Essential Links ▼
Message Coding Help ►
Posts of the Month ►
Document Library ►
It then goes on to detail Nebuchadnezzar's attack, but go back and pause at the line, "Will cause many nations to come up against you as the sea causes his waves to come up."
This is not talking about one nation but a series of nations.
That weakens your case.
If you're talking about waves of nations attacking Tyre, you can't arbitrarily stop the waves at a point where Tyre was destroyed. Even King Canute couldn't do that.
If the waves keep coming and Tyre rises up out of them again, the prophecy doesn't have any impact.
Ezekiel strongly implies a "final solution to the Tyre problem". That prophecy has not been fulfilled.
Tyre no longer exists.
But it does.
Don't ignore my point: The wave imagery in Ezekiel does not have a time limit.
For the prophecy to be fulfilled, an instantaneous destruction of Tyre is not sufficient. It has to stay destroyed. There are no "rules" about it being continuously occupied by the same culture.
Fact: Tyre exists.
Fact: Tyre is still a threat to Israel.
Whatever number of waves was needed to completely wipe ancient Phoenician Tyre off the planet has come and gone and done the deed.
Nonsense. It's still there.
You're reading prophecy as, "Not fulfilled yet... not fulfilled yet... not fulfilled yet.... Now! It's fulfilled! Close the book before anything changes!"
Like the waves, you can't stop history wherever you want. Would you stop the story of Jesus at the crucifixion and ignore everything that happened after?
Making a kingdom a colony certainly suffices to destroying the former kingdom.
Quite the contrary.
Destroying the kingship of a city-state only means a change in administration - it doesn't mean destruction of the city-state.
One of the main reasons for making colonies is to obtain their resources. Destroying the infrastructure, population, etc. would make the colony less valuable.
Another reason for making colonies is for their strategic position. It has already been pointed out that destroying the fortifications of Tyre would have lessened its strategic value.
Destruction of the city would have been counter-productive.
It it was a kingdom and now is not, then the kingdom itself is destroyed regardless of whether the area was rendered permanently inhabitable or whatever.
By that standard, the United States were "destroyed" when they ceased to be part of the British monarchy.
Unless of course we abandon literalism.
It rememds me a lot of horoscopes:
"You will suffer a serious setback."
"It's true! I hit every red light on the way to work today!"
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 BetaInnovative software from Qwixotic © 2020