08 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI don't think you understand that prophecy. Try this explanation.
i didn't feel the need to mention it because the present day city of tyre covers a large part of the original island.
please do some research before embarrassing yourself.
http://100prophecies.org/page8.htm
P.S. The following link goes into more detail.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by SuzianneI'm pretty sure I don't have a soul. So don't worry about me. ;-)
No, I'm well aware of this.
But what does seem more effective at swaying atheists seems to be one's personal testimony of how believing in Christ as their personal Savior and Redeemer has changed their lives. To speak of the Bible is fairly ridiculous among atheists, I have personal experience to back this up. But to approach the problem more from a hu ...[text shortened]... heists, I find. To be sure, the conversion rate is dismal, but every soul saved is priceless.
(also I am English and so I like my silent u's Saviour should definitely have one ;-p )
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThat would be a (subtle) joke, based on Suzianne's early posts in which she posted about
Why should u care for u are not in the Savior anyway and u do not
even believe in the Savior.
preferring American spelling (in which you have color and not colour) over English spelling
and not putting silent letters into words, which I was gently poking fun at.
I don't really care about spelling as long as the words are legible other than I don't like
having little red wiggly underlining in my text. I do care about grammar in that bad grammar
makes meaning unclear, Suzianne is seldom if ever (to my knowledge) guilty of bad grammar
or sentence structure. You [RJHinds] on the other hand....
Also saviour is a perfectly ordinary word in the English language that applies to more things
than just your imaginary friend, to whom it is singularly inapplicable.
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindswrong. the prophecy is that the city would be destroyed and never rebuilt.
I don't think you understand that prophecy. Try this explanation.
http://100prophecies.org/page8.htm
P.S. The following link goes into more detail.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790
tyre exists today. there are people living in it. the prophecy failed.
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritNo. It was not rebuilt. The Tyre today is a different city as is explained
wrong. the prophecy is that the city would be destroyed and never rebuilt.
tyre exists today. there are people living in it. the prophecy failed.
in the reference. The old city is gone under water or buried under ground.
The old Tyre can not be rebuilt. All that was done is a new city was built
at or near the old location. The ruins of the old city are gone and can not
be rebuilt. Are there any other part of the prophecy that you dispute?
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIs present day Tyre in the same location as ancient Tyre?
No. It was not rebuilt. The Tyre today is a different city as is explained
in the reference. The old city is gone under water or buried under ground.
The old Tyre can not be rebuilt. All that was done is a new city was built
at or near the old location. The ruins of the old city are gone and can not
be rebuilt. Are there any other part of the prophecy that you dispute?
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsevery city that is destroyed, the 'old' one will be gone. the fact is that your biblegod said it would be a barren rock and the city would never be rebuilt. tyre is not a barren rock. it is not gone. tyre has been rebuilt on the same island and people call it home. they even kept the same name.
No. It was not rebuilt. The Tyre today is a different city as is explained
in the reference. The old city is gone under water or buried under ground.
The old Tyre can not be rebuilt. All that was done is a new city was built
at or near the old location. The ruins of the old city are gone and can not
be rebuilt. Are there any other part of the prophecy that you dispute?
it seems you have double standards. if you had any integrity and stayed with your standards, you would realize this is a failed prophecy and stop making excuses on behalf of your failed god.
by your hypocrisy, your original post is pointless because you would not accept a rebuilt babylon as a failure of the prophecy. you would make the same tired and pointless excuse that you make for tyre.
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou didn't read the reference lnks did you?
every city that is destroyed, the 'old' one will be gone. the fact is that your biblegod said it would be a [b]barren rock and the city would never be rebuilt. tyre is not a barren rock. it is not gone. tyre has been rebuilt on the same island and people call it home. they even kept the same name.
it seems you have double standards. if you ha ...[text shortened]... e of the prophecy. you would make the same tired and pointless excuse that you make for tyre.[/b]
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSo the prophecy was that Tyre would be destroyed and not be rebuilt. And we see that Tyre was destroyed but HAS been rebuilt. And this, you say, proves the prophecy that Tyre would not be rebuilt true? How do you figure that?
You didn't read the reference lnks did you?
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsi did and they are pretentious nonsense, trying to apologize for a failed prophecy, similar to the way that you do.
You didn't read the reference lnks did you?
sorry to burst your bubble. your god's prophecy failed. he claimed that it would remain barren forever and no city would be rebuilt. wrong on both counts.
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritWas Tyre Ever Rebuilt?
i did and they are pretentious nonsense, trying to apologize for a failed prophecy, similar to the way that you do.
sorry to burst your bubble. your god's prophecy failed. he claimed that it would remain barren forever and no city would be rebuilt. wrong on both counts.
"The modern city of Tyre is of modest size and is near the ancient site, though not identical to it. Archaeological photographs of the ancient site show ruins from ancient Tyre scattered over many acres of land. No city has been rebuilt over these ruins, however, in fulfillment of this prophecy." (Dennis and Grudem, “Tyre,” The ESV Study Bible)
"In point of fact, the mainland city of Tyre later was rebuilt and assumed some of its former importance during the Hellenistic period. But as for the island city, it apparently sank below the surface of the Mediterranean…All that remains of it is a series of black reefs offshore from Tyre, which surely could not have been there in the first and second millennia b.c., since they pose such a threat to navigation. The promontory that now juts out from the coastline probably was washed up along the barrier of Alexander’s causeway, but the island itself broke off and sank away when the subsidence took place; and we have no evidence at all that it ever was built up again after Alexander’s terrible act of vengeance. In the light of these data, then, the predictions of chapter 26, improbable though they must have seemed in Ezekiel’s time, were duly fulfilled to the letter—first by Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century, and then by Alexander in the fourth." (Archer, “Tyre,” Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFEzekiel Ch 26 - An area under attack as lies of God.
Yes.
(v 1) Now it came about in the eleventh year, on the first of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me saying,
(v 2) "Son of man, because Tyre has said concerning Jerusalem, 'Aha, the gateway of the peoples is broken; it has opened [turned] to me. I shall be filled, now that she is laid waste,'
(v 3) therefore, thus says the Lord (YHWH) God, 'Behold, I am against you, O Tyre(Tsor), and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves.
Chaldaea, Assyria, Greeks, Saracens, Crusaders.
Skeptics claim that God through Ezekiel said in Ch 26 that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre once and for all.
Verse 3 says that many nations will be brought by the Lord against Tyre like the waves of the sea. The sea does cast up waves each time it comes in, and sends in waves at different time. This verse also signifies that the city of Tyre will pass in and out of history in the passage of time. This is not contradictory to Prophesy in Isaiah 23.
(v 4) 'And they will destroy the walls of Tyre(Tsor) and break down her towers; and I will scrap her debris from her and make her a bare rock.
Skeptics claim that Tyre is not a bare rock at the present time. Therefore the prophesy failed.
The city of Tyre was made a bare rock in history. Skeptics are reluctant to show us a city of Tyre on the mainland. Skeptics hardly talk about a modern city of Tyre on the Island of Tyre. Skeptics are reluctant to show us the ruined city of ancient Tyre as a proof that the city of Tyre is not a bare rock ( ie: rocky ground without a city, not even its ruined walls ).
Debris of mainland Tyre were scraped into the sea by Nebuchanezzar and Alexander the Great to build a causeway in linking the island to the mainland.
Today we speak of excavation of Tyre rather than touring the ruined city of Tyre. This signifies the complete disappearance of the ancient walled city at ground level.
The term - walls - indicates that there could be a number of walled cities. There is no record telling us Tyre had inner city walls other than its outer protective city wall.
(v 5) 'She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,' declares the Lord God, 'and she will become spoil for the nations.
This passage does not mention when Tyre will become a fishing port.
Tyre was taken by different nations ( eg: Egypt, Greece, Romans ).
Skeptics claim that there is a fishing town of Sur on the island/peninsula rather than just fishing nets. Ezekiel's prophesy failed to predict settlement in the locality of Tyre (Sur).
Fishermen normally spread their nets in their premises. Places having fishing nets spread out indicate there is settlement of fishermen. Therefore, the prophesy does not mean the land will be void of all life-forms.
A fishing town or village does not equate a city, less do they equate a walled city.
Building and settlement in the locality is not the same as building and settlement in the walled city.
The nations could hardly be interested in a fishing port. The verse must be referring to the recovery of the city after many invasions/disasters.
(v 6) 'Also her daughters who are on the mainland (in the field) will be slain by the sword, and they will know that I am the Lord.' "
The daughters of Tyre city in the field are probably satellite cities/towns, or female citizens working on the mainland off the island.
Skeptics claim that Tyre was an island city, and do not incline to show archaeological evidence for a mainland Tyre.
(v 7) For thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great army.
Nebuchadnezzar II besieged Tyre for 13 years ( 587 - 574 BC ) - but no contemporary record of this remains.
Skeptics claim that Nebuchadnezzar was attacking the island Tyre.
It is improbable that any ancient king and army would attempt to breach an island walled city with horses, chariots and cavalry. They would require ships and navy instead. Nebuchadnezzar was aiming to take the mainland Tyre.
(v 8) "He (Nebuchadnezzar and his army) will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a mound against you, and raise up a large shield against you.
It is a custom of land battle to make siege walls and cast up a mound to breach the city wall of the enemies. Siege walls are not for attacking an island walled city.
(v 9) "And the blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers.
His rams against their walls - signifies a number of walled settlement (cities) in the field. This is not a picture of war at sea against a walled city.
(v 10) "Because of the multitude of his horses, the dust raised by them will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of cavalry and wagons [wheels] and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that is breached.
This is not a picture of attacking an island walled city across the sea.
The army was attacking with horses and chariots - not a sea battle with ships.
The description - your walls - indicates that the seige was against a multitude of walled settlement; not just one walled island city.
(v 11) "With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. he will slay your people with the sword; and your strong pillars will come down to the ground.
Skeptics claim that Nebuchadnezzar was attacking the island Tyre.
There is no suggestion that the city of Tyre was an island city in the last 11 verses. Every clue indicated that it was on the mainland. Tyre would have existed in the days of Ezekiel, since it was mentioned even in the days of King Solomon. Ezekiel's knowledge of Tyre indicated that it was on the mainland.
He would be lying to his contemporary readers to describe the taking of Tyre as breaching walls with chariots and rams, if it was only an island city with one city wall. War with horses is not war at sea.
There is no indication of any device to cross the sea for attacking island city. It is ridiculous to suggest that ships were not in existence at that time. Strong pillars are symbols of Baal. None of these pillars are found standing today.
(v 12) "Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water.
Tyre was famous for Cedar and Dye trade. Verse 12 mentioned their stones and timbers - indicating that part of their construction was in timber. At the early part of verse 12 - a prey of merchandise was mentioned. This indicated that the timbers thrown into the water was not their merchandise. Water as water of the sea was known then.
(v 13) "So I will silence the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps will be heard no more.
No mentioning by skeptics that harps are still being played today by locallers.
(v 14) "And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You (city of Tyre) will be built no more, for I the Lord have spoken," declares the Lord God.
This is a verse skeptics claim that God was lying, the prophesy failed, or the writer was making up stories, or somebody corrupted the original text of Ezekiel.
Skeptics claim that Nebuchadnezzar was attacking the island Tyre. That Tyre was only an island city on a rock. That the rock is now inhabited by the town of Sur. That it is built up after Nebuchadnezzar. Skeptics claim that any building structure on the island proved that verse 14 is not accurate.
As the verses earlier indicated Tyre was not an island city. The destroyed city was never rebuilt.
The walls are not seen today. The mainland walled cities are not found today. Skeptics are not quick to show evidence of remaining Tyre cities/settlement on the mainland. A place for the spreading of nets could mean a settlement of fishermen. Who is spreading the nets there if no living thing could exist in that location (on the rock)? The walled city of Tyre was turned into a bare rock, so that there was no building of the original city left for rebuilding, and no citizen of Tyre to rebuild it.
Verse 14 indicated that Tyre will be built no more (ie: no rebuilding of the walled city), rather than no building will be found on the rock (ie: the bare rock will not be built any more.)
Should a rebuilt city be named as a rebuilt city rather than a fishing town with a different name? Who built Tyre after its stones and timbers were casted into the sea, and the walled city turned into a bare rock?
Skeptics are slow to show the bare rock on the mainland as the site of Tyre.
Afterall, it is hard to locate an ancient city that had turned into a bare rock.
[WHEN CRITICS ASK, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, 1992, p. 287]:
"Nebuchadnezzar did destroy the coastal cities. However the people of the port of Tyre had obviously relocated to the island city, which they were able to successfully defend against the Babylonian invaders. Nebuchadnezzar had defeated and plundered the cities on the shore, as Ezekiel prophesied in 26:7-11, but he could not defeat the island city. This fact is reported in Ez 29:18. Further, v. 12 marks a shift from the prophecy concerning Nebuchadnezzar to prophetic declarations about other invaders. V. 3 had already introduced the idea of many invaders in the statement "I... will cause many nations to come up against you.' As history records, many nations did come up against the island city of Tyre, but it was Alexander the Great, laying siege against the island city of Tyre in about 332 B.C., who finally conquered the city and left it in t...