A Flat Tyre (2)

[bdtayl]

Holding
Issue #2 - Too Many Nations Spoil the Broth
Ezekiel 26:3 verse says that "many nations" will be against Tyre. Babylon, Alex
the Great, and the Muslim crusaders are commonly cited as fulfillment.
Alex T. Great's forces were put together from a coalition of Greek city-states.


Tim Taylor

Ezekiel 26:7 (ASV)
"For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring
against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, KING OF KINGS, with horses and
chariots, with horsemen and a great army

Nebucadrezzar was a "king of kings." So, if your "many nations" argument
applies to Alexander, please explain why it does not apply to Nebuchadrezzar.

Holding
Each of these was an independent entity and acted as a nation unto itself.
Alex's dad, Philip 2, unified these city-states and the regions of Thrace,
Macedonia, and Greece proper under his rule - giving Alex the unified front he
needed to go forth and conquer. Nevertheless, this was a coalition composed of
many nations - and thus fulfills the prophecy. Now I see some objecting: They
were COALESCED into ONE NATION - so the prophecy is NOT fulfilled there.

Tim Taylor
Now we have a strawman. If makes no difference whether the "nations" were
coalesced or not.

Ezekiel 29:15 (ASV)
It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it any more lift itself
up above the nations: and I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule
over the NATIONS.

So, Ezekiel himself still refers to nations ruled over by another as "nations"

Holding
Well, we can go a little further. According to the ancient historian Arrian,author of "Anabasi Alexandri," (2.20.1-2), Alex got some help in attacking Tyre. Having no navy of his own to speak of, he got naval help from his friends in Macedon and from the Phoenician city-states Aradus, Byblos, and Sidon; ships
also came from Enylos, Soli and Mallos, Rhodes, Lycia, and Cyprus to join in the fray and help Alex overcome Tyre [Flem.Tyre, 58]. Each, other than Macedon, was an entirely separate nation from those in Alex's land forces: a sort of ancient Gulf War Coalition! Thus, even if the first aspect I have mentioned in not accepted as a fulfillment, the second has to be - for it involves, by the
most conservative count now, 11 nations; by a larger allowance, 13 or more - and either number certainly can be regarded as "many" in any event.

Tim Taylor
Knock the stuffing out of that strawman! You haven't explained why Nebuchadrezzar's army, the subject of Ezekiel 26, didn't consist of many "nations."

Holding
We can add to this a number of other times over its history that Tyre was attacked. Fleming [Flem.Tyre, 52-122] lists no less than 14 separate attacks between Babylon and the destruction of Tyre, with hostilities initiated by parties as diverse as the Greeks, Crusaders, and Muslims.

Tim Taylor
It wasn't however destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, the subject of Chapter 26, or Alexander. You mention Fleming, but strangely enough, you leave out the following quotes by Fleming:

"The capture of the City was far different from the prophecy of it according to
the prophet Ezekiel himself...." - Fleming p. 46.

Fleming also agrees that Ezekiel 26 refers, in its entirety, to Nebuchadrezzar:

"The following is Ezekiel's prediction for the siege, in which Tyre for 13 years 585-572 BC withstood the force of Babylonian arms." Ibid, pp 44-45

Fleming quotes Ezekiel's prophecy in Chapter 26 in its entirety.


Copyright 2003, Tim Taylor. The author's writings may not be used in whole or in part except on the following lists:

www.theologyweb.com
www.topica.com/lists/ii_errancy
alt.bible.errancy

[bdtayl]

Tim Taylor
I invite members to reply to this thread. I did not mean to give the impression they were not invited to reply.

I will try to reply if there is something substantive to reply to.

If I don't receive any replies, I will post part (3) tomorrow morning(with the moderator's permission of course.)

[WhiteShadow]

Nebucadrezzar was a "king of kings." So, if your "many nations" argument applies to Alexander, please explain why it does not apply to Nebuchadrezzar

You're still going on about this?

Let me spell this out for you slowly and clearly.
(1) The "they" in verse 12 refers to the "they" in verse 3
(2) Thus the Bible says "many nations" will destroy Tyre
(3) Those nations are unspecified
(4) Alexander destroyed Tyre in the same way the Bible said Tyre was to be destroyed
(5) Thus, when the Bible says Tyre will be destroyed by many nations in such a way, it is right.

You have problems with (1). In your response to my last post you said that you addressed it, contrary to what I had said. Wrong. I said you hadn't successfully addressed it. In other words, you'd daydreamed an argument and JP brought you back into reality. For a more detailed response see JP's posts, OK?

And you might have a problem with (4)...but that hasn't been addressed yet I believe.

Now we have a strawman. If makes no difference whether the "nations" were coalesced or not.

To you maybe not, to me not, to some people, maybe. Who cares? Grow up.


Knock the stuffing out of that strawman! You haven't explained why Nebuchadrezzar's army, the subject of Ezekiel 26, didn't consist of many "nations."

He doesn't need to. See above.


It wasn't however destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, the subject of Chapter 26, or Alexander. You mention Fleming, but strangely enough, you leave out the following quotes by Fleming:

It wasn't destroyed by Alexander? Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't this a really crucial point as I believe JP's arguing assuming it was. You really should elaborate on that...

"The capture of the City was far different from the prophecy of it according to Ezekiel himself" - Fleming p.46

How was it different?


"The following is Ezekiel's prediction for the siege, in which Tyre for 13 years 585-572 BC withstood the force of Babylonian arms." Ibid, pp 44-45

And his arguments for that are...?

[bdtayl]

Tim
Nebucadrezzar was a "king of kings." So, if your "many nations" argument applies to Alexander, please explain why it does not apply to Nebuchadrezzar

White Shadow
You're still going on about this?Let me spell this out for you slowly and clearly.

(1) The "they" in verse 12 refers to the "they" in verse 3

Tim Taylor
Never claimed it didn’t

White shadow
(2) Thus the Bible says "many nations" will destroy Tyre


Tim Taylor
Never claimed it didn’t

White shadow
(3) Those nations are unspecified

Tim Taylor
I never claimed the nations under Nebuchadrezzar were specified, only that the "nations" in verse 3 applied to his troops.

I'm just using the same argument Holding made about Alexander, so go head and attack my argument, but in doing so, you attack his.

White shadow
(4) Alexander destroyed Tyre in the same way the Bible said Tyre was to be destroyed

Tim Taylor
Actually no he didn’t. He did not destroy the island city. If you think he did, then provide evidence.

White Shadow(5)
Thus, when the Bible says Tyre will be destroyed by many nations in such a way, it is right.

Tim Taylor
Thus, when the Bible says it will be destroyed by Nebucahezzar, made like a bare rock, and never be found, depopulated, and never be built again, it is wrong.

Whiteshadow
You have problems with (1). In your response to my last post you said that you addressed it, contrary to what I had said. Wrong. I said you hadn't successfully addressed it. In other words, you'd daydreamed an argument and JP brought you back into reality.
For a more detailed response see JP's posts, OK?


Tim Taylor
Maybe you think I haven't addressed (1) because I don't disagree with (1) I have seen them, and replied to them. I just repeated the same rebuttal you can’t seem to understand.There is no reason to insert Alexander in the text in place of Nebucahrezzar. Now, if are claiming JP has provided a rebuttal to posts (1) and (2), show me where it is. It is incorrect to read his entire article, read my first rebuttal (which consists of rebutting the first part of his article), then claim he has addressed a rebuttal that does not appear until my second post.

I can appreciate the confusion. I wrote 5 rebuttals that covered his entire article and appendix. I posted them, but all 5 of my rebuttals only appeared for a short time because we're not allowed to break up a post to avoid the 12000 character limit.

Thus, I am having to offer them up piecemeal.

Tim Taylor
Now we have a strawman. If makes no difference whether the "nations" were coalesced or not.

Whitesahdow
To you maybe not, to me not, to some people, maybe. Who cares? Grow up.

Tim Taylor
I’m afraid the meaning of your comment escapes me. If Holding commits a fallacy, pointing it out does not require me to grow up. The "coalesced" argument is irrelevant, as I showed.


Tim Taylor
Knock the stuffing out of that strawman! You haven't explained why Nebuchadrezzar's army, the subject of Ezekiel 26, didn't consist of many "nations."

WhiteshadowHe doesn't need to. See above.

Tim Taylor
He does if he wants to distinguish Aleander from Nebuchadrezzar
by claiming one ruled "many nations" when in fact Neb. did precisely the same.

Holding made an argument to distinguish Alexander from Nebuchadrezzar as a reason to introduce Alexander into the text, so his argument does not support his position.

Tim Taylor
It wasn't however destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, the subject of Chapter 26, or Alexander. You mention Fleming, but strangely enough, you leave out the following quotes by Fleming:

Whiteshadow
It wasn't destroyed by Alexander?

Tim Taylor
No:
“Alexander then left the city which was HALF burned, ruined and ALMOST depopulated…Colonists were imported and THOSE WHO HAD ESCAPED RETURNED.” – Fleming, p. 64.

Whiteshadow
Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't this a really crucial point as I believe JP's arguing assuming it was. You really should elaborate on that...

Tim Taylor
When I wrote this, I assumed that everyone here would have the opportunity to read all 5 posts. Unfortunately that did not happen, so some confusion has resulted. If the prophecy claimed Alexander would destroy Tyre (see #2 and #4 above) and he did not, that would cause the prophecy to fail.

Tim Taylor
"The capture of the City was far different from the prophecy of it according to Ezekiel himself" - Fleming p.46

Whiteshadow
How was it different?

Tim Taylor
Fleming continues in the next sentence by quoting Ezekiel:“Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyre:every head was made bald”.(with continuous wearing of the helmet) “and every shoulder was worn” (with carrying weapons) “yet he had received no wages, no his army from Tyre” (parenthentical comments are Flemings)

Tim Taylor
"The following is Ezekiel's prediction for the siege, in which Tyre for 13 years 585-572 BC withstood the force of Babylonian arms." Ibid, pp 44-45

[i]Whiteshadow

And his arguments for that are...?

Tim Taylor
This comment was meant as a tounge in cheek response to Holding’s tactic of quoting scholars without quoting their arguments. In its current form, it is most certainly an appeal to authority and Fleming offers no arguments. I’d like to thank Whiteshadow for actually quoting what I wrote in replying.

[jpholding]

I will answer this rambling reply, and the three other parts posted, in my article at http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_05_03.htm

[dizzle]

Since Tim has indicated that he is not returning, and was requested not to post the rest of his points until the ones already posted have been dealt with, his remaining sections have been deleted.