Don't overlook the fact that in the Lord's prophecy concerning the ultimate destruction of Tyre, Nebuchadnezzar was only the opening salvo. The full prophecy included many more nations after Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon:
Ezekiel 26:7-11. Never happened, the prophesy is false. If you think the source I provided above is inadequate, then give me evidence for it from a peer-reviewed archaeological source. In the absence of such evidence, I see no reason to take you or your claims seriously.
"Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken" (Ezekiel 26:3).
Tyre eventually fell after successive attempts to take the city. Alexander the Great conquered it in 332 B.C. and brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. And the walls were destroyed in 1124 A.D. by the Crusaders while the city was being held by Moslems.
All in all, an accurate foretelling.
02 Aug 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe sections I cite are not accurate and never will be accurate. They are simply false; they never happened, and no hermeneutical gymnastics will solve the problem. N's forces did not "trample the streets" of Tyre, nor "put [it's] people to the sword", nor destroy Tyre's might pillars and send them crashing to the ground. This prophecy was not borne out. Yes, Tyre eventually fell to Alexander, but it continued to exist afterwards, and was sacked a few more times, including in 1291. It is even explicit in Ezekiel 30 that N received "no return for the labor he expended on Tyre." So, God gives N. the land of Egypt (another claim that is in fact false; N. never conquered Egypt).
But Nebuchadnezzar's army did assail Tyre, and the description in Ezekiel 26 is an apt description of a thirteen year siege. Don't overlook the fact that in the Lord's prophecy concerning the ultimate destruction of Tyre, Nebuchadnezzar was only the opening salvo. The full prophecy included many more nations after Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon:
"Therefor ...[text shortened]... saders while the city was held by Moslems. So, all in all, it's an accurate foretelling.
02 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Henry23That is always going to be your "trump card" that no one understands scripture like you do. When you start this millenial rule and thousand year reign nonsense, you are the one taking Joel out of context. If we follow your line of logic, the prophet Joel had absolutely nothing to say to the people of his time. Was he or was he not addressing the concerns of his time?
Nice try, but you should have read some verses before and after it.
Important law of hermeneutics: Never read just one verse. You'll almost inevitably take the verse out of context and misinterpret it.
By the way, in my Bible that phrase comes from Joel 3:17. Here it is in it's context:
12" Let the nations be wakened, and come up to the Valley of Je n' here refers to anyone who does not belong to Christ.
Interesting try though.
02 Aug 08
Originally posted by bbarrN. never conquered Egypt
The sections I cite are not accurate and never will be accurate. They are simply false; they never happened, and no hermeneutical gymnastics will solve the problem. N's forces did not "trample the streets" of Tyre, nor "put [it's] people to the sword", nor destroy Tyre's might pillars and send them crashing to the ground. This prophecy was not borne out. Ye ...[text shortened]... s N. the land of Egypt (another claim that is in fact false; N. never conquered Egypt).
What are your sources?
03 Aug 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasGive me a break. There is no mention I can find in Herodotus of N. ever conquering Egypt subsequent to his siege of Tyre, and yet we have a host of information concerning Cambyses defeat of Egypt about forty years after N.'s death. Don't you think that if N. had laid waste to Egypt as foretold in Ezekiel 30:10, that there would be some historical record of it? Yet, after N.'s thirteen year siege of Tyre the ruler of Egypt was Amasis, who (after a rough start with his predecessor) reigned prosperously until a year before the Persian conquest.
[b]N. never conquered Egypt
What are your sources?[/b]
Here is one source, there are others from reputable archaeological an egyptological journals.
The Earliest Dated Monument of Amasis and the End of the Reign of Apries
Anthony Leahy
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 74, (1988), pp. 183-199
03 Aug 08
4 edits
Originally posted by bbarrThe sections I cite are not accurate and never will be accurate. They are simply false; they never happened, and no hermeneutical gymnastics will solve the problem.
The sections I cite are not accurate and never will be accurate. They are simply false; they never happened, and no hermeneutical gymnastics will solve the problem. N's forces did not "trample the streets" of Tyre, nor "put [it's] people to the sword", nor destroy Tyre's might pillars and send them crashing to the ground. This prophecy was not borne out. Ye s N. the land of Egypt (another claim that is in fact false; N. never conquered Egypt).
I'm not employing hermeneutical gymnastics to solve the problem here, because there isn't a problem. As I pointed out, in verse 3 the prophecy clearly states that many nations would be involved in the eventual destruction of Tyre. By implication, that would mean that Nebbie wouldn't finish the job as described from verse 12 on.
N's forces did not "trample the streets" of Tyre, nor "put [it's] people to the sword", nor destroy Tyre's might pillars and send them crashing to the ground.
If your main contention is with verse 11, let's have a closer look at it. Here's how Young's Literal Translation reads:
"With hoofs of his horses he treadeth all thine out-places, thy people by sword he doth slay, and the pillars of thy strength to the earth come down."
First off, it's reasonable to assume that Nebbie and his army put many of Tyre's citizens to the sword, given that the siege lasted at least thirteen years. Outside of that, the word "out-places" above is a more accurate translation of platus than "streets" (platus literally means, "spread out flat (plot), i.e. broad, wide," Strongs #4116). A thirteen year siege undoubtedly would have left Tyre's "out-places", i.e., its fields, surrounding real estate, and, yes, perhaps even the streets leading to and through the city - trampled.
Also, the term "pillars" above is a somewhat flawed translation as well; "foundation" is more accurate. Hupostasis literally means, "a foundation; a setting under (support), i.e. (figuratively) concretely, essence, or abstractly, assurance (objectively or subjectively)." Therefore, the more literally correct statement would look like this: "the foundation of thy strength to the earth come down." Obviously, this specific passage need not refer to literal "pillars" or "towers" or anything of the sort.
More likely this passage refers to the general chastisement or humbling of the Phoenician empire existing at that time (the foundation of their strength brought low - though unconquered).
_________
EDIT: The sources I've found state that "Nebuchadnezzar took all Palestine and Syria and the cities on the seacoast, including Tyre, which fell after a siege of 13 years (573 B.C.)" (E. A. Wallis Budge, Babylonian Life And History, p. 50). The people, though, remained unconquered because they fled to a rocky island half a mile offshore. The walls on the landward side of the island were 150 feet high. "The channel between Tyre and the mainland was over twenty feet deep, and frequently lashed by violent south-west winds. Their fortifications, they believed, would resist the strongest battering-ram yet devised. The city-walls stood sheer above the sea: how could any army without ships scale them? Shore based artillery was useless at such a range." (Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, p. 248).
This is where Alexander enters the equation. He built a mole to get his troops from the mainland to the island. The mole is said to have been at least 200 feet wide. It was constructed from stones and timber from the old city of Tyre on the mainland. In fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, the very foundation stones, timbers and dust of the city was cast "in the midst of the water" (Ezek. 26:12). "The great city over which Hiram had once held sway was now utterly destroyed. Her king, Azimilik, and various other notables, including envoys from Carthage, had taken refuge in the temple of Melkart, and Alexander spared their lives. The remaining survivors, some 30,000 in number, he sold into slavery. Two thousand men of military age were crucified. Then Alexander went up into the temple, ripped the golden cords from the image of the god (now to be renamed, by decree, Apollo Philalexander), and made his long-delayed sacrifice: the most costly blood-offering even Melkart had ever received." (Green, p. 262).
"Alexander did far more against Tyre than Shalmaneser or Nebuchadnezzar had done. Not content with crushing her, he took care that she never should revive; for he founded Alexandria as her substitute, and changed forever the track of the commerce of the world." (Edward Creasy, Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, ch. 4). The small southern Lebanese town of Tyre (Sur) now has a population of about 135,000. "Today, deep under asphalt streets and apartment blocks, the stone core of that fantastic causeway still stands: one of Alexander's most tangible and permanent legacies to posterity." (Green, p. 263). True to Ezekiel's prophecy, the mainland city of Tyre has never been rebuilt (Ezek. 26:14).
03 Aug 08
5 edits
Originally posted by bbarrDon't you think that if N. had laid waste to Egypt as foretold in Ezekiel 30:10, that there would be some historical record of it?
Give me a break. There is no mention I can find in Herodotus of N. ever conquering Egypt subsequent to his siege of Tyre, and yet we have a host of information concerning Cambyses defeat of Egypt about forty years after N.'s death. Don't you think that if N. had laid waste to Egypt as foretold in Ezekiel 30:10, that there would be some historical record of it n of Apries
Anthony Leahy
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 74, (1988), pp. 183-199
There is, at least, historical record of Nebuchadnezzar invading Egypt (c. 568 BC). Amasis was indeed Pharoah at the time of Nebbie's invasion, but there isn't convincing evidence that he repelled Babylon's attack successfully, although he himself survived. Babylon's subjugation of Egypt had primarily to do with plundering her for the wage's of Nebuchadnezzar's army, not for utter destruction - that would come later.
What Ezekiel's prophecy states is that the desolation of Egypt caused by his invasion would last only 40 years (Ezekiel 29:12). Thus we have a picture of Nebbie invading Egypt primarily to "carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army" (Ezekiel 29:19). "I put my sword into the hand of the king of Babylon and he stretches it out against the land of Egypt. And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them throughout the countries" (Ezekiel 30:25-26). (Nebbie's policy was to deport a conquered people, as he did when he conquered Judah.)
The point being, Nebuchadnezzar's role in Ezekiel's prophecy concerning Egypt's eventual destruction, like his role in Tyre's eventual destruction, was limited, i.e., the entirety of the prophecy concerning Egypt undoubtedly included the Persian conquest (roughly 40 years later).
Within the period after Nebbie's invasion of Egypt and before the Persian conquest (during which time Nebbie himself would die (seven years after he conquered Egypt) and several Babylonian kings would come to power) Egypt could have conceivably reconstituted itself. "At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered. I will bring back the captives of Egypt and cause them to return to the land of Pathros, to the land of their origin, and there they shall be a lowly kingdom. It shall be the lowliest of kingdoms; it shall never again exalt itself above the nations, for I will diminish them so that they will not rule over the nations anymore" (Ezekiel 29:13-15).
Indeed, Amasis' son was the last leader of Egypt, and true to prophecy, Egypt has never again exalted itself above all nations of the world (especially post Persian conquest).
__________
"A small tribute was probably paid by the subject state to her suzerain, but otherwise the yoke was unfelt. There was no interference with the internal government, or the religion of the Egyptians; no appointment of Babylonian satraps, or tax-collectors; not even, so far as appears, any demands for contingents of troops. Thus, although Nebuchadnezzar died within seven years of his conquest of Egypt, and though a time of disturbance and confusion followed his death, four kings occupying the Babylonian throne within little more than six years, two of whom met with a violent end, yet Amasis seems to have continued quiescent and contented, in the enjoyment of a life somewhat more merry and amusing than that of most monarchs, without making any effort to throw off the Babylonian supremacy or reassert the independence of his country...
"It was not long before the Persian army drew up under the walls, and invested the city by land, while the fleet blockaded the river. A single Greek vessel, having received orders to summon the defenders of the place to surrender it, had the boldness to enter the town, whereupon it was set upon by the Egyptians, captured, and destroyed. Contrarily to the law of nations, which protects ambassadors and their escort, the crew was torn limb from limb, and an outrage thus committed which Cambyses was justified in punishing with extreme severity. Upon the fall of the city, which followed soon after its investment, the offended monarch avenged the crime which had been committed by publicly executing two thousand of the principal citizens, including (it is said) a son of the fallen king. The king himself was at first spared, and might perhaps have been allowed to rule Egypt as a tributary monarch, had he not been detected in a design to rebel and renew the war. For this offence he, too, was condemned to death, and executed by Cambyses' order....
"According to Herodotus, Cambyses was not content with the above-mentioned severities, which were perhaps justifiable under the circumstances, but proceeded further to exercise his rights as conqueror in a most violent and tyrannical way. He tore from its tomb the mummy of the late king, Amasis, and subjected it to the grossest indignities. He stabbed in the thigh an Apis-Bull, recently inaugurated at the capital with joyful ceremonies, suspecting that the occasion was feigned, and that the rejoicings were really over the ill-success of expeditions carried out by his orders against the oasis of Ammon, and against Ethiopia. He exhumed numerous mummies for the mere purpose of examining them. He entered the grand temple of Phthah at Memphis, and made sport of the image. He burnt the statues of the Cabeiri, which he found in another temple. He scourged the priests of Apis, and massacred in the streets those Egyptians who were keeping the festival. Altogether, his object was, if the informants of Herodotus are to be believed, to pour contempt and contumely on the Egyptian religion, and to insult the religious feelings of the entire people."
http://egypt.annourbis.com/AncientEgypt/chapter24.html
05 Aug 08
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasThen the verses are prima facie contradictory. If God intended to send many nations against, Tyre, then it seems awfully strange that God would also say that N. would enter the gates as though into a breached city, and that he would trample the streets, put the people to the sword, and send Tyre's mighty pillars crashing to the ground. That sounds like conquest, not like the negotiated peace agreement that actually occurred:
[b]The sections I cite are not accurate and never will be accurate. They are simply false; they never happened, and no hermeneutical gymnastics will solve the problem.
I'm not employing hermeneutical gymnastics to solve the problem here, because there isn't a problem. As I pointed out, in verse 3 the prophecy clearly states that many nations Tyre has never been rebuilt (Ezek. 26:14).[/b]
Tyre in the Early Persian Period (539-486 B.C.E.)
H. Jacob Katzenstein
The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Winter, 1979), pp. 23-34
But, in any case, there is no reason other than the desire to salvage prophecy to prefer your "many nations" interpretation of 26:2-6. Another interpretation is that N. was going to head a mass of troops comprised of many nations. After all, at this point in history Babylon drew economic and military support from Medea and other powerful nations (N. was a "king of kings" ). This would make sense of the mirrored language in the the early and later verses, each mentioning the destruction of the the walls and towers, the putting daughter-towns to the sword, etc. Further, in Ezekiel 30:10 it is claimed that N. together with his troops are the "most ruthless of nations", and that they will ravage Egypt. Interestingly, in Ezekiel 28:7 it is claimed that Tyre will be destroyed by the most ruthless of nations. Is it simply coincidence that the same phrase is used here? Of course not, the claim is that N. will be the one to destroy Tyre. And that did not happen. Additionally, in Ezekiel 30:10 there is in reference to N. the same transition from 'He' to 'They' (in reference to N and his troops) that you find in Ezekiel 26:12, again indicating that the whole of the prophesied destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel 26 was to occur by the hand of N. and his troops.
As far as I can tell, all other translations use 'streets' rather than 'out-places' as in Young. But, I guess you can cherry-pick translations if it suits you. But note that in other passages of the Bible, other translations use 'fields' where Young uses, again, 'out-places'. Moreover, Young himself uses 'fields' in Micah, which leads me to believe that there were other words available to the author of Ezekiel that would have made it plain that N.'s putting people to the sword happened outside city walls. This leads me to believe that a straight literal translation of the Hebrew is context-insensitive in a manner that is misleading. My New JPS Translation of the Tanakh uses 'streets', and I trust the decades of scholarly and interpretive work that went into this translation. I've searched for mention of the word 'streets' in the OT, and have found many, many times where all other translations use this term. In each of these cases, Young uses 'out-places' in place of 'streets', and 'broad places' in place of 'city squares', even when (as throughout Isaiah, elsewere in Ezekial, throughout Psalms, etc.) the context clearly indicates that the passages in question refer to events inside a city.
I love it that, although you dig Young's literal translation regarding 'out-places', you are reticent about his use of 'pillars'. After all, Young's translation has N. demolishing Tyre's towers and bringing her strong pillars to the ground. Since this didn't happen, I guess you have no choice but to pull out the trusty secret decoder ring and take these passages as metaphorical. In any case, if you want to engage in accurate exegesis, why don't you use the Hebrew term in Ezekiel rather than the Greek word 'hupostasis', unless you have good reason to think that the original Hebrew term is synonymous to the Greek term. But, why bother? If Young's translation is literal, then apparently the Hebrew text uses two different words, one to refer the towers that were demolished, and another to refer to pillars that fall to the ground. Does the Greek use the same term as translation for these two different Hebrew terms? I ask because 'hupostasis' is used as the Greek translation for twelve different Hebrew terms found in the OT. One wonders if the term 'walls' that appears just prior to the verses in Ezekiel that refer to pillars and towers is also to be read metaphorically. Perhaps 'walls' actually refers to, say, the ability of Tyre to defend itself militarily. One wonders whether the authors of the OT ever referred to an actual street, wall, tower or pillar! But, hilariously, even if we accept your metaphorical reading of 'pillar' and 'tower', it wouldn't matter for the substance of my claim. The foundations of Tyrian strength were not demolished by N.!
I have not found any archaeology or history journals that back up the claims of your sources, and they are contradicted by articles in the journal Biblical Archaeologist. Now, you can certainly claim, as does your source, that Tyre was conquered by N. This, of course refers to the mainland city. But if that is the Tyre spoken of in Ezekiel, then the prophesy is false for another reason: That Tyre still exists! It was rebuilt and repopulated within a few years of being sacked, though it never regained anything approaching its former strength:
News about Old Tyre
Emily DeNyse Wright
The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 2, No. 2 (May, 1939), pp. 20-22
05 Aug 08
4 edits
Just my two cents:
I also have an Orthodox (Stone Edition) Tanakh, in which the Hebrew hutz is also translated as “street”. NRS, NIV, and NJB also so translate it, as does KJV and, as bbarr notes, JPS. So that is certainly the scholarly consensus.
My limited experience with YLT is that it often translates a Hebrew or Greek word into something resembling its root meaning, and adheres strictly to that regardless of context. That is actually Young’s strength. “Out-places” captures this; it can refer to outside a tent or outside a town or just outside the buildings—hence, in context, streets or roads. My one lexicon says that “the outside within a city would be a street and hutz is thus translated about fifty times, especially in the plural.” It also says: “ ‘Outside’ may be within a building but outside a particular room or enclosure (Exo 26:35).”
Ironically, I once drew upon Young’s in arguing with Epi about various aion constructions in Greek that are sometimes translated as “forever”. YLT translates strictly as “age”, and the phrase eis tous aionas as “to the ages”. My Greek Orthodox liturgy book does the same. This is not to say that eis tous aionas cannot be translated as forever, just that it is an interpretive translation; and one needs to acknowledge that, and not simply say that eis tous aionas "means" forever (even if that's what some concordance says).
In the LXX, hutz is rendered as plateias, whose root meaning is “broad” or “wide”, and, according to my lexicons, carries the extended meaning of a “broad way, open street, wide road”.
This is one of those cases where archaic Hebrew, as it generally does, carries a multitude of possible meanings.
_____________________________________
Now, nobody is likely to accuse me of objecting to metaphorical, allegorical or mytho-poetic readings of the texts. I am wont to do contemplative/interpretive readings. I don’t think that such a usage conflicts with the texts themselves any more than do historical-critical or literary-critical readings. It’s just a different hermeneutic for a different purpose. Those texts that are in fact written in an allegorical or mytho-poetic style (which might be argued on a literary-critical basis; although at least some rabbis read all of the Torah that way) are as subject to that kind of reading as are the Upanishads—or Lord of the Rings.
But, under such a reading, I think that pretty much the whole “prophecy” of Ezekiel would have to be read that way. This is not to say that mention of any historical facts necessarily negates their allegorical or mytho-poetic application. It would certainly take a skilled literary critic (like Harold Bloom, say) to make sufficient arguments for, say, treating Tyre as the actual historical city, but Tyre’s “pillars of strength” as some metaphor. Maybe that is a metaphor, but it ought not to be turned into a metaphor just for the sake of apologetics—i.e., taking as literal whatever makes the future-telling (which is not what prophecy is all about) come out right, and treating as metaphorical anything that wouldn’t make it come out right if it were taken as literal. As soon as one argues that “pillars of strength” is a metaphor, I can argue that Tyre itself—albeit a real place—here stands in as a metaphor (as “Babylon” sometimes does).
I recall reading a commentator (I forget who or where; sorry, I’d really have to search to find a citation) who claimed that much, if not most, of the “prophetic speech” found in the Tanakh is really mytho-poetic speech. The prophets are those who speak to such things as greed and injustice, and weave their allegories from whatever is at hand. [One also needs to realize that Judaism has a long and enduring stream of its own version of “the perennial philosophy”.]
Neither the rabbis nor the early Christian exegetes thought that the “plain [literal] reading” of the texts was where the “meat” is. That is really a modern notion. They wouldn’t really object to someone doing historical-criticism; they would just find it to be spiritually less relevant than “deeper”—i.e.,, allegorical and contemplative—readings. Jewish midrash is noted for its disdain of anything purporting to be “the one right reading”, especially at the surface level (especially because the Hebrew defies such a quest). The same can be said for the early Christian exegetes (the “Alexandrian School” was noted more for its allegorical approach; the “Antiochan School” for its more analogical approach).
From a spiritual point of view—even a dualistic/theistic point of view—it seems to me quite erroneous to think that the grounding texts are only “true” if they are literally/historically “true”. Nor do I think that we, as readers of those texts, can abrogate our own responsibility for our own creative participation in any exegetical project. There is a rabbinical principle that I am fond of: One must bring ones own torah to the [written] torah; and out of that [personal] engagement, true Torah is generated. I apply that principle to any and all religious texts.
Again, that is not to say that I don’t pay attention to such things as historical-critical analysis. From a spiritual point of view, I just don’t find such analyses to be decisive—no more than Rebbe Nachman would, or Gregory of Nyssa would, or Rumi would, or Meister Eckhart would, or Fritjof Schuon would, or. . .
05 Aug 08
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrThen the verses are prima facie contradictory. If God intended to send many nations against, Tyre, then it seems awfully strange that God would also say that N. would enter the gates as though into a breached city, and that he would trample the streets, put the people to the sword, and send Tyre's mighty pillars crashing to the ground. That sounds like conquest, not like the negotiated peace agreement that actually occurred
Then the verses are prima facie contradictory. If God intended to send many nations against, Tyre, then it seems awfully strange that God would also say that N. would enter the gates as though into a breached city, and that he would trample the streets, put the people to the sword, and send Tyre's mighty pillars crashing to the ground. That sounds like conqu , Vol. 2, No. 2 (May, 1939), pp. 20-22
It's not contradictory when you consider that Tyre consisted of a mainland city and an island about half a mile from shore (information I only today became privy to). Nebuchadnezzar broke through the gates of the mainland city, trampled the streets, put Tyrians to the sword, and sent towers crashing to the ground, yet found the rest of the population had escaped to the island. Nebuchadnezzar couldn't take the island by force, yet neither could Tyre survive without being supplied by their mainland port. Therefore, Nebuchadnezzar would've been forced to negotiate, and Tyre would've been forced to acknowledge Babylonian suzerainty.
In this instance, you have a conquest as well as a peace agreement.
But, in any case, there is no reason other than the desire to salvage prophecy to prefer your "many nations" interpretation of 26:2-6. Another interpretation is that N. was going to head a mass of troops comprised of many nations.
There is no reason other than the desire to disparage prophecy to prefer the "mass of troops comprised of many nations" interpretation. In 26:3 it states that "many nations" will come up against Tyre successively, like waves: "I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves." This describes successive waves of nations over an indefinite period of time, not a single amalgamation of nations all at once (in which case a more apt analogy would be the tidal wave of a flood). The successive waves of nations interpretation is borne out by the fact that Ezekiel 26:4-5,12,14 contains prophecies which cannot be ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar alone (duly noted by you yourself).
"I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea" (Ez. 26:4-5). And also, "They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea... I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt" (Ez. 26:12,14).
This portion of prophecy describes Alexander the Great's conquest of Tyre, not Nebuchadnezzar's. Secular history records that Alexander laid siege to the island fortress of Tyre in 332 B.C. His army destroyed the remains of mainland Tyre and threw them into the Mediterranean in order to construct a causeway to the island. They scraped even the dust from the mainland city, leaving only bare rock. Historian Phillip Myers in his history textbook, General History for Colleges and High Schools, writes, "Alexander the Great reduced Tyre to ruins in 332 B.C. Tyre recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now as bare as the top of a rock - a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry."
It is not much of a stretch to conclude that God had more than Nebuchadnezzar in mind when He spoke of Tyre's destruction. I find it remarkable that you resist this distinct possibility so fervently.
Additionally, in Ezekiel 30:10 there is in reference to N. the same transition from 'He' to 'They' (in reference to N and his troops) that you find in Ezekiel 26:12, again indicating that the whole of the prophesied destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel 26 was to occur by the hand of N. and his troops.
I admit, you have a good point here. But, only if you ignore the fact that Alexander's conquest of Tyre is also accurately described in Ezekiel 26. You'd also have to ignore the waves of nations analogy in v. 3.
In each of these cases, Young uses 'out-places' in place of 'streets', and 'broad places' in place of 'city squares', even when (as throughout Isaiah, elsewere in Ezekial, throughout Psalms, etc.) the context clearly indicates that the passages in question refer to events inside a city.
I concede your point.
One wonders whether the authors of the OT ever referred to an actual street, wall, tower or pillar! But, hilariously, even if we accept your metaphorical reading of 'pillar' and 'tower', it wouldn't matter for the substance of my claim. The foundations of Tyrian strength were not demolished by N.!
Well done! I concede, I concede!
I was arguing my position with insufficient information, being unaware that Tyre consisted of a mainland city and an island to which the citizenry escaped.
Also, I had overlooked the previous few verses mentioning the city gates being entered.
My bad. 😳
Now, you can certainly claim, as does your source, that Tyre was conquered by N. This, of course refers to the mainland city. But if that is the Tyre spoken of in Ezekiel, then the prophesy is false for another reason: That Tyre still exists! It was rebuilt and repopulated within a few years of being sacked, though it never regained anything approaching its former strength
Alexander, however, did put the Phoenician empire to an end. The Phoenician culture completely died out during the rise of Hellenistic Greece following his conquest of Tyre (323-146 B.C.). Consequently, the modern Tyre is unrelated to the Tyre which Ezekiel prophesied against. The ancient Tyre, i.e., the crux of the Phoenician empire, was completely destroyed. And since there is nothing in Ezekiel which indicates that Tyre would forever remain devoid of life after its destruction, the fact that the peninsula remains populated is a moot point.