Lebanon In End Time Bible Prophecy

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

right, but congress is a group. nebuchadnezzar is not.i'm just saying, it looks weird.

---

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

Just testing...

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

ok, fair enough. i agree that's the mostly probable meaning. but i still think it's a little odd. might just be the poetic nature of the books of prophecy. it's almost a different language from the rigid and boring style of genesis...

---

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 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. 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. 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. 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"

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"

Yes, the answer is obvious: never means never.Since you have not dealt with that issue, I'll quote the verses again:

quote:

---

Eze 26:14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

---

Notice that it says "thou shalt be built no more", not "thou shalt be a glorious city-state no more".And:

quote:

---

Eze 26:21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

---

Notice that it says "thou shalt never be found again", not "thou shalt never be a glorious city-state again".You're twisting Ezekiel's plain words to try to make a square-peg prophecy fit in a round hole.Edited by Ringo, : Spelling.

---

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

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"

If you're going to rely on the authority of "Hebrew scholars", you are going to have to cite them. No. That is not in the "context" at all. That's just what you're reading into it because you want the prophecy to be true. "Poetic language"? If a prophet says "the World Trade Center will be destroyed and will never be rebuilt", is that "poetic language"? Again, you're reading "poetic language" into the text to get the result you want. If Tyre was called "he", would never come any sooner? You seem to have lost the plot here. You're the one who is trying to convince people that the prophecy was fulfilled. Telling us what convinces you isn't very effective.Since the text plainly states that Tyre would never be rebuilt, the onus is on you to show that the plain text is really "poetic language" and that "never" doesn't really mean never.Just as an exercise, try reading the text without the preconceived notion that the prophecy must be true. See if you can really find a "context" that backs up your claims.

---

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

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"

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I take that:

quote:

---

place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more

---

pretty much means bad news for future real estate investment. You take it as never again gaining significant prominence. However, the Wiki on Trye says this:

quote:

---

Today it is the fourth largest city in Lebanon and houses one of the nation's major ports.

---

Not bad for overcoming a destruction and ruination prophecy and being in the cross-hairs of a doom and gloom god.

quote:

---

Rome still exists, Jerusalem. Alexandria

---

Well yes they do still exist but each as been sacked several times during the course of their history and each does not possess the power they once had - just like Tyre. So my point is not flawed at all, but thanks for adding examples!In other words, we could replace Tyre with Rome, Jerusalem and Alexadria and still have a right-on, uncanny, hang-your-hat on prophecy. Can you name any prominent city that has survived destruction for over 2000 years and has held its status on the world stage?

quote:

---

In fact hyperbole was used to disguise the message from unbelievers.

---

I would replace unbelievers with the uninitiated. What you are describing sounds remarkably similar to what I have read about inner city gangs communication.http://www.nagia.org/...20Articles/Gangs%20Communication.htmLastly sorry for false accusing you of being a stock end-timer, since you identified your self as a "partial preterist". I must admit that I had to look the term up. I find myself often surrounded by ego-centric end-time negative thinking that I let slip my frustration. It is wrong to falsely assume that someone holds a certain position for the sake of arguement. I apologize.

quote:

---

You cant see the poetic language used to describe this?

---

Bob is the concept of hell merely poetic extravagance?Where does the poety end and the literal truth start? Edited by troxelso, : Opps sorry this was meant for Bob - I replied to the wrong message.

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:

quote:

---

Eze 26:12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

---

It says that Tyre will not be found ever again, even though people look for it. People look for buildings - walls, houses, stones - not political entities.So your "painfully obvious" point is painful only to you. Not at all. Until "poetic language" or any other context-warping phenomenon is demonstrated, I have the plain English on my side: "Never" means never. Nor have you cited any Hebrew in your supposed "refutation". Until you can demonstrate that the English does not render the Hebrew accurately, you have no point.Edited by Ringo, : Spelling.

---

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

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 tomorrowGood 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"