Tim Taylor
A Flat Tyre.
A Rebuttal To Holding’s claims About Tyre
Holding
Issue #1 - Who Are "They"?
"They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise.." (NIV)
This verse is pivotal to many of the arguments of each side. Our side would say that the "they" in v. 12 refers back the "nations" in v. 3-5, and were represented by Alexander the Great, who did the things described in v. 12, thus fulfilling the prophecy.
Tim Taylor
Where is Alexander mentioned in the text? He isn’t.
Holding also would have us believe that Ezekiel begins by talking about Alexander in verses 3-5, switches to Nebuchadrezzar in verses 6-11, then switches back to Alexander in verse 12.
Holding
Skeptics and other critics, however, say that the "they" in v. 12 refers to the elements of Nebuchadnezzar's forces in verses 7 and 11.
Tim Taylor
Below you argue that Alexander had many nations under his command, but for some reason you are remarkably silent on the fact that the same argument would apply to Nebuchadrezzar. Of course, it suits your goal to talk about Alexander's many nations while remaining silent on Nebuchadrezzar.
Hiolding
Nebbie never did the things ascribed to "they," in verse 12 - he failed to take Tyre at all - so the prophecy, it is said, was not fulfilled. A key here is that the "they" in v. 12 can only refer to the "nations" in v. 3. Let's see how this is so.
· Verse 3: The nations are mentioned.
· Verse 4: The nations are referenced as "they."
· Verse 7: Nebbie is introduced, along with his horses, chariots, horsemen, and army.
· Verse 8: Says "HE will ravage your settlements on the mainland...HE will set up siege works against you (etc.)" At this point we see the personification of Nebbie in his forces begin. Obviously, Nebbie did not PERSONALLY do the things described while his army sat by and sipped coconuts.
· Verse 9: says "HE will direct the blows of his battering ram..." Same as above; unless we want to argue that Nebbie only used his personal battering ram which he didn't let anyone else use.
· Verses 10-11: "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." Here we see two more cases where Nebbie's forces are personified under singular references to himself.
Tim Taylor
As Till has already pointed out, Ezekiel does reference his forces as "they" in
Ezekiel 29. As shown here, your rebuttal was nothing but a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Here is the reference in question:
Ezekiel 29 (ASV)
18
Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused HIS army to serve a great service against Tyre: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was worn; yet had he no wages, nor HIS army, from Tyre, for the service that HE served against it.
19
Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and HE shall carry off her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
20
I have given him the land of Egypt as his recompense for which HE served, because THEY wrought for me, saith the Lord Jehovah.
So, Ezekiel's use of "he" and "they" here torpedoes your argument. What was your "rebuttal" to this?
Holding
Well, there's a big problem with using this passage: Unlike the other passage in question, Nebbie is highlighted ALONG WITH his army throughout the above in a way that the army is not highlighted in the previous passage. During the Tyre prophecy, as we have noted, Nebbie's army is personified under singular references to Nebbie himself.
Tim Taylor
This statement simply begs the question under discussion. In other words, once Holding removes the verses in
Ezekiel 26 that refer to Nebuchadrezzar's forces as "they", of course the only remaining references are to "he."
If I remove all references to the resurrection on the Gospels, Jesus wasn't resurrected.
Holding
That is not what is happening here: The army is allowed to have its own identity,
Tim Taylor
Ezekiel 29:18 (ASV)
Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused HIS army
compared to
Ezekiel 26:7 (ASV)
For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and a company, and much people.
So, this is Holdings "no true Scotsman." Since Ezekiel refers to Nebuchadrezzar's forces as "horses, chariots, horsemen, a company, and much people" in Chapter 26 but as an "army" in Chapter 29, Till's analogy can't be used. For those unfamiliar with the No True Scotsman, here is the definition (
http://www.esgs.org/uk/logic.htm)
Ad hoc hypothesis: Hypothesis used to explain away facts that seem to refute one's theory. A special form of it is: "No true Scotsman. . .": an argument that takes the form of: "no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge", which is countered with "my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge", but is followed by the rejoinder, "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge"
Holding
in order to emphasize that "every head was made bald, and every shoulder was rubbed raw" - a simple, hyperbolic way of expressing how much trouble the army had to go to against Tyre. Three times (or maybe even four, depending on how you want to count) in the above passage Nebbie is paired with his army in a way that alludes to them as separate entities, and this gives a more than adequate reason for the use of "they" in the last sentence
Tim Taylor
But of course the fact that they are broken down into separate entities in Chapter 26 does not lead to the same conclusion, does it?
<snip remainder of ad hoc fallacy>
Holding
Now the key verse:
Verse 12: "They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise..." We may note that this is the first recurrence of "they" since verse 4. That this is so is a strong literary argument, even in English, that the subject of the "they" in verse 3, the "nations," is also to be identified with the actors in v. 12. Skeptics would have us apply the "they" to the folks in v. 7. Aside from the fact that these folks have already been subsumed under Nebbie's pronoun, "HE,"
Tim Taylor
You mean the way his army was subsumed in "his" in
Ezekiel 29:18?
Holding
we may ask skeptics why they do not refer "they" to much closer words which agree in the plural sense and thus could be regarded as antecedents - for example, the "horses, wagons, and chariots" described in verses 10-11.
Tim Taylor
And "I" may ask you why this distinction is relevant. Horses have riders. Those riders are part of an army. That army consisted of many nations. So, your red herring here has no relevance. Pick one. It doesn't matter.
Holding
At this point we bring in a new argument brought to my attention, though it was not written in response to this page. An article entitled "A Problem of Unfulfilled Prophecy in Ezekiel" by one David Thompson, found here, argues thusly:
...the prediction of utter destruction is not easily separated from Nebuchadnezzar. Towers and standing columns (massebot) portrayed in the highly schematized art of Assyrian reliefs of insular Tyre make it quite probable that such "towers" and "columns" were distinctive features of the island city. 32 Their appearance in verses 4, 9, and 11 make it difficult to separate the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege from the opening general prediction of Tyre's complete destruction. This overlap between the opening announcement of Tyre's destruction and the description of Nebuchadnezzar's siege in reference to an apparently distinctive feature of island Tyre make it further probable that Nebuchadnezzar's siege here is seen by Ezekiel as at very least including a thoroughly destructive conquest of the island, not just mainland Tyre.
Thompson's argument rests upon the premise, however, that the "towers" and "columns" by Ezekiel refer to specific (and literal) architectural elements.
Tim Taylor
I can't imagine where Thompson or Ezekiel got such an idea:
"The outer walls, on the side of the mainland, were one hundred and fifty feet high and were SURMOUNTED BY BATTLEMENTS, according to the Greek historians of Alexander's seige" - The History of Tyre, Wallace B. Fleming p. 4, AMS Publishers, 1966 reprint of the 1915 edition.
Holding
(Thompson also does not explain what the reliefs depict the mainland city as looking like, and whether it had any such features.) Since the word for "towers" is used in the Bible to refer to places that are merely lookouts that are higher than the rest of the city, and since "columns" can refer to an edifice even as small as the altar set up by Jacob), I have serious doubts about the relevance of the Assyrian reliefs. There is no reason why the two words cannot refer to less-prominent structures, or else be understood as metaphors for military strength.
Tim Taylor
Very simple:
Ezekiel 26:9
9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons
Ever heard of any army using battering rams against a metaphor?
Holding
Other points raised by Thompson about the reliability of the text itself have been dealt with by Lawhead here.
Tim Taylor
Nothing like a dead link for evidence.
Holding
Bottom line: The "they" in v. 12 does not refer to Nebbie or his army.
Tim Taylor
Bottom line, you've offered nothing but logical fallacies to support your argument from ignorance.
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/list/ii_errancy
alt.bible.errancy
