Bible prophecy - Nothing compares

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?

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.

Hi buzsaw,

quote:

---

buzsaw

​

. . . don't see how that diminishes the prophecy since Neb did his part and the others did theirs.

---

But it does. As demonstrated in my previous post, Alexander was nowhere included in this prophecy. That extrapolation was formulated purely out of necessity and propped up only by a transparently disingenuous abuse of the text.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).

quote:

---

But Tyre is wholly an island, being built up nearly in the same way as Aradus; and it is connected with the mainland by a mole, which was constructed by Alexander when he was besieging it; and it has two harbours, one that can be closed and the other, called "Aegyptian" harbour, open. The houses here, it is said, have many stories, even more than the houses at Rome, and on this account, when an earthquake took place, it lacked but little of utterly wiping out the city. The city was also unfortunate when it was taken by siege by Alexander; but it overcame such misfortunes and restored itself both by means of the seamanship of its people, in which the Phoenicians in general have been superior to all peoples of all times, and by means of their dye-houses for purple; for the Tyrian purple has proved itself by far the most beautiful of all . . . Such, then, are the Tyrians.

​

The Geography of Strabo (c. 63 b.c - 24 a.d.)published in the Loeb Classical Library, 1932

---

Much as you don't want to hear it, a correct reading of the text, supported by the witness of the LXX, and the physical evidence, makes it evident to anyone without a vested interest, that Ezekiel was writing about Nebuchadnezzar's army and only Nebuchadnezzar's army; that Ezekiel was a man like any other, and as it happened out, he was wrong.Namaste'Amlodhi

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). See item 1. 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?

quote:

---

buzsaw

​

You like to microspect the prophecies so as to eliminate the whole picture to your advantage . . .

---

(chuckle) . . . Now you're sounding desperate. I've shown you (with explicit examples) how these words are to be understood, how the LXX translators understood them and how Jeremiah understood them.Your responses thus far have been devoid of substance and unworthy of consideration.

quote:

---

buzsaw

​

I've stated that a fishing village is there. Is there more today?

---

Is your memory that short? Go back to page 2 and review that post.Amlodhi

Dear 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.Sincerely,Ken

kendemyer,As frustrating as buzsaw's disingenuous tactics can be at times, his efforts still consistently exceed yours.You have more than you are apparently able to respond to in the "Bible Archaeology - An introduction" thread; Message 26.I don't think buz needs you to hold his hand.Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 03-13-2004]

To Amlodhi:I did not think you would like my LXX comment. Nevertheless, it is true.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-14-2004]

Ken, I like your LXX comment just fine. I'm just not a big fan of drive-by assertions.Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 03-14-2004]

I have read from many different sources that the septuagint(LXX) has many more variants than the Massoretic text (MT). I think both sides of the skeptic/Christian aisle could agree with this. Therofore, one could argue that the LXX may be more unreliable as far as proving various points in regards to the Bible.I did, however, wish to make a correction. I do not believe there is any real evidence that shows the MT was closer to the original text than the LXX. I read in the New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell in the section regarding the Divine Names used in the Torah that there is no real proof that the MT is closer than the LXX to the original text. If anyone wishes to comment on this please feel free. I do not pretend to be an expert in regards to the LXX.Here is some information in regards to the MT:The Massorites were absolutely devoted about keeping the Old Testament free of variants in the text (they had rigorous methodologies for keeping the text as free as variants as humanly possible). Here is a brief overview of the Massorites and the text they produced from another website:"The MASORETES (Hebrew Masorah, meaning "to deliver something
in to the hands of another") safeguarded the text from about A.D.
500 to A.D. 916. These dedicated scholars based in Tiberias
produced the Masoretic texts used today; they are the basis for
our English OT of 1611. "The Masorah is called 'a fence to the
scriptures' because it locked all words and letters in their
places. It records the number of times the several letters occur
in the Bible; the number of words and the middle word; the number
of verses and the middle verse, etc., for the set purpose of
preventing the loss or misplacement of a single letter or word"
(Bullinger, Companion Bible, Appendix 30).Designating the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the
middle letter and verse of each book as well as the entire OT was
not enough for these technicians. Phrases were counted,
enumerated, distinguished. "House of Israel" was computed
separately from "sons of Israel" and the number of times each
occurred was well noted. The expression "sins of Jeroboam" is
noted separately from "the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat."
thus the Jewish zeal for God was turned to good use (Romans
10:2)."(taken from: http://www.keithhunt.com/Bible6.html )OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW TEXT RELIABILITYPlease read this very important link regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls (If you do not read this link you will lnot understand the following material:http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/trus...ofthebible.htmlALSO CONSIDER THIS INFORMATION:Another website provides the following information:"Let JOSEPHUS, a Jewish historian of the first century, answer:' From Artaxerxes (Malachi's time) until our time everything
has been recorded but has not been deemed worthy of like credit
with what has preceded, because the exact succession of prophets
ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is
evident by our conduct; FOR though so long a time has now passed,
NO ONE HAS DARED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THEM, OR ALTER ANYTHING IN
THEM' (Contra Apion, Whiston's Josephus, p.609).Often overlooked is that the law, prophets, and writings,
which were accepted by Jesus (Luke 24:44), formed the BASIS FOR
THE LEGAL PRACTICES of the Jewish nation. These religious
writings had NATIONAL IMPACT equal to Britain's Magna Carta...or
America's Plymouth Rock Covenant and Declaration of
Independence....Animosity was, paradoxically, a powerful force in
PRESERVING the unimpeachability of Scripture. The appeal to the
text was the common arbiter in theological debate (Matt.19:7).
The Scriptures were known at the grass-roots level as well (Luke
4:16-20). UNOFFICIAL DELETIONS, INSERTIONS OR CORRUPTIONS would
have triggered an OUTCRY among the faithful in a nation ZEALOUS
FOR THE LAW (Acts 22:3).TAMPER with the OFFICIAL Hebrew text? One may as well
consider EDITING the Declaration of Independence, DELETING a
sentence in a NEW copy of the Gettysburg Address......VITAL
literary production of NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE are too WELL KNOWN
to be PRIVATELY tampered with among the faithful. There were, of
course, enemies who tried to do so - and still do!Today thousands of people have committed the TEN
COMMANDMENTS TO MEMORY. Imagine the PROTEST if a NEW Bible
translation INSERTED AN EXTRA commandment!.......The Thread of ConveyanceScripture itself speaks of a systematic, ORGANIZED
PRESERVATION of the law, prophets and writings.Moses entrusted the law to the Levites guarding the ark,
center-piece of Israel's religion (Deut.31:24-26). Joshua 1:8
comments upon "this book of the law" that Moses' successor read
to the entire nation (Josh.8:32-35).Literate, proficient scholars functioned even through the
chaotic Judges period (Judg.5:14, 1 Sam.1:3,9). Under Samuel
and David and Solomon, during Israel's Golden Age, inspired
writers laid the basis for the historical narratives in Samuel,
Kings and Chronicles. David revered the sacred writings
(Ps.119:97), and he and Solomon contributed and collected many
psalms and proverbs."(see this page for details: http://www.keithhunt.com/Bible6.html )

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.

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kendemyer

​

I did, however, wish to make a correction. I do not believe there is any real evidence that shows the MT was closer to the original text than the LXX.

---

I am glad you recognized that. Also, you really should try to access some more scholarly material and reduce the number of website blurbs. I'm not so much interested in what someone says as in why they're saying it.Josephus, for instance:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kendemyer

​

Let JOSEPHUS, a Jewish historian of the first century, answer:

​

' From Artaxerxes (Malachi's time) until our time everything
has been recorded but has not been deemed worthy of like credit
with what has preceded, because the exact succession of prophets
ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is
evident by our conduct; FOR though so long a time has now passed,
NO ONE HAS DARED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THEM, OR ALTER ANYTHING IN
THEM' (Contra Apion, Whiston's Josephus, p.609).

---

If you will turn to the introduction, pg XIV, in your copy of Whiston's translation, you will see that Josephus both spoke and wrote in Greek. Also, regardless of whether or not he thought anything had ever been altered, a comparison of his quotations shows that it was the LXX that he drew from for his writings.

quote:

---

The Greek language was, at that time, understood by most persons of even an ordinary degree of intelligence. It was read and spoken commonly among a large portion of (Josephus') people. The Septuagint translation of the bible had rendered it venerable in their eyes, and must have obliged the priestly order, to which Josephus belonged, to cultivate it with more than ordinary diligence.

​

"The Complete Works of Josephus", William Whiston trans., Kregel Pub., Grand Rapids, Mich.

---

Thus, the very source you are arguing from refutes you. Josephus, (at the time he wrote Contra Apion), either knew of and used only the LXX translation, or, he knew both the LXX and the Hebrew text (of his time) and used the LXX anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kendemyer

​

Often overlooked is that the law, prophets, and writings,
which were accepted by Jesus (Luke 24:44), formed the BASIS FOR
THE LEGAL PRACTICES of the Jewish nation. These religious
writings had NATIONAL IMPACT equal to Britain's Magna Carta...a powerful force in PRESERVING the unimpeachability of Scripture.

---

And yet, in the NT when this unimpeachable scripture is referenced, the overwhelming majority of the quotes are taken from the LXX. [Also, as will be shown with the DSS, some of the quotations in the NT are thought to be taken from an early Hebrew/Aramaic text which closely parallels the LXX]. Again, your own sources refute you.A general rule of textual criticism is that (among other considerations, such as difficulty of wording) the shorter recension is more likely to be closer to the original. This is because, historically, scribes seem far more prone to add glosses than to omit existing material.The relevant book in regard to the prophecy concerning Tyre is Ezekiel. The LXX recension of Ezekiel indicates that it was translated from a shorter Hebrew vorlage (source text). The additional length of the masoretic text of Ezekiel is attributed to the use of parallel phrasing, exegetical (or explanatory) phrases, as well as the addition of new material.While the Qumran documents are (with rare and minute exception) the oldest extant documentation we have, a study of the scrolls themselves (as opposed to apologist websites) has indicated to scholars that the Hebrew writings were subject to an ongoing period of development. The LXX represents a "snapshot" view of what was likely an early Hebrew vorlage.Several various text types are represented in the DSS writings, they include:1. Proto-masoretic
2. Septuagint
3. Samaritan (Pentateuch only)
4. Texts with a unique style of spelling and grammar.
5. Texts that do not follow the style of the other four groups.[4 & 5 from Dr. Emanuel Tov, Editor-in-Chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls Publication Project, Hebrew University & James C. VanderKam, Professor of Hebrew Scriptures & co-editor "Ency. of the Dead Sea Scrolls"]Most interesting for the textual study of this period, is the occasional mixing of texts. For instance, in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the text is mostly proto-masoretic, albeit with differences in various spellings. However, there are also over nineteen hundred variants in these texts that agree with the LXX rather than the masoretic.In addition, while this is all very interesting, the position I presented to buzsaw does not rest on the information provided by the LXX. Not only should it be apparent to anyone sans motive that the pronomial antecedents and adjectival phrases should not be ripped from their context, but I also provided references to parallel (masoretic text) bible passages where the definitive use of these terms was clearly demonstrated. The fact that the LXX translators showed no interest in retaining buz's two ambiguous words is just additional corroboration.P.S.

quote:

---

kendemyer:

​

The Massorites (sic). . .

---

The history of the masoretic tradition is a much more twisted road than the simplistic picture your website blurb has painted.

quote:

---

Corruptions as well as various forms of scribal intervention (changes, corrections, etc.) are thus evidenced in all textual witnesses of the Hebrew bible, including the group of texts now called the (medieval) Masoretic Text as well as in its predecessors, the proto-masoretic texts. Those who are unaware of the details of textual criticism may think that one should not expect any corruptions in the masoretic or any other sacred text, since these texts were meticulously written and transmitted. Indeed, the scrupulous approach of the soferim and Masoretes is manifest in their counting of all the letters and words of the masoretic text. Therefore, it is seemingly unlikely that they would have corrupted the text or even corrected it. Yet, in spite of their precision, even the manuscripts which were written and vocalized by the Masoretes contain corruptions, changes, and erasures. More importantly, the Masoretes, and before them the soferim , acted in a relatively late stage of the development of the biblical text, and before they had put their meticulous principles into practice, the text already contained corruptions and had been tampered with during that earlier period when scribes did not as yet treat the text with such reverence.

​

["Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible", Emanuel Tov, pg. 9, 2nd revised ed., Fortress Press]

---

Namaste'Amlodhi

quote:

---

buzsaw:

​

Why don't you simply answer my question. Is there more than a fishing village/town on the peninsula today?

---

Because I'm really not interested in playing schoolyard games.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?Amlodhi

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. 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.