Lebanon In End Time Bible Prophecy

quote:

---

Neb did take the city easily and quickly in 585 BC fulfilling vs 7-11. The island fortress was not the city. Ezekiel correctly states Neb not take the island fortress but it wasnt prophesied that he would...it was prophesied he would take the city which he did. Check your history 585 BC. You are confusing the island fortress with the city which it isnt. The island fortress was not the glory of the city state and center of commerce, the mainland city was.

---

How do you figure?Ezekiel 26:7-12 states that Neb would "ravage your settlements on the mainland". That doesn't read as though the mainland was the main city. From what I've read, I understand the island held the walls and the wealth.From what I've read Neb's campaign ended in compromise and he didn't succeed in breaking down the walls or demonlishing their houses etc, which is why in Ezekiel 29:18-20 God supposedly gave Egypt to Neb. The way Ezekiel wrote it sounds like the island fortress was the main city, not the mainland.Also Ezekiel 26:4-5 reads that the island is what would be scraped bare, not the mainland settlements.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Purple Dawn, You should read the previous posts so we dont have to repeat so much here.

​

Re Ezekiel Tyre prophecy

​

1) verses 3-6 refer to many nations not Nebudchanezzar

​

2) vs 7-11 are Nebudchanezzar which only says Neb would kill.

​

3) vs 12-14 are many nations again which was obviously fulfilled with the Muslim campaign and Alexander who did conquer the island fortress and scrape the mainland city into the sea.

---

I did. That's why I asked, "How do you figure?" Why would the "they" in verse 12 refer back to the preceding paragraph?Since a prophet supposedly receives his/her message while asleep or in a trance, I feel that when Ezekiel writes: "this is what the Sovereign Lord says:" it encompasses one vision or session. So Chapter 26 contains four visions or four instances of hearing from God.So in a normal reading of the paragraph concerning Neb, why do you feel that the "they" refers back to the nations.

quote:

---

Where is the awe of the prophecy of Tyre being attacked by many nations, put into the sea and never regaining her glory?

---

Nations come and go. It is the pattern of history.

quote:

---

Two things here, one,...Ezekiel 27:2 says Tyre, 'You who are situated at the entrance of the sea...' and two, I would suggest a study of the Hebrew of 'out in the sea' and you'll find similar phrasing in other passages referring to Sidon which was not on an island as in the sea.

---

Please provide the verses concerning Sidon.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

the phrasing of vs 12-14 repeats the context and phrasing of vs 3-6 about the bare rock and nets as posted above amd the pronoun 'they' is plural obviously referring to the many nations. Whereas the pronoun 'he' in vs 7-11 is singular obviously referring to it's immediate antecedant Nebudchanezzar. So because of the pronouns and the phrasing it is more than reasonable it is obvious that Neb is in vs 7-11 and many nations are in vs 3-6 & 12-14.

---

Yes I read your answers, but that is a rather odd way to read a paragraph and as I said in Message 120, the paragraphs are written as separate encounters with God.Yes there is the pronoun "he", but Neb was the leader. It isn't uncommon to talk of the leader and then switch to a plural when describing those actually doing the work.Example from 2 Chronicles 36 This is the same pattern followed in our verses in Ezekiel 26:7-14.What is written in Ezekiel 26:4 is not the same as what is written in 26:12 They aren't alike, why assume that the "they" refers back to a previous encounter with God?What are the verses concerning Sidon that you alluded to in Message 112?Concerning what I said in Message 106: Ezekiel 26:7-12 states that Neb would "ravage your settlements on the mainland". That doesn't read as though the mainland was the main city. From what I've read, I understand the island held the walls and the wealth.If you also notice Ezekiel 26:5-6, the settlements still don't seem to be the main focus of these visions. The island still seems to be the more important target.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

You're selectively leaving out verses I cited that refute you

---

I'm not leaving out anything. We are talking about who the word "they" in verse 12 refers back to. The "I" refers back to God, not a problem. God said he would make Tyre like the top of a rock, not they. The first one is general doom and the second one is stating what Neb's army would actually be doing. Each was a different session or oracle from God. Since when is "similar phrasing" as basis for determing the antecedent for a pronoun?

quote:

---

So there are repeated repeated phrases that contextually demonstrate that vs 12-14 refers back to 'the many nations' of vs 3-5.

---

Contextually verses 12-14 refer back to Neb's army just as I showed you with my example from 2 Chronicles in Message 122. I used the NIV translation and no, your version doesn't support your position either. I don't know what translation you are using, but here is the KJV which is close to what you are saying. So yes in your version the "he" refers to the King of the Chaldees, and the "they" refers to his army. 2 Kings 25:10 supports that the "they" refers to the army.It is still the same pattern as in Ezekiel. The singular pronouns refer to Neb, but the "they" refers to his army.

quote:

---

And the island had the ports and the wealth as you say and the mainland was the majority of the population, farmland and storehouses. Again Nebudchanezzars part in 6-11 (and I originally said 7-11, I goofed it is 6-11!) was to take the mainland city and kill people.

---

I still disagree. Now we look at the word "you" used. The island is the main target. By stating that Neb would ravage "your" settlements on the mainland, God is separating the settlements from the island. The "you" in "he will set up siege works against you" would refer to the island or main target.

quote:

---

Alexanders part was a fulfillment of the many nations, removing the great status, tearing down the walls, putting the city into the sea and plundering the wealth (the majority of which was on the island as you correctly stated)per versus 3-5 and 12-14.

---

Since I consider the "they" to refer to Neb's army, they (Neb's army) were supposed to throw the rubble into the sea. Reading the oracle normally as one would any other paragraph, the word "they" in verse 12 refers to Neb's army and not to many nations of the previous oracle.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Well you know how I like my text. Plain and unadulterated. I was looking to see if the text truly supported the idea that Neb was only to conquer the mainland. I don't see that it does.I also don't see that these oracles from Ezekiel spoke of anything but extinction of the Island City. Nothing to be rebuilt there.It was interesting taking a closer look at the text.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

It's a simple thing called context foundational to any exegesis of anything!

---

Just so we're on the same page. Just to clarify, you and I have a difference of opinion on whether the antecedent for the pronoun "they" in verse 12 of Ezekiel 26 refers to Neb's army (my choice) or back to "many nations" (your choice) in verse 3 of chapter 26. Now this may seem trivial, but your position hinges on your belief that the word "they" in verse 12 refers back to many nations making your view of Ezekiel's prophecy in verse 12 to read that many nations will plunder etc, as opposed to, Neb's army will plunder etc.If the word "they" refers to Neb's army, then that oracle did not come about.We are not trying to draw the meaning out of verse twelve. The meaning is obvious: plunder and destruction. The question is who was to do the plunder and destruction?Now if we look at the oracle objectively we can see that the word "they" in verse 12 refers to Neb's army. This opening sentence makes it clear that Neb was not attacking Tyre alone. He brought a great army with him. While the singular he is used, we logically assume that Neb wasn't actually doing all of this work alone, but lead his army to do these activies. Then we have the hooves of his horses will trample in verse 11, which refers to Neb's army. The horse weren't just running amuck on their own.Now we get to verse 12. And they shall make a spoil...etc. In searching for an antecedent we go back to the previous verse. Pronouns aren't usually to far removed from their antecedent. The previous verse refers to Neb's army, therefore the words "they" in verse 12 refer to Neb's army.Determining a pronoun's antecedent is not the same as pulling a meaning out of a sentence or word. Similar phrasing is also not the way one determines a pronoun's antecedent. Similar phrasing is one way to discern a word's meaning.

quote:

---

The poor translation of the NIV has caused your confusion with the II Chronicles passage. ...

---

In Message 121 you requested an explanation concerning the plural "they" as used in verse 12. As I showed you in Message 125, the II Chronicles is an example of a singular pronoun used to refer to a leader and his army and then a plural referring to the army carrying out orders. The format is the point, not the players. As I showed, it doesn't matter what translation you use.

quote:

---

So in II Chronicles vs 18 'He' is the Captain of the Guard and 'they' in vs 19 is a different group, the Chaldean army.

---

Not as written in II Chronicles. The author of II Chronicles lumped everything under the King.

quote:

---

So your assertion that II Kings shows the example of He changed to they demonstrates the synomous interchangable use of 'he' and 'they' in Ezekiel 26 is false.

---

I made no assertion concerning II Kings 25:8-18. I agree that II Kings 25:8-18 does not follow the writing format I am presenting, but I didn't say that it did.

quote:

---

So we have Neb invading the mainland and killing in vs 6-11 as prophesied (it was never prophesied he would be successful against the island) and the many nations of vs 3-5 & 12-14 finishing the job with Alexander, scraping the mainland city into the sea and taking the island.

---

Sorry, not going to work. We still have Neb failing to plunder the wealth and throw the rubble into the sea. Neb did not fulfill that oracle as it is written.

quote:

---

All else is selective hypercriticism.

---

Since your position hinges on that one word, it isn't hypercriticism.Concede that the words "they" in verse 12 of Ezekiel 26 refers to Neb's army and then make your case for Alexander and fulfillment. If you can't, then my point is important.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

A quick Hebrew question for you concerning Ezekiel 26:12.How does the Hebrew language express pronouns?Looking up Hebrew pronouns, I found the symbols for "they." I'm unable to copy it to this post.Using the Melingo link you provided once and this Parrallel Hebrew OT, I don't see that the word "they" is actually in that verse.I even looked at the latin version and don't find it there.Given that Hebrew was written without punctuation, I'm wondering if the "they" was added for easier understanding on our part of what the sentence was conveying.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Thanks for your response.

quote:

---

i will comment that the switch from "he" (nebuchadnezzar) to "they" is rather curious.

---

I don't.I've seen it writing and heard it in conversations.Here are a few examples I've found online. While we may consider it improper, it seems to be Ezekiel's style as well as others in the OT.Language rules change over time, but just reading the Bible, it is apparent that this style of writing was not considered improper or at the very least not important enough to correct.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

i don't think bush's relationship to congress is a good analogy for nebuchadnezzar's relationship to anything. but, uh, give it a few years...

---

There's no analogy. I gave examples of how we tend to use the plural pronoun for a singular noun that represents a group. This should have been written: ...he attacked Iraq because it has ... This should have been written: Tell Congress it must fight for us...

quote:

---

it just looks odd to me, in the text. it might refer back to the other nations, or it could be evidence that a passage is missing.

---

It's too far away to refer back to the other nations especially since this appears to be a separate vision.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

i don't think bush's relationship to congress is a good analogy for nebuchadnezzar's relationship to anything. but, uh, give it a few years...

---

There's no analogy. I gave examples of how we tend to use the plural pronoun for a singular noun that represents a group. This should have been written: ...he attacked Iraq because it has ... This should have been written: Tell Congress it must fight for us...

quote:

---

it just looks odd to me, in the text. it might refer back to the other nations, or it could be evidence that a passage is missing.

---

It's too far away to refer back to the other nations especially since this appears to be a separate vision.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

right, but congress is a group. nebuchadnezzar is not.

---

But he is a group.He is an individual and he is a group or represents a group.Just as Bush did not personally attacked Iraq by himself or set foot in Iraq at all, Neb did not attack Tyre by himself. I don't know if a King actually accompanied his army in those days, but Neb may have been with his army, but he wasn't alone. With the hoofs of his horses is the same as saying "with his army" he will trample all your streets. We know that Neb was not going to slay the people all alone or bring the pillars down by himself.When someone says that Bush attacked Iraq, we know that it is the US military that actually does the attack.Just as when Neb attacked Tyre, we know that it was his army that did the attacking, not Neb alone.That is the most general way to describe the account. ReformedRob actually made that clear in his Message 132 although he didn't intend to. The author of II Chronicles chose to write generally and lump the account under the king, whereas the author of II Kings was more specific as to who actually did what.Now when the attack on Iraq is written down for history, there will be authors who will give all the specifics as to which unit went in first and where, etc. The specifics.Maybe because I've been in the military and worked for them for over 10 years (making sure pronouns and their antecedents match), I don't have a problem with this type of writing. It is common place. The leader represents the group. I guess it all depends on what you're used to reading.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

1) the verses of 3-5 and 12-14 are not just saying similar things...they say the same thing the same way. So the many nations is obviously the 'they' referred to in vs 12-14 as they do the same things. Many nations will do these things, then 'they' will do the same things! It is more than reasonable.

---

As I said in Message 142: Determining a pronoun's antecedent is not the same as pulling a meaning out of a sentence or word. Similar phrasing is also not the way one determines a pronoun's antecedent. Similar phrasing is one way to discern a word's meaning.You haven't shown me that it is a common practice today to determine a pronouns antecedant by using similar phrasing.

quote:

---

Just saying that He could then be they is pointing out a possibility but you have do do more than that...you have a burden to demonstrate why it is an inevitability and must be exegeted that way. But all you offer is the possibility and an errant eisogesis of II Kings and Chronicles which actually refute your point. Had someone argued with you using the same approach you would dismiss them outright.

---

I didn't say that "he" could be "they", I said that "they" refers to Nebs horses (army) spoken of in the previous sentence. "He" refers to Neb, but since Neb is the king and kings don't attack by themselves, but with an army; Neb represents a group (army) in this vision.Also in Message 142 I stated: As I showed you in Message 125, the II Chronicles is an example of a singular pronoun used to refer to a leader and his army and then a plural referring to the army carrying out orders. The format is the point, not the players. As I showed, it doesn't matter what translation you use.Writers do not always write grammatically correct. Mistakes in pronoun-antecedent agreement aren't uncommon in writing and Ezekiel is not ammune to this common mistake. The explanation I offered concerning the verse you shared from II Kings and the verse I shared from II Chronicles had nothing to do with exegesis or eisegesis. It deals with writers and grammar and you haven't shown that I'm wrong.You haven't shown me that it is a common practice today to determine a pronouns antecedant by using exegesis.

quote:

---

2) The players of II Kings which you described as irrelevant are the antecedents for the pronouns we are aguing about which provides the exegesis for Chronicles. You have to say they are irrelevant because if you acknowledge who they actually are you lose the point; which you have but just dont have the intellectual integrity and honesty to admit. There are 4 players i.e. antecedants, Neb, his captain and army, the chaldean army and their king. The 'they' is the chaldean army not Neb's army or Neb. It is obvious to anyone not trying to win a point and arguing for the sake of arguing.

---

No, the players of II Kings are not the antecedents for the pronouns in II Chronicles. They are separate books with different purposes. I don't know of anyone who reads a book and expects to read another book to find the antecedant to a pronoun.Excerpt from the introduction to Chronicles (NIV) The writer of II Kings gave a more specific rendition of the story than the writer of II Chronicles. But one does not determine the antecedant for pronouns used by the other. Again the only reason I used II Chronicles was as an example of a leader being referred to by a singular pronoun but having a plural assumption.You might want to clarify what point I supposedly lost. In Message 125 I agreed that in your version the "he" refers to the King of the Chaldees, and the "they" refers to his army. 2 Kings 25:10 supports that the "they" refers to the army. and I showed you that there was a difference in our translations which accounted for my use of Neb.

quote:

---

to summarize...the verses in 3-5 describe the many nations and what they will do and verses 12-14 use the plural pronoun, all consistent in the Hebrew I might add, to describe again the same things the many nations will do. Vs 6-11 are only Neb and he did those things.

---

You keep saying that, but you haven't shown that "they" refers to the many nations from a grammatical standpoint. I have shown grammatically that the "they" refers to the many horses which represent Nebs army. I have also shown that it is a common mistake for writers to inadvertently shift from singular to plural pronouns when the singular noun represents a group (army/nation).

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz