Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible prophecy - Nothing compares
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 48 (90137)
03-03-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
03-03-2004 4:15 PM


Re: TO: ALL
As for Tyre, the book of Ezekiel itself (29:18) states that Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer the city.
Ezekiel says no such thing. All he says here is that God hadn't yet rewarded him with wages for doing the city in, so God was giving him Egypt for wages.
1. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city in 573 B.C.
2. An island colony was left intact.
3. 240 years later Alex the Great built a causeway out of the debris from Nebuchadnezzar's previous destruction of Tyre's mainland and swept the colony clean to the bedrock, casting the rubble into the sea. He used the rubble from The mainland city destruction to build the causeway.
4. Fishermen spread their nets there today as the prophecy fortold.
5. The city of Tyre that exists today is not on the same site.
If you want a bonafide prophecy, there it is. If you don't want a prophecy atol, no matter how it was fulfilled you will find some way to deny it. Too bad you're not that skeptical about all the evo stuff you swallow hook line and sinker.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2004 4:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2004 7:06 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 16 by Amlodhi, posted 03-04-2004 4:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 48 (90416)
03-04-2004 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
03-03-2004 7:06 PM


Re: TO: ALL
Nebuchadnezzar DIDN'T destroy the city.
The "island colony" IS the city.
Alexander isn't mentioned in the prophecy.
So the prophecy failed.
Paul, you need to do your homework on this prophecy. Prophecies like physics aren't usually simple.
Concerning this prophecy:
1. More than one nation will be involved. (26:3).
2. The walls and towers will come down. (26:4).
3. The invaders will remove the debris of the city. (unusual) (26:4).
4. Nebuchadnezzar will be a very significant one of the attackers. (26:7).
5. Stones and timbers go in the water. (26:12).
6. Finally bear rock for the fiserman to spread nets. (26:14).
7. No more Tyre at that site ever. (26:14).
PROPHECY FULFILLED!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2004 7:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Asgara, posted 03-04-2004 11:38 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2004 3:13 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 48 (90423)
03-04-2004 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Amlodhi
03-04-2004 4:52 PM


Re: Tsor gone?
One question for you: Who did Antigonus attack and lay siege to c. 20 yrs. after the final event you have described above?
Antigonus was one of Alex's generals. After the colony fell and the wall torn down there was some rebuilding but my understanding is that this was at the new city where it is now and that must have been what Antigonus attacked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Amlodhi, posted 03-04-2004 4:52 PM Amlodhi has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 48 (90690)
03-05-2004 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Asgara
03-04-2004 11:38 PM


Re: TO: BUZ
Verse 7 thru 11 is very definately talking about Nebuchadnezzar and Neb never entered Tyre. Tyre is the island...the mainland was Usha, more of a suburb.
I beg to differ and the Encyclopedia Brittanica agrees:
Tyre, built on an island and on the neighbouring mainland, was probably originally founded as a colony of Sidon. Mentioned in Egyptian records of the .
Asgara:
Tyre is still at that site. It has had a continuous population since the 13th century bce.
I understand there's a fishing village or town there. The Bible implicates this to be so by stating there will be fishing and fishermen there. Fishermen usually dwell near their work. The prophecy was to the effect that no city would be rebuilt.
How can a prophesy be seen as fulfilled if the man specifically named as the conquerer never conquered and the total destruction of the city and it's never being rebuilt is a fallacy?
As the encyclopedia verifies, Neb did his part for fulfillment of the prophecy. You're forgetting that other nations were also involved in this prophecy, not just Neb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Asgara, posted 03-04-2004 11:38 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 48 (90691)
03-05-2004 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
03-05-2004 3:13 AM


Re: TO: ALL
You might like to consider how it could be that Nebuchadnezzar's army could "make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise" (26:12) yet receive "no wages".
It's interesting that if you begin reading at verse 7, speaking of Neb, the wording goes, "he" shall do this and "he" shall do that. Then when you get to your verse 12 the pronoun suddenly becomes "they" shall take spoil, etc. It appears that other than Neb receives spoils from the destruction. At any rate, evidently God didn't figure he was rewarded enough for what he did for the purpose of God.
The many nations are in 26:2. In 26:7 this is explained "Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings..."
This was already addressed. Get over it. I repeat, He was not the lone invader. Other nations were to be involved according to the entire prophecy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2004 3:13 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2004 4:04 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 48 (90694)
03-05-2004 9:34 PM


For thus says the Lord God, "When I shall make you a desolate city, like the cities which are not inhabited, when I shall bring up the deep over you, and the great waters will cover you,
Ezekiel 26:19
This verse, imo, lends a great deal of credibility to this prophecy. What city in ancient days would be covered with water after it's invasion and destruction? It's just not what happens. It was a great feat for Alexanders men to accomplish this by moving all that debris into the sea without machinery to do the job, a great feat, indeed. The prophet was right on here, with amazing precision.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Amlodhi, posted 03-06-2004 10:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 48 (91055)
03-07-2004 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
03-06-2004 4:04 AM


Re: TO: ALL
Well I notice that in post 21 your quote of the Encyclopedia Britannica clearly contradicts your claim that the island was just a "colony".
Better read up more carefully, Paul and this time include the commas. The statement is saying Tyre, ............., was a colony, .........
Your yada about Neb is not substantial enough to even warrant a reply. You need to get real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2004 4:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2004 3:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 29 by nator, posted 03-08-2004 9:54 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 48 (91056)
03-07-2004 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Amlodhi
03-06-2004 10:00 PM


Re: More later.
In the meantime, perhaps you will tell us where exactly mainland Tyre (or Ushu) was located. Was it directly opposite the island, farther south at Ras El Ein, to the north, or somewhere in between?
I suppose it had to obviously be quite close for Alex to make his causway with the debris of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Amlodhi, posted 03-06-2004 10:00 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Amlodhi, posted 03-11-2004 6:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 48 (91924)
03-11-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by nator
03-08-2004 9:54 AM


Re: TO: ALL
Why should I bother to reply to your post when rather than allowing me to have an opinion, you will again likely regard my responses as being lies when they don't suit your thinking?
Even though you've been told this about a zillion times, I'm going to repeat it in the hope that you will learn it and stop repeating your lies. (What, do you think that if you just tell us your lies and errors enough times that they will become the truth eventually?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 03-08-2004 9:54 AM nator has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 48 (91928)
03-11-2004 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Amlodhi
03-11-2004 6:41 PM


Re: More later.
buzsaw
Tyre, built on an island and on the neighbouring mainland, was probably originally founded as a colony of Sidon.
Amlodhi, here I have the city built on both the island and the mainland without designating which was first. I think you're right though, that the island was the oldest, but don't see how that diminishes the prophecy since Neb did his part and the others did theirs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Amlodhi, posted 03-11-2004 6:41 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Amlodhi, posted 03-12-2004 12:07 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 48 (92118)
03-12-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Amlodhi
03-12-2004 12:07 AM


Re: More later.
Hi Amlodhi,
You like to microspect the prophecies so as to eliminate the whole picture to your advantage, but that doesn't work if you're after truth. We need to keep the whole prophecy in focus to understand the truth of it, as follows, and I repeat:
1. More than one nation will be involved. (26:3).
2. The walls and towers will come down. (26:4).
3. The invaders will remove the debris of the city. (unusual) (26:4).
4. Nebuchadnezzar will be a very significant one of the attackers. (26:7).
5. Stones and timbers go in the water. (26:12).
6. Finally bear rock for the fiserman to spread nets. (26:14).
7. No more Tyre at that site ever. (26:14).
Alexander was nowhere included in this prophecy.
See item 1.
Yet, as if that weren't enough, Alexander did not totally destroy the island city of Tyre, much less scrape it clean and throw it into the sea. And since at least a major portion of the city was located on the island, this would have been necessary to fulfill Ezekiel's prophecy (again, provided that Alexander had been included in said prophecy to begin with).
1. According to the prophecy, Alex didn't have to do the whole thing. Other nations were to be involved.
2. I've stated that a fishing village is there. Is there more today?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Amlodhi, posted 03-12-2004 12:07 AM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Amlodhi, posted 03-13-2004 12:35 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 48 (92652)
03-15-2004 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by kendemyer
03-13-2004 4:23 PM


Re: to: BUZZSAW
Do not let him get away with his LXX argument. The LXX has its place and sometimes can shed light on the Massoretic text but it is a inferior document with more textual errors than the Massoretic text. Plus we must remember that the Massoretic text is closer in source to the original autograph that was written.
Keep up the good work. You are doing great.
Thanks very much, Ken. I use the old 1901 American Standard Version, ASV and believe it is the best ever Bible for accuracy. I believe the ASV uses mostly MT with some from LXX for the OT, but not sure about that. The LXX has the Apocrapha in it I believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by kendemyer, posted 03-13-2004 4:23 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 48 (92654)
03-16-2004 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Amlodhi
03-13-2004 12:35 AM


Re: More later.
Is your memory that short? Go back to page 2 and review that post.
Why don't you simply answer my question. Is there more than a fishing village/town on the peninsula today?
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Amlodhi, posted 03-13-2004 12:35 AM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Amlodhi, posted 03-16-2004 1:04 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 48 (92816)
03-16-2004 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Amlodhi
03-16-2004 1:04 AM


Re: More later.
Because I'm really not interested in playing schoolyard games.
I'm not playing games atol, but you seem to like ring around the rosey when I ask you the hard questions for your position.
Nevertheless, it sure looks like it to me. But why are you trying to weasel this down to the "peninsula"? The island was (at least) a major part of the city as well, does it look like a scraped rock to you?
It was likely relatively so before the fishermen moved in. You and yours are the ones insisting the island was the major part of the city and I have to agree. You need to give these prophecies at least a little of the leeway you people allow for physics and science, but no, you like to micro cross examine to the Nth degree for some little fault to hang your weak argument on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Amlodhi, posted 03-16-2004 1:04 AM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 03-16-2004 6:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 47 by Amlodhi, posted 03-20-2004 12:07 PM Buzsaw 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