Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lebanon In End Time Bible Prophecy
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 123 of 178 (345679)
09-01-2006 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by purpledawn
09-01-2006 7:31 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
You're selectively leaving out verses I cited that refute you
purpledawn writes:
What is written in Ezekiel 26:4 is not the same as what is written in 26:12
What I said is vs 3-6 (I meant 3-5...oops!) use the same phrasing as vs 12-14. Not vs 4 uses the same phrasing as vs 12 as you stated. And conveniently the verses you leave out refute you so I'll cite them.
lets compare 3-5 to 12-14 shall we?
3-5:
"Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: 'Behold I am against you, O Tyre and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea cuases it waves to come up. And THEY SHALL DESTROY THE WALLS of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her LIKE THE TOP OF A ROCK. It shall be a PLACE FOR SPREADING NETS in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,' says the Lord God; 'it shall become plunder for the nations."
12-14:
"THEY will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; THEY WILL BREAK DOWN YOUR WALLS and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber and your soil in the midst of the water. I will put and end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. I will make you LIKE THE TOP OF A ROCK; you shall be a PLACE FOR SPREADING NETS, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken,' says the Lord GOD."
You cant see the same phrasing of 'the top of a rock' and 'a place for spreading nets' in both passages? And I even left out the same pronoun 'they' in vs 4 as vs 12 and the 'breaking down the walls' that is in both also. So there are repeated repeated phrases that contextually demonstrate that vs 12-14 refers back to 'the many nations' of vs 3-5.
And vs 6-11 speak of Nebudchanezzar only killing and not tearing down any walls.
Now then you didnt answer the question necessary for your position...why the sudden change from a consistent and repeated us of 'he', eight times successively, to 'they'? You provide no answer.
And your II Chronicles example is flawed and actually supports my position. When it says 'they' It is referencing the army of the Chaldeans who broke the walls of Jerusalem and not Nebudchanezzar so using 'they' is not a reference to Nebudchanezzar but the Chaldeans. The parallel passage in 2 Kings 25:10, the same account of Zedekiahs rebellion, makes this clear: "And all of the army of the Chaldeans who were with the captain of the guard broke down the walls of Jerusalem all around." compare with II Chronicles 36:19 from your example, "They they burned the house of God, broke down the wall of Jerusalem, burned all its places with fire, and destroyed all it's precious possessions." So the use of 'they' is appropriate, it isnt Nebudchanezzar that is being referenced but the Chaldeans.
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.
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.
You have to admit this makes sense and is reasonable.
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 7:31 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 09-01-2006 11:39 AM ReformedRob has not replied
 Message 125 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 11:50 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 131 of 178 (345903)
09-01-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by MangyTiger
09-01-2006 10:56 PM


Re: City vs. Island fortress
I made several small mistakes in my haste to reply quickly that dont negate the validity of the prophecy. My first posts were from memory like thinking Alexander killed them all and I was mistake but the substance of the prophecy shouldnt suffer for my mistakes.
Like you said keep reading the rest of the posts in which I make my position clearer and amend my haste.
And one more is coming to correct Purple Dawn and Ringo...again.
I jumped in and got involved in too many threads at once!
But to anyone objective it is obvious that vs 3-5 are Many nations using the plural pronoun 'they' and the clear context provided by the multiple wordings of 'bare top like a rock', 'destroy the walls' and 'fishermen spreading out the nets'. 4 specific phrasings repeated in vs 12-14. The only responses given are about the walls and ignore the other 3 phrasings.
As well vs 6 says "also" indicating a new topic from vs 3-5 and directly says that her daughter villages would be slain fitting perfectly the mainland and then vs 7 continues the same vein saying "For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebudchanezzar, King of Babylon" clearly indicating who it was who would be attacking the daughter villages i.e. the mainland. So vs 6-11 are the mainland and vs 3-5 & 12-14 are clearly and obviously Alexander using the mainland city to get to the Island and plunder the wealth of it which he did. Tyre was the mainland city and the fortress but the differences are obviously and easily exegeted from the context. Neb did the mainland city in context of vs 6-11 and Alexander did the Island in context of vs 3-5 and vs 12-14.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by MangyTiger, posted 09-01-2006 10:56 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 132 of 178 (345925)
09-02-2006 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by purpledawn
09-01-2006 11:50 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Ok, it is obvious you guys are being stubborn so here we go again
purpledawn writes:
Since when is "similar phrasing" as basis for determing the antecedent for a pronoun?
It's a simple thing called context foundational to any exegesis of anything! Next you'll have me show the methodology that 1+1=2.
And in vs 3-5 and 12-14 it's not just similar phrasing but parallel use of 6 instances of similar phrases for the many nations including 1)'they', 2)'bare like a rock', 3)'a place for fishing nets', 4)'breaking the walls', 5) 'plunder' & 6) 'they' followed by 'I (God)'
Additionally, vs 6 starts a new but related topic saying "Also her daughter vilages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the LORD. For thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north
Nebudchanezzar king of Babylon...(8)He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields...(11)he will slay your people by the sword"
Contextually it is obvious that this is Nebudchanezzar attacking the mainland. And in the NKJV and NASV, which are not paraphrases like the NIV and better for study as they try to translate word for word instead of bringing in the ambiguities of paraphrases, it does not say Neb would tear down the walls.
The poor translation of the NIV has caused your confusion with the II Chronicles passage. Chaldea was a southern portion of the Babylonian empire that was assimilated and later become synonymous with the Babylonian empire but in the II Chronicles passage it is not the Babylonian empire but a subset of it. The players there are 1) Nebudchanezzar, 2)The captain of his guard Nebuzaradan in charge of the Babylonian army, 3)The king of the Chaldeans and 4) The army of the Chaldeans. The context is God uses Neb to move against Zedekiah. The captain of the Guard Nebuzaradan, referred to as 'He'in II Chronicles 36:18 goes to Jerusalem with the Babylonian army and the king of the Chaldeans and his army. The captain acting on Nebs behalf takes the captives and wealth back to Babylon. The Chaldean army, referred to as 'they'in II Chronicles 36:19, break the walls.
II Kings 8,10,11,15&18 demonstrate it clearly "(8)And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month (which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon), Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem...(10)And the army of the Chaldeans who were with the captain of the guard broke down the walls of Jerusalem. (11) Then Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive the rest of the people who remained in the city and the defectors who had deserted to the king of Babylon, with the rest of the multitude...(15)The firepans and the basins, the things of solid gold and solid silver, the captain of the guard took away...(18)And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, Zephaniah the second priest and the three doorkeepers."
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. "(18)And all the articles from the house of God, great and small, the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king and of his leaders, all these HE took to Babylon. Then THEY burned the house of God, broke down the wall of Jerusalem, burned all its palaces with fire and destroyed all its precious possessions." (emphasis mine)
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. In both cases 'he' and 'they' indicate different groups.
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. All else is selective hypercriticism.
Prophecy fulfilled.
Edited by ReformedRob, : spelling
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 11:50 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by purpledawn, posted 09-02-2006 10:07 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 133 of 178 (345930)
09-02-2006 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by jar
09-01-2006 11:59 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Just wanted to alert you to my response to PD in Message 132, it applies to you also.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 09-01-2006 11:59 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 1:20 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 135 of 178 (345941)
09-02-2006 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by ringo
09-02-2006 1:20 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
You mean to tell me that Tyre is still the same glorious city it has been since before Nebuchadnezzar? It is still the glorious city state and marvel of the world? There are no ruins there to this day?
This is the selective hypercriticism I spoke of. Even though the prophecy is well established to have been written when it claims, and many nations did attack it, the fact that Alexander scraped the mainland city into the sea, the third attack on the city, which removed it's glory never to be regained, cynics with an apriori agenda and methodology refuse to acknowledge the glorious awe and wonder of this.
What part of selective hypercriticism do you not understand?

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 1:20 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 1:56 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 137 of 178 (345951)
09-02-2006 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by ringo
09-02-2006 1:56 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
After all that has been posted this is all you and the others have left which is absurd.
Ringo writes:
That's not what it says.
The fact is it was written in a different period of time in a different style in a formerly dead language in a different culture and you are interpreting it applying modern language and cultural standards.
Are you really trying to tell me you are ignorant of metaphors, similies, homilies poetic and figurative language is used in ancient biblical prophecies? I dont believe it you are smarter than that.
So Revelations is literal to the english? Wow that is groundbreaking news that no one seems to know. Frogs and demons will be coming up the river Euphrates to attack Jerusalem?
The fact is prophecy is recognizable and yet uses hyperbole just as parables do and Christ said himself that parables were used so the unbeliever wouldnt understand.
That's not what it says.
So of course this is hypercriticism. Instead of being awed by the fact that the prophesy was written before Alexander,when it claims, and Neb attacked the mainland as it says, and killed people, as it says and that many nations attacked it in multiple attacks like 'waves of the sea' as it says and that Alexander put the mainland city into the sea as it says and plundered the riches as it says; you and others try to hyperliteralize the wording to fit your narrow-minded view of this prophecy that it should be literally worded to your modern english standards which is ridiculous at face value. And I want it understood that I respect your intelligence and am attacking your position here.
Good nite and God Bless

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 1:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 2:55 AM ReformedRob has not replied
 Message 144 by Max Udargo, posted 09-05-2006 12:33 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 138 of 178 (345953)
09-02-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by ringo
09-02-2006 1:56 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
After all that has been posted this is all you and the others have left which is absurd.
Ringo writes:
That's not what it says.
The fact is it was written in a different period of time in a different style in a formerly dead language in a different culture and you are interpreting it applying modern language and cultural standards.
Are you really trying to tell me you are ignorant of metaphors, similies, homilies poetic and figurative language is used in ancient biblical prophecies? I dont believe it you are smarter than that.
So Revelations is literal to the english? Wow that is groundbreaking news that no one seems to know. Frogs and demons will be coming up the river Euphrates to attack Jerusalem?
The fact is prophecy is recognizable and yet uses hyperbole just as parables do and Christ said himself that parables were used so the unbeliever wouldnt understand.
'That's not what it says.' You claim despite the fact that even in the verses you cite it is God talking not to a person but to a city! You cant see the obvious hyperbole here?
Ringo writes:
It isn't "hypercriticism" at all. It's a plain, common-sense reading of the text.
This statement alone proves your bias.
In fact it's an absurd statement that you will find no support for even amongst critics who agree with your conclusions.
So no one needs to go to the original language, the culture of the time or the audience? That's absurd. Biblical exegesis is not common sense at all but specific study of different languages and culture.
So of course this is hypercriticism. Instead of being awed by the fact that the prophesy was written before Alexander,when it claims, and Neb attacked the mainland as it says, and killed people, as it says and that many nations attacked it in multiple attacks like 'waves of the sea' as it says and that Alexander put the mainland city into the sea as it says and plundered the riches as it says; you and others try to hyperliteralize the wording to fit your narrow-minded view of this prophecy that it should be literally worded to your modern english standards which is ridiculous at face value. And I want it understood that I respect your intelligence and am attacking your position here.
Good nite and God Bless
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 1:56 AM ringo has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 140 of 178 (345958)
09-02-2006 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by ringo
09-02-2006 1:56 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
After all that has been posted this is all you and the others have left which is absurd.
Ringo writes:
That's not what it says.
The fact is it was written in a different period of time in a different style in a formerly dead language in a different culture and you are interpreting it applying modern language and cultural standards.
Are you really trying to tell me you are ignorant of metaphors, similies, homilies poetic and figurative language is used in ancient biblical prophecies? I dont believe it you are smarter than that.
So Revelations is literal to the english? Wow that is groundbreaking news that no one seems to know. Frogs and demons will be coming up the river Euphrates to attack Jerusalem?
The fact is prophecy is recognizable and yet uses hyperbole just as parables do and Christ said himself that parables were used so the unbeliever wouldnt understand.
'That's not what it says.' You claim despite the fact that even in the verses you cite it is God talking not to a person but to a city! You cant see the obvious hyperbole here?
Ringo writes:
It isn't "hypercriticism" at all. It's a plain, common-sense reading of the text.
This statement alone proves your bias.
In fact it's an absurd statement that you will find no support for even amongst critics who agree with your conclusions.
So no one needs to go to the original language, the culture of the time or the audience? That's absurd. Biblical exegesis is not common sense at all but specific study of different languages and culture.
So of course this is hypercriticism. Instead of being awed by the fact that the prophesy was written before Alexander,when it claims, and Neb attacked the mainland as it says, and killed people, as it says and that many nations attacked it in multiple attacks like 'waves of the sea' as it says and that Alexander put the mainland city into the sea as it says and plundered the riches as it says; you and others try to hyperliteralize the wording to fit your narrow-minded view of this prophecy that it should be literally worded to your modern english standards which is ridiculous at face value. And I want it understood that I respect your intelligence and am attacking your position here.
Good nite and God Bless

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 1:56 AM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AdminPD, posted 09-02-2006 5:58 AM ReformedRob has not replied
 Message 147 by iceage, posted 09-10-2006 1:37 PM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 156 of 178 (351915)
09-24-2006 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by iceage
09-10-2006 1:37 PM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Your response is ludicrous for several reasons. I was responding to a specific point of debate between Ringo and myself. I did not advocate a generalized approach to prophecy. So when you write
troxelso writes:
Given that you take this prophecy is hyperbole
you are putting false words into my mouth. I do not approach this prophecy as hyperbole but when it says many nations will attack like 'waves of the sea' a literal interpretation does not warrant waves of the sea will attack Tyre! When it says it will not be rebuilt that does not mean buildings would never be erected there but the whole passage is talking about taking down Tyre, the great city state and removing it's status and glory which was completed. Ringo and I were debating the implications of this particular statement. Does never to be rebuilt mean a superficial idea of no more buildings ever or does the obvious context of the passage mean Tyre would be brought down and never be a glorious city/state again? The answer is obvious.
troxelso writes:
One further note, take any period BC and make a prophecy of the destruction of a city or region and you have close to a 100% chance of being correct.
Yeah that was obvious at the time it was written. That's why Rome still exists, Jerusalem. Alexandria etc... This is false methodology. Thousands of years after the fact it is easy to comment but at the time it was not known. But at least you acknowledge the point...Tyre as it was at the time of the prophecy does not exist.
troxelso writes:
This is silly (hyperbole?) as Revelations even notifies the reader that what is to follow is a vision.
Another false methodology. Visions are not all hyperbole. In fact hyperbole was used to disguise the message from unbelievers. One had to be a jew and recognize jewish symbology from the Tanak to understand the message.
troxelso writes:
You and other "intellectuals will spend a prodigious amount of effort trying to relate the metaphors of Revelations to current events, since your time in history is obviously the most important.
I do no such thing. I am a partial preterist. The most scholarly exegisis of Revelations and Matthew 24 and like passages are that these prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD culminating with the destruction of the temple

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by iceage, posted 09-10-2006 1:37 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 09-25-2006 12:33 AM ReformedRob has replied
 Message 162 by iceage, posted 09-25-2006 1:40 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 157 of 178 (351920)
09-24-2006 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by purpledawn
09-14-2006 8:03 AM


Re: Singular but Plural
I've been away for a while but now I'm back.
A few quick point again...
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. 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.
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.
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.
II Kings gives the context of the passage in Chronicles and even if you were right about those passages (you're not, it is obvious) you have to prove in Ezekiel that is how it is not just point out a possibility with another passage. But II Kings proves 'they' are the Chaldean army a separate entity than Neb's army or captain which doesnt support your cause.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by purpledawn, posted 09-14-2006 8:03 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by purpledawn, posted 09-25-2006 11:20 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 159 of 178 (351967)
09-25-2006 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by ringo
09-25-2006 12:33 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Ringo writes:
You're twisting Ezekiel's plain words to try to make a square-peg prophecy fit in a round hole.
Really, the plain words in English or did you forget to consult the Hebrew? It's funny that Hebrew scholars disagree with you. The entire passage is that the city/state of Tyre who had disobeyed God was gonna be punished and not be the city state anymore. The city/state of Tyre was never rebuilt again.
Ezekiel 26:2 "Son of man, because Tyre has said against Jerusalem, 'Aha!' She is broken who was the gateway of the peoples; now she is turned over to me, I shall be filled; she is laid waste.'
26:15-18 "Thus says the Lord GOD to Tyre: "Will the coastlands not shake at the sound of your fall when the woulded cry, when slaugher is made in the midst of you? Then all the princes of the sea will come down from their thrones, lay aside their robes, and take off their embroidereed garments; they will clothe themselves with trembling: they will sit on the ground, tremble every moment and be astonished at you. And they wil take a up a lamentation for you: How you have perished O one inhabited by seafaring men, O renowned city, Who was strong at sea, She and her inhabitants, Who caused their terror to be on all her inhabitants! Now the coastlands tremble on the day of your fall; Yes the coastlands by the sea are troubled at your departure."
So Ringo...you cant see the obvious implications that the context of this prophecy is that the glory of the city state of Tyre is being removed, never to be regained as a punishment by God? You cant see the poetic language used to describe this? The prophecy calls Tyre a she so I guess the city is now the feminine gender. The plain language says 'She.' Or are you just wanting to argue against the obvious, a point at all costs?

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 09-25-2006 12:33 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by ringo, posted 09-25-2006 1:18 AM ReformedRob has replied
 Message 166 by iceage, posted 09-25-2006 1:59 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 161 of 178 (351976)
09-25-2006 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by ringo
09-25-2006 1:18 AM


You Ignore that which refutes you
You completely ignored the cites of Ezekiel vs 2, & 15-18 which easily demonstrate the point I make that the prophecy is that the great city/state of Tyre would be no more, i.e. never, because of disobedience to God. After Neb and Alexander this was fulfilled. It has never again been a great city state since and it's status as such was removed. The verses I cited above easily demonstrate this painfully obvious and easy point.
And you have the burden of proof for your point...you claim the 'plain language' but merely cite the English and not the Hebrew. When I have more time I'll find the Hebrew scholars for you that provide the analysis I regurgitate but in the meantime you are not absolved of our argumentary burdens. I'll check tomorrow...I have to be up early and am going to bed now.
BTW good to spar with you again.
Good Nite and God Bless

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by ringo, posted 09-25-2006 1:18 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by ringo, posted 09-25-2006 1:54 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 165 of 178 (351982)
09-25-2006 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by iceage
09-25-2006 1:40 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
Please read my response to Ringo just above your last post. Actually read the one before that where I cite Ezekiel vs 26:2 and 15-18. I think it makes it abundantly clear that the whole point of the prophecy is to remove the glory and status of Tyre for disobeying God which was done and how it was done with many nations (vs 3-5 & 12-14) what they would do, and Nebudchanezzar (vs 6-11) and what he would do.
No prob on the end time stuff. Truth be told the pop-eschatology that many christians dogmatically adhere to, which in my opinion is incredibly superficial, annoys the hell out of me also. In my opinion,there will be no anti-christ recovering from a mortal head wound taking over a 10 nation confederacy that is the offshoot of Ancient Rome. And thanks for the apology...very big and way cool of ya. Gotta go, check in with ya tomorrow
Good nite and God bless

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by iceage, posted 09-25-2006 1:40 AM iceage has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 167 of 178 (351987)
09-25-2006 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by ringo
09-25-2006 1:54 AM


Re: You Ignore that which refutes you
I shouldnt be doing this I have to be up early but I couldnt resist!
The prophecy states exactly what you say it doesnt:
ringo writes:
But the point you are trying to make is that the city-state of Tyre would be no more. That is not what the test or the context says. It says it will not be built again. It refers specifically to the buildings, not just the political influence
the cite to prove this is too long to post here it is all of chapt 27 but I will cite four quick vs that I already did which refute you that you ignore, which clearly demonstrate the loss of political influence is key, vs 15-18: "Thus says the Lord GOD to Tyre: "Will the coastlands not shake at the sound of your fall when the woulded cry, when slaugher is made in the midst of you? Then all the princes of the sea will come down from their thrones, lay aside their robes, and take off their embroidereed garments; they will clothe themselves with trembling: they will sit on the ground, tremble every moment and be astonished at you. And they wil take a up a lamentation for you: How you have perished O one inhabited by seafaring men, O renowned city, Who was strong at sea, She and her inhabitants, Who caused their terror to be on all her inhabitants! Now the coastlands tremble on the day of your fall; Yes the coastlands by the sea are troubled at your departure."
You cant see how the 'princes lamenting for the renowned strong city' demonstrates the lack of political influence? Again read all of Chapt 27 it is too long to post here which talks extensively of the trade and status of Tyre lost.
No more tonite I promise...see ya tomorrow.
Good nite and God bless

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by ringo, posted 09-25-2006 1:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by ringo, posted 09-25-2006 2:18 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5722 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 168 of 178 (351989)
09-25-2006 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by iceage
09-25-2006 1:59 AM


Re: Island was the Main City of Tyre
I think it is rather simple actually. The language can be poetic but the overall context usually isnt making the poetic a subset to the point. I think hell is clearly taught as was Noah and David and Goliath. When hyperbole is used I think it is clear also such as the passage about God covering us with his wings like a mother hen covers her chicks etc... As I just wrote to Ringo all of Chapt 27 and vs 15-18 already cited make it clear that the punishment from God was the removal of Tyre's 'political influence' as Ringo puts it
"26:15-18 "Thus says the Lord GOD to Tyre: "Will the coastlands not shake at the sound of your fall when the woulded cry, when slaugher is made in the midst of you? Then all the princes of the sea will come down from their thrones, lay aside their robes, and take off their embroidereed garments; they will clothe themselves with trembling: they will sit on the ground, tremble every moment and be astonished at you. And they wil take a up a lamentation for you: How you have perished O one inhabited by seafaring men, O renowned city, Who was strong at sea, She and her inhabitants, Who caused their terror to be on all her inhabitants! Now the coastlands tremble on the day of your fall; Yes the coastlands by the sea are troubled at your departure."
This with the extensive hyperbole about trade in chapt 27, the literal point with poetic language, makes it clear that the punishment for Tyre for disobeying God is the removal of her status and the details of who and what they do.
Aristotles treatise on Art makes it clear that the presumption goes to the author until we have clear evidence otherwise which I agree with.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by iceage, posted 09-25-2006 1:59 AM iceage has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024