Lebanon In End Time Bible Prophecy

That's not what it says.It says "thou shalt be built no more" - nothing is said about glory, past or present. It says "thou shalt be no more" - no time limit is given. It says "yet shalt thou never be found again" - but it can be easily found on Google Maps. The "many nations" clearly refer to the cosmopolitan nature of Nebuchadnezzar's army. Almost by definition, an empire consists of "many nations".There is nothing whatsoever in the text to suggest that the destruction would progress over many centuries. There is nothing whatsoever in the text to suggest that Tyre would be rebuilt between successive "waves" of attackers. I have no agenda, a priori or otherwise. I couldn't possibly care less whether the prophecy was fulfilled or not.You are the one with the a priori adgenda. You are so desparate for the prophecy to have been fulfilled that you make up "former glory", which is irrelevant, and successive waves of invaders spread out over centuries.None of that is in the text. It isn't "hypercriticism" at all. It's a plain, common-sense reading of the text.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

After all that has been posted this is all you and the others have left which is absurd. 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"

After all that has been posted this is all you and the others have left which is absurd. 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? 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 BlessEdited 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"

And what standards are you applying? What part of your argument has even touched on ancient language versus modern language until now? I'm just saying that the plain text reading doesn't require any figurative language to understand it. You are the one who wants to shove in such things to make it fit your preconceived notions. We're not talking about the Revelation. We're talking about Ezekiel. Don't run away. Not at all. We always have to start with a literal reading when there is nothing to indicate otherwise.And the narrow-minded view is yours. You're willing to bend over backwards, adding to and subtracting from the text to make it fit the interpretation that "must" be right.I'll say it again: I don't care one bit whether the prophecy was fulfilled or not. But a plain reading of the text indicates that it was not.You have still done nothing to explain away the fact that never means never. If there is some overpowering reason to believe that never doesn't mean never - for whatever linguistic or cultural reasons - then present that argument.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

After all that has been posted this is all you and the others have left which is absurd. 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? 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

ReformedRob,Your last three posts (Message 137, Message 138, Message 140) are very similar.Per rule #4: This is not an acceptable practice here at EvC.Sometimes software glitches cause double posts, but due to the time stamp on your posts, I don't feel that is the case here.Please do not make this a habit. It is a behavior that will eventually cause you to be suspended for an appropriate time period.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

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

Ringo, you're so naive!Don't you know that the Holy Book is only Holy while it fits the (Christian) reader's doctrine and pre-conceived notions. If it doesn't, then the (Christian) reader reserves the right to change the semantics of any word or sentence (or even imply that the original author wrote something different to what they meant to convey ) until it fits his ideas .when will you learn? ........

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Let me reiterate this point, ReformedRob:For the sake of argument, I'll grant you everything you've claimed with regard to Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre. Let's say your position on the grammar is correct, and that Ezekiel was saying Nebu would slap the Tyreans around but Chaldea would be one of a series of nations that would attack Tyre before it was finally left in ruins. Let's say Alexander's destruction of Tyre was as complete as you say. Let's grant you every other detail you've argued.Even given all that, my response is the same: So what?Read Ezekiel. All the guy does is predict doom and destruction for every geographical location that comes up in conversation. Say "Timbuktu" and Ezekiel's going to start shouting about how everybody in Timbuktu is going to pay for their iniquity and every building is going to be razed and the hills of Timbuktu leveled and any other hyperbolic prediction of destruction Ezekiel can think up.He predicted unimaginable destruction for Israel, and even though we know lots of bad things happened to the Jews since then, none of them quite measure up to the outlandish things he predicted (sons eating fathers, fathers eating sons?). And then there's the Egypt prophecy. Do you honestly think there was a 40 year period in Egyptian history since the 6th century BC in which the land of Egypt was desolate and completely unoccupied? Come on. Even the alternate timelines I've heard suggested don't claim the country went uninhabited, just that some pharaonic reigns might have overlapped and that the historical timeline should be compressed. But it's silly to think the region was uninhabited for 40 years. You know that.If I stand up in a room and start shouting that everybody in the room is a sinner and God is going to punish them with a horrible, grisly death, am I a prophet if one person dies in a horrible car accident years later?-

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

modern hebrew typically uses actual words for pronouns, though in some cases, biblical hebrew implies them from the conjugation of the verbs. verb conjugation is actually specific enough that pronouns aren't needed. —— (shalal) is the root, meaning "plunder." in present tense, "they plunder" would be —— (hem shalalim) but conjugated in past or future it would be —— (hem shalalu). i don't believe biblical hebrew make distinction between past and future, except in perfect (generally past) and imperfect (generally future) verbs. i could be wrong on that; i'm not too clear.anyways, the text of ezekiel 26:12 says —— (v-shalalu), which implies the pronoun subject "they" from the verb conjugation, thus "and they will cut." same with the other verbs in the sentance.i will comment that the switch from "he" (nebuchadnezzar) to "they" is rather curious.Edited by arachnophilia, : broken tags

---

I have been a lurker here but Bob's last post needed a reply. So the inaccurate or difficult parts are metaphors, hyperboles and similes.Also, have you given us license to claim the creation story, the flood, condemnation of gays, hell, rapture, ordained rape and murder, etc. are metaphors, hyperboles and similes? Great I may now be able to approach Christianity with a little more ease.Given that you take this prophecy is hyperbole indicates to me that we need a blue letter edition of the bible to highlight which sections are hyperbole and which are to be taken literal. And don't come back with you need to be a believer to truly understand. As then you will have to tell us which sect of Christianity has the true belief and faith as many different sects have their own opinions on such matters.The idea embodied in the phases "thou shalt be built no more" or Egypt being "desolate forty years among ruined cities" are plain and probably come thru translation uncorrupted. But if you have a translation insights please share those with us.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. This is especially true if you only have to part right about the conditions. This is silly (hyperbole?) as Revelations even notifies the reader that what is to follow is a vision. 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.

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

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...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.

---

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