Inerrancy and the destruction of Tyre

[seer]

I have been reading the debate between Jason and Robyn on the destruction of Tyre. And it seems clear to me that Robyn has won the point. And it also seems to me that Jason is almost being deceptive in the way he is trying to defend his position. The fact is Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre as Ezekiel predicted - not even close. As a christian, I find Jason's liberties troubling: are we wed to inerrancy or honesty?

[Robyn Banks]

seer:
I have been reading the debate between Jason and Robyn on the destruction of Tyre. And it seems clear to me that Robyn has won the point. And it also seems to me that Jason is almost being deceptive in the way he is trying to defend his position. The fact is Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre as Ezekiel predicted - not even close. As a christian, I find Jason's liberties troubling: are we wed to inerrancy or honesty?
I'll comment generally on the point you make about the tendentious response of some Christians to what is clearly a failed OT prophecy.

I contend that the idea of 'prophecy-fulfillment' is so vague and flexible as to make it quite impossible for a preditive prophecy to ever fail. A common strategy is reinterpretation. In the face of what clearly appears to be a failed prophecy, an interpreter may simply reinterpret and rationalize the original prediction to make it appear that it has come true. Thus, any failed prophecy may be retrieved by rationalization. A variation on this theme is to assert that the predicted event - contrary to appearances - had in fact occurred, but that it was not the plain meaning or contextual fulfillment which should have been expected. This ploy allows that all predictions can be fulfilled - because it employs a multi-level of senses in which the original prediction may be understood. Such rationalizations protect all predictions from failure, but at the expense of emptying them of any meaning or cognitive content.

Another strategy is to extend the time factor in the prediction so as to allow the open-ended expectation to constitute the meaning of the prediction. In this way it becomes impossible to criticise a prediction as unfulfilled. The most that can be said against it is that it is as yet unfulfilled.

The predictions in the Old Testament in general have a limited time-frame in view. Yet, the claims of prediction extend this limited time-frame by several centuries past the original context. At present Jason and I are discussing the text of Isaiah 53. Even though the chapter is entirely explicable in terms of the exile and restoration of Israel - which is the focus of the entire wider section (Chs 40-55) - this does not stop someone like Jason from ignoring its context, extending its ambit to a time far in the future not contemplated by the text, and rationalizing the interpretation as applying to Jesus. For those who have first read Isaiah 53 in light of the story of Jesus, I can appreciate that it is tremendously difficult to separate the original context from the later eisegesis. Most of the key terms of Isaiah 53 , which originally had their own contextual meaning in the exile-restoration story have been imbued and reinterpreted with Christological meaning. But this is only another example of a later interpretation rationalizing and reinterpreting a text (not even a fully 'predictive' text in this case), and completely ignoring the originally intended meaning.

As many commentators have pointed out, the Biblical test of the true or false prophet is practically meaningless - because that which is false may be simply reinterpreted as being 'true'.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[FirstSunday33ad]

This is what is actually written:

3 therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD . She will become plunder for the nations, 6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD .

7 "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. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the war horses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12

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.


When you read the actual verses in question you realize that Ezekiel never says “Nebbie will destroy Tyre.” Clearly he says “many nations”. He then speaks in the immediate future – “I am going to bring Nebuchadnezzar”, describes what Nebbie is going to do, then – arguably – goes on to speak of what the others – “they” will do. If Ezekiel meant that Nebbie was going to “break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea” then why mention “many nations” or say Tyre “will become plunder for the nations”.

The historical record does in fact describe preciously these events as happening to Tyre – at the hands of “many nations”. To claim this is “not even close” is to demand the prophecy be fulfilled as you understand it and not as it was clearly meant.

Quite frankly I cannot see how anyone with a shred of honesty can deny this as anything but a complete fulfillment.

[Robyn Banks]

FirstSunday33ad:
The historical record does in fact describe preciously these events as happening to Tyre – at the hands of “many nations”.
This same argument has already been rebutted in my debate with Jason. Briefly, your first error in interpretation is to not appreciate that there is a separate oracle in Ezek 26.7-14. That one oracle describes the complete destruction of Tyre at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar alone. And for your information, Nebuchadnezzar's army was an army literally comprised of 'many nations'. The defeat of the Assyrian Empire was the combined work of Medes, Babylonians and Scythians. The armies of a king like Nebuchadnezzar were actually armies of “many nations.”

It is quite ingenuous to suggest that after Nebuchadnezzar's army entered the gates, rode through the streets and put people to the sword, that they weren't the same ones who 'plundered the loot'. Even if you perversely separate verse 12ff out of this one continuous narrative, you are still left with Nebuchadnezzar’s horses going through all of the streets after the fall of the walls of Tyre, ‘putting to the sword’ Tyre’s inhabitants. And what happens when an invading army tramples an entire town, putting its people to the sword? They plunder and loot it. And indeed, this is what we read in Ezekiel 26.12.

For someone to read Ezekiel 26.7-14 in the way you do is highly specious.



FirstSunday33ad:
To claim this is “not even close” is to demand the prophecy be fulfilled as you understand it and not as it was clearly meant.
This is not a question of what I will to be the case. It is purely a question of what is the best interpretation of Ezekiel 26.7-14. And if you can honestly assert that an army which breaks a fortified city, tramples its streets, and puts its people to the sword is not the same army that is immediately narrated as plundering it, you might want to ask who is coming up with the dishonest scenario. To suddenly insert a different figure into 26.12ff is a blatantly tendentious approach to the clear continuous narrative of 26.7-14.



FirstSunday33ad:
Quite frankly I cannot see how anyone with a shred of honesty can deny this as anything but a complete fulfillment.
If you have difficulty 'seeing', then maybe you need to open your eyes to what the text itself is saying - rather than imposing your own doctrines onto the text.

In Ezekiel 26.12ff we read a narration of the final part of a city which has had its walls broken, its streets trampled and its people put to the sword: it naturally follows that they shall plunder its riches!

Only someone wishing to offer a perverse and unnatural interpretation would try to separate out 26.12ff from what naturally occurs before it.

“9 He shall direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls and break down your towers with his axes. 10 His horses shall be so many that their dust shall cover you. At the noise of cavalry, wheels, and chariots your very walls shall shake, when he enters your gates like those entering a breached city. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he shall trample all your streets. He shall put your people to the sword, and your strong pillars shall fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise; they shall break down your walls and destroy your fine houses. Your stones and timber and soil they shall cast into the water.”

Mine is the only proper interpretation. And it is unsurprising that the majority of the major Christian commentaries support it:

"In the oracles against Tyre, the fall and devastation of Tyre and, quite explicitly in 26:7, her surrender to the great king from the north were expressed. The end of the siege of Tyre appeared quite differently. Whatever the details of the end may have been, Tyre was in any case not destroyed and plundered."
- Walter Zimmerli, Ezekiel

"What this text attempts to do is to restore the prophet's credibility after the prophecies that he uttered against Tyre (see Ezek. 26:1 - 28:19) did not come true... The biblical tradition had to deal with the failure of the prophetic text."
- Bruce Vawter & Leslie J Hoppe Ezekiel – A New Heart

"Nebuchadnezzar's campaign against Tyre, after having lasted thirteen years, had come to an end two or three years previously, without having had the result expected by the prophet in his announcement of judgement against Tyre: Tyre was not destroyed or even plundered."
- Walther Eichrodt Ezekiel

"This oracle [29:17-21], the latest dated oracle in the book, is set in April of 571BC, shortly after the end of Nebuchadnezzar's unsuccessful siege of Tyre. The prophet or his disciples were apparently worried that the earlier prophecies against Tyre had not been fulfilled. To explain this situation, God tells Ezekiel that Egypt is to be given to Nebuchadnezzar as compensation for the effort he expended trying to capture Tyre... As later events developed, Ezekiel's substitute prophecy against Egypt was not fulfilled either. Nebuchadnezzar apparently did campaign in Egypt and may have even exacted tribute from the pharaoh, but the country was not destroyed in the way that the prophet predicted."
- Wilson, Robert R Wilson “Ezekiel”, in James L Mays (Gen. Ed.) Harper’s Bible Commentary
Hope that helps.

Robyn

[FirstSunday33ad]

You didn't read the passage or you ignored my commentary. Verses 12 up should be seperated from verses 7-11 simply to make verses 1 to 6 make sense.

1 to 6: "I will bring many nations against you" Note the use of "They" to describe these nations; "They will destroy the walls..."

7 to 11: "I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon" Note the consistent use of "he" to describe what Nebbie will do; "He will ravage
he will set up siege works against you
raise his shields against you
He will direct the blows of his battering rams
His horses will be so many
when he enters your gates
his horses will trample all your streets
he will kill your people with the sword

12 to end: We go back to the "They" description; They will plunder your wealth
they will break down your walls

More impotantly is the difference in actions between the two descriptions - Nebbie's and "They".

Nebbie will: ravage [the] settlements on the mainland with the sword… set up siege works… build a ramp up to [the] walls… direct the blows of his battering rams against [the] walls… demolish [the] towers. He then “enters [the] gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through [ie, an after an assault]… his horses will trample all [the] streets [ie complete occupation including the citadel]… he will kill [the] people with the sword, and [the] strong pillars will fall to the ground. [ie citadel and strong points].

This describes the siege and occupation of a city by a conqueror.

Now the description of what “they” the “other nations” will do.

“They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers… her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword …they will plunder [her] wealth and loot [her] merchandise… break down [her] walls and demolish [her] fine houses and throw [her] stones, timber and rubble into the sea.”

The end result of all “scrap[ing] away her rubble and make her a bare rock… is that “Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets”

The only similarities between what Nebbie does and what “they” do is in the acts of ravaging the mainland settlements and destroying the towers, acts you would expect to be repeated by every conqueror of any city.

Now history does indeed record that Tyre was “scraped away” and her rubble was “thrown into the sea”. Tyre did in fact become a place where people spread fish nets.

Your only cause for disagreement that this is a prophecy lies in the separation of verses 12 to 14 from 7 to 11. But given the change from “He” to “They” your case is weak at best.

[Robyn Banks]

FirstSunday33ad:
You didn't read the passage or you ignored my commentary.
Don't be silly. I both read the passage AND read your commentary. You present a false option, designed to shift the focus away from the issue, and onto what I did. Well, that sort of tactic doesn't work with me.

The fact is that your analysis was wrong. SO I demonstrated how it was wrong.



FirstSunday33ad:
Your only cause for disagreement that this is a prophecy lies in the separation of verses 12 to 14 from 7 to 11. But given the change from “He” to “They” your case is weak at best.
You simply make too much of a pronoun shift what does not support the import you give it. The Hebrews often switched between plural and singular pronouns when describing a collective noun - which is what Nebuchadnezzar's army is. And as pointed out in my debate with Jason, irregular pronoun shifts are common in Ezekiel, and don’t signify a change in antecedent or referent, e.g. house / their (4:4); house / them (24:2-3); Syria / They (27:16); ‘you, Sidon’ / ‘your midst’ / ‘they shall know’ (28:20); land / they (29:9).

There is no justification for what you do: dividing up the single oracle of Ezekiel 26.7-14, and falsely taking one half of the oracle as applying to Nebuchadnezzar, and the other half to someone coming centuries afterward. You abuse the context of the passage in your attempt to harmonize it with your doctrines. It is clearly a single narrative proceeding from an army's attack, building to wall-breaking and destruction and plundering. Your interpretation is perverse and unnatural.

What is more, Nebuchadnezzar even failed to fulfill the "he" parts of Ezekiel 26.7-14. "He" did not break the walls of Tyre. "He" did not trample the streets. "He" did not put the people of Tyre to the sword.

The oracle of Ezekiel 26.7-14 describes the breaking, trampling and plundering of Tyre. So does Ezekiel 26.1-6. The descriptions of breaking walls, destruction and plundering are very similar, and refer to the same event. And both have the same referent: "Nebuchadnezzar;" Nebuchadnezzar's army; "the nations."

Doctrines such as 'inerrancy' force fundamentalist Christians into strange and bizarre interpretations, and therefore into deliberately misinterpreting the intended meaning of the Bible. It forces you to dishonestly interpret the text, and then to twist your mind to believe it. This was the complaint of the original poster, and you have only confirmed his complaint.

Hope that helps.
Robyn

[Jason Gastrich]

Hey 1st Sunday,

Great points. Robyn is really grasping for straws.

Simply because Nebbie had an army that consisted of many nations, this doesn't mean that the prophetic scripture describing many nations had to refer to his army. Does it?

If I said that many nations were going to invade Japan, then an army of three nations invaded Japan and later an army of three more nations invaded Japan, how could you say that I was only and unequivocally talking about the first set of nations? If the nations are not named, then logically, the extension could extend to all of the nations that invaded Japan (which would include the second set of nations).

God bless,
Jason Gastrich

[seer]

"He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the war horses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. "

Did Nebuchadnezzars army ever break down the towers? Enter the city? Trample the streets and kill the people therein?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Yesterday @ 06:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105055#post105055)
Robyn Banks:




What is more, Nebuchadnezzar even failed to fulfill the "he" parts of Ezekiel 26.7-14. "He" did not break the walls of Tyre. "He" did not trample the streets. "He" did not put the people of Tyre to the sword.

The oracle of Ezekiel 26.7-14 describes the breaking, trampling and plundering of Tyre. So does Ezekiel 26.1-6. The descriptions of breaking walls, destruction and plundering are very similar, and refer to the same event. And both have the same referent: "Nebuchadnezzar;" Nebuchadnezzar's army; "the nations."



Okay, so now the meat has come off the bone. Did Nebbie fail to take Tyre - or at least fail to enter the city and kill people within it? Now from what I have found some say yes, some say no. We know that he seiged the city for 13 years and we know Tyre pulled up stakes and set up in the sea to protect itself from future attacks.

Perhaps you can provide some convincing source that shows Nebbie's armies never sacked Tyre.

Yes it does help, thank you.