 |
| 
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/30/2004 5:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | Jehoiachin succeeded Jehoiakim on the throne.
Which of these prophecies would this fulfill?:
1. Jehoiakim shall have NO ONE succeed him.
2. Jehoiakim shall have SOMEONE succeed him.
If you say Jehoiachin succeeding Jehoiakim fulfills BOTH prophecies, then prophecy is MEANINGLESS. Because if a result fulfills BOTH of CONTRADICTORY prophecies, it's MEANINGLESS.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 7/30/2004 1:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Just to comment on Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre, and to make a couple of observations:
I have to agree that the case for considering Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre to have not been strictly or literally fulfilled is the stronger one. Ezekiel prophesies that Tyre will be utterly destroyed, never to be rebuilt, and that this will happen at the hands of many nations, specifically mentioning Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. But instead, there are multiple extra-biblical sources, and separate archaelogical finds, confirming that Nebuchadnezzar only partially destroyed Tyre (namely, its mainland cities), and that not until several hundred years later (under Alexander the Great) was Tyre completely subjected (namely, its island capitol), upon which it was never totally destroyed and abandoned, but rather existed continuously (albeit in gradual decline from its zenith) to this day.
Traditional inerrantists tend to argue that Nebuchadnezzar's actions merely began the prophetic fulfillment, while Alexander completed it. They say that the prophecy relegates the final destruction of the island city of Tyre to "many nations" (an ambiguity that allows for Alexander's fulfillment), not Nebuchadnezzar. But the scripture does not say that. Rather it says that the "many nations" will destroy both the mainland towns ("daughter cities") and the walls and towers of Tyre - God making Tyre a bare rock through their actions (Ezekiel 26:3-6). Meanwhile the scripture says that Nebuchadnezzar will likewise destroy the mainland towns (verse 8), break down the towers of Tyre (verse 9), enter Tyre's gates (verse 10), kill its people and fell its "strong pillars" (verse 11, NRSV). The point is, that these actions are one and the same as those attributed to the "many nations".
Traditional inerrantists will sometimes say nonetheless that verses 8-11 apply only to Nebuchadnezzar's activities on the mainland. Yet this interpretation is weighed-against by the fact that Ezekiel clearly indicates when he is writing of the mainland towns ("daughter towns" in verses 6 and 8), and his writing concerning the mainland towns clearly relegates them to secondary importance, by mentioning them almost dismissively, as afterthoughts. There is no reason to believe, then, that when he is not mentioning the "daughter towns" explicitly, he is nonetheless referring to them, rather than to the island city itself. This is especially so when we consider that elsewhere, Ezekiel pretty clearly views the island city of Tyre, "in the midst of the seas", as being the real seat of that kingdom (verse 17, for example, plus Ezekiel 27:4, 25, 32, etc). Plainly, when Ezekiel refers to Tyre as a geographic entity, its great towers, walls, gates, streets, etc, he is talking about the island city by default, not its mainland outlying towns, and this is why, when he wants to refer to those outliers, he does so by specifically and subordinately addressing them ("daughter towns").
So Nebuchadnezzar is prophesied as doing the same things that the "many nations" will do. How, then, can Babylon be the embodiment of the "many nations"? Probably - as it has been pointed out by the originator of this thread - because Babylon was a federation of kingdoms and fiefdoms who payed allegiance and loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar. Thus he is "king of kings" and his army is composed of the military forces of many peoples.
In any event, that the prophecy is not strictly and literally fulfilled is also evident from the outcome. Ezekiel prophesies that Tyre (again, the island city is in view here) is to be completely destroyed: scraped to bare rock, a place for the spreading of fishermen's nets (ie, basically uninhabited though not unvisited), never rebuilt, and even submerged under the seas (Ezekiel 26:5, 14, 19, 21, etc). And certainly Tyre never did again enjoy independence and glory as a city-state after Alexander, or even Nebuchadnezzar (who, external sources tell us, extracted fealty from Tyre even though failing to physically conquer it). But the site of Tyre was never abandoned: the city was repaired after Alexander's conquest, retained a good degree of its commercial power into Roman times, and continued as a still fairly important, though gradually declining, seaport well into the 2nd millenium A.D. At this moment Tyre is a rather large resort city in Lebanon with a healthy dose of history in the form of Roman ruins - see pictures and text at http://tyros.leb.net/tyre/ for example. Especially check out the aerial photograph of Tyre today - hardly scraped bare, uninhabited, or sunken under the waves.
What does this mean, then, for us Christians? I believe it suggests a few things. First, I think, is that biblical prophecy is not a crystal-ball foretelling of fatalistically-locked-in future events. Prophecy is proclamation of God's view of current affairs to the people, in the form of promise, hope, condemnation, judgment, etc, as the situation at the time demanded. Second, I think, is that prophecy is framed in poetic and evokative language which does not insist upon exacting literal fulfillment. The Jews of Jesus' time knew, and had known, for hundreds of years, of Tyre's continued thriving existence above the waves, and yet this literal lack of fulfillment did not contradict their expectation. This suggests we are asking more of the text than the original audience did, and thus perhaps more than is intended. And third, I think, is that this is what we should expect of prophecy anyway. Predictive prophecy could only be exactingly literal if such scripture were the result of divine dictation (and this, of course, assumes a traditional view of the future and God's foreknowledge which otherwise I won't challenge, but which if false, further undermines the likelihood of such dictation). But everywhere else a close study of the Bible finds continual inductive evidence suggesting scripture is a thoroughly human witness to events and ideas inspired of God, and certainly not a product of heavenly dictation in the way Moslems view the Koran. It is inconsistent to accept the divine-human nature of scripture and crystal-ball predictive prophecy due to the overpowering divine intervention upon the mind of the human writer which the latter would entail.
Seen with these observations in mind, then, Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre can be seen as being generally and loosely accurate: for it is true that Tyre has never since enjoyed status, wealth, power and glory as an independent city-state in the way it did during its apex prior to Babylon. Seen as a loose forecast of judgment in the form of war, subjugation, and decline, Ezekiel 26 seems generally in the right direction. And perhaps that is the point.
My thoughts,
Scott
PS. For good accessible but scholarly writing on Ezekiel and Tyre, see http://www.crivoice.org/ezekiel.html .
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/30/2004 2:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee:It was within forty days. They repented, and then Jonah went up on the hill to see what would happen.
SOC: It wasn't overthrown.
It wasn't overthrown by destruction. How is it that repentance is not overthrow?
Acts 17:6 "These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also..."
quote:
Lee: We covered this already! God refers to Babylon as a single nation (Jer. 25:12, etc.), so we should take the sense in which the Bible refers to nations and Babylon, when interpreting this prophecy.
Jeremiah 25:12 "'Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,' declares the LORD, 'for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting desolation."
Yes "nation," "land," both singular. Not "nations of the Chaldeans."
quote:
SOC: The prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar destroying Tyre failed.
Scott: Traditional inerrantists tend to argue that Nebuchadnezzar's actions merely began the prophetic fulfillment, while Alexander completed it. ... Rather it says that the "many nations" will destroy both the mainland towns ("daughter cities") and the walls and towers of Tyre...
This is certainly not required, though. "Microsoft will release a new product, and take orders for it by phone." This doesn't mean that any person involved in releasing the product must also take phone orders, too.
quote:
... when he is writing of the mainland towns ("daughter towns" in verses 6 and 8) ...
"Daughter towns" probably refers to the surrounding villages, not just the mainland city, because there was only one mainland city, and thus we should read "daughter town." But we don't...
quote:
Plainly, when Ezekiel refers to Tyre as a geographic entity, its great towers, walls, gates, streets, etc, he is talking about the island city by default...
I don't see why this is required.
quote:
At this moment Tyre is a rather large resort city in Lebanon...
Yes, the mainland city. I think the focus shifts to the island city, when the "bare rock" is mentioned, the focus shifts back to the mainland after this statement:
Ezekiel 26:6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword.
Thus the "bare rock" part is about the island city.
quote:
I think, is that biblical prophecy is not a crystal-ball foretelling of fatalistically-locked-in future events. Prophecy is proclamation of God's view of current affairs to the people...
Why is that convincing evidence of God's divinity, then?
Isaiah 41:23 ... tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.
I can tell you my view of current affairs...
quote:
Lee: No, I meant no one took Jehoiachin's place. Then Jehoiakim had no one sitting on his throne, like the prophecy said...
SOC: The prophecy said no one would follow Jehoiakim, but Jehoiachin did. The prophecy was not accurate.
You can reword the prophecy, and then prove it was wrong! But that is not convincing. "He will have no one sitting..."
quote:
John: The fact that some statements are hyperbolic or metaphoric does not mean they are disingenuous or that God can't be trusted; it simply and only means that we must seek to grasp the spirit of the pronouncement rather than the letter in most cases.
I shall quote SOC in response!
"If such contradictory and loose 'fulfillments' of prophecy are allowed for Christianity, ALL other prophecies should be allowed, Joseph Smith, Edgar Cayce, Jean Dixon, etc."
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 7/31/2004 1:09 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
quote:
Scott: Traditional inerrantists tend to argue that Nebuchadnezzar's actions merely began the prophetic fulfillment, while Alexander completed it. ... Rather it says that the "many nations" will destroy both the mainland towns ("daughter cities") and the walls and towers of Tyre...
This is certainly not required, though. "Microsoft will release a new product, and take orders for it by phone." This doesn't mean that any person involved in releasing the product must also take phone orders, too.
Right, and as you say, the grammar of verses 3-6 does not necessarily say that all of the "many nations" will participate equally in destroying both the mainland and the island. It is rather, as you would agree, telling what will have been accomplished by one or another of the "many nations" in total, whether all of them participate equally or separately.
But my point was to illuminate the parallels between what the "many nations" accomplish in Ezekiel 26 verses 3-6 and what Babylon accomplishes in verses 7-11. Babylon puts the mainland towns to the sword in verse 8, just as at least one of the "many nations" do in verse 6:
"Your daughter-towns in the country he [Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon] shall put to the sword..." (verse 8)
"...and its daughter-towns in the country shall be killed by the sword... [by many nations]" (verse 6)
Babylon assaults the walls of Tyre at the beginning of verse 9, just as at least one of the "many nations" do in verse 4:
"He [Babylon] shall direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls..." (verse 9)
"They [many nations] shall destroy the walls of Tyre..." (verse 4)
Babylon breaks down the towers of Tyre at the end of verse 9, just as at least one of the "many nations" do in verse 4:
"He [Babylon] shall...break down your towers with his axes." (verse 9)
"They [many nations] shall...break down its towers..." (verse 4)
Clearly the parallelism - quite common in Hebrew literature - suggests the same events are in view here. To even more clearly indicate that Babylon's complete conquest of Tyre is in view, Ezekiel continues that Nebuchadnezzar's army shall even enter the gates of Tyre and trample all its streets, killing its people and pulling down its "strong pillars":
"At the noise of cavalry, wheels, and chariots your very walls shall shake, when he [Babylon] enters your gates like those entering a breached city. With the hoofs of his horses he shall trample all your streets. He shall put your people to the sword, and your strong pillars shall fall to the ground." (verses 10, 11)
In view of such strong imagery of complete conquest, the traditional defender of inerrantist prophecy here can only claim, then, that the objects of Babylon's conquest in verses 7-11 are not the island city of Tyre, but rather are the mainland settlements. But as I wrote (and you responded):
quote:
quote:
Plainly, when Ezekiel refers to Tyre as a geographic entity, its great towers, walls, gates, streets, etc, he is talking about the island city by default...
I don't see why this is required.
That Ezekiel has the island city in view by default, unless he specifically mentions otherwise (eg "daughter towns"), is strongly suggested, if not required, by the many allusions he elsewhere makes to Tyre's being a kingdom seated "in the midst of the seas". For example:
"And they shall raise a lamentation over you, and say to you: How you have vanished from the seas, O city renowned, once mighty on the sea, you and your inhabitants, who imposed your terror on all the mainland!" (verse 17)
Here we see Tyre described as vanishing from the seas, a city once mighty on the sea, which once terrorized all the mainland. If Singapore (a modern island city) were to fall, we would say it likewise had vanished from the seas, once mighty on the sea, and having projected its power to the mainland. We wouldn't say the same of Los Angeles, a modern coastal mainland city. We especially wouldn't say it had imposed its power on "all the mainland", for the implication of the use of a specific geographic term like "mainland" in this context is that "mainland" is in juxtaposition or contrast to the geographic location of the city in question. We might say Los Angeles had "terrorized" all the "country", or all the "land", or even all the "world", "nations", etc; but not all the "mainland", unless it itself was located on a (nearby) island.
And there are many, many other such verses that show Ezekiel's perspective is that the island city is the heart of Tyre, and is likely always in view unless specifically spoken otherwise. This is in the same way that if you and I modern Americans discuss "New York", the likely good presumption is that New York City (if not Manhattan itself) is in view unless specifically disclaimed otherwise by us.
In any event, the case that the prophecy was not literally and completely fulfilled is also buttressed (as I said in my previous posting) by the fact that Tyre was never permanently destroyed and abandoned. Even today, as I wrote (and you responded):
quote:
quote:
At this moment Tyre is a rather large resort city in Lebanon...
Yes, the mainland city. I think the focus shifts to the island city, when the "bare rock" is mentioned, the focus shifts back to the mainland after this statement.
Actually, no, the Lebanese city of Tyre, whose pictures you saw in the hyperlink I provided, is located on both the mainland and the island - or former island, I should say. Since ancient times, an isthmus has grown connecting what was once an island to the mainland. (Interestingly, it is believed the germ of this isthmus was man-made, being Alexander's causeway from the mainland to the island. It is thought that his causeway, by intercepting coastal currents like a breakwater, caused deposition of sand and other sediment to build the isthmus that exists today which is nearly as wide as the former island itself.)
The "scraped bare rock", sunken beneath the seas in Ezekiel's prophecy (literally interpreted), instead is today Lebanon's fourth largest city, complete with mid-rise hotels and apartment buildings. Here is another hyperlink: http://www.lebanon.com/tourism/tyre.htm
Finally, regarding this I wrote (and your response):
quote:
quote:
I think, is that biblical prophecy is not a crystal-ball foretelling of fatalistically-locked-in future events. Prophecy is proclamation of God's view of current affairs to the people...
Why is that convincing evidence of God's divinity, then?
Isaiah 41:23 ... tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.
I can tell you my view of current affairs...
and
quote:
I shall quote SOC in response!
"If such contradictory and loose 'fulfillments' of prophecy are allowed for Christianity, ALL other prophecies should be allowed, Joseph Smith, Edgar Cayce, Jean Dixon, etc."
This raises a good point. What is the point of predictive prophecy? Is it to prove God? For that is what it would be, wouldn't it, to have a written and detailed prediction of future events which could not by chance or good human foresight have been guessed - where the prediction then comes true literally and exactly. It would be plain, objective, scientific verification of God (and not just any God, but the traditional Judeo-Christian one).
I think we have indication from God's kenosis in Jesus Christ, however, and also from such facts as his hiddenness from plain sight, that that kind of world and that kind of revelation is not the kind that God has in fact ordained. God has not ordained a world where he leaves scientifically-detectable clues of himself, proving his existence and nature in empirical fashion (and no, I do not believe that kind of empirical evidence, amenable to critical methodology, is what Paul is talking about in Romans 1 or his address to the Athenians). He gives his creation independence and freedom so that love and virtue may be truly expressed, and he does so because love and virtue are his highest and greatest purposes.
So, when we see some predictive prophecy that is generally, loosely, hyperbolically, metaphorically, or otherwise non-literally fulfilled, or even unfulfilled, I don't consider that a failing, but rather a natural outcome of the kind of world that God has ordained. By what right, then, can we have confidence in our faith, especially if other faiths likewise have their own prophecies that kinda-sorta can be made to fit? That is a whole other topic I won't go into now, but you should know that, in my opinion, the answer is that - while we can have a modicum of rational confidence drawn from such things as the overall historical plausibility and consilience of our Christian tradition - we can never really be sure, and that is where faith comes in.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2004 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Interested in your last paragraph, Scott, especially.
We are mostly aware of "legal jargon" : The party of the first part, heretofore to be refered to as "x......"
We should also consider that parts of the Bible are written in "court speak" -- the official "language" of pronouncements of the day. (Think of body-language with words; American sports jargon has a lot of that!!!) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/1/2004 11:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Scott,
quote:
Scott: Plainly, when Ezekiel refers to Tyre as a geographic entity, its great towers, walls, gates, streets, etc, he is talking about the island city by default...
Lee: I don't see why this is required.
"And they shall raise a lamentation over you, and say to you: How you have vanished from the seas, O city renowned, once mighty on the sea, you and your inhabitants, who imposed your terror on all the mainland!" (verse 17)
Scott: And there are many, many other such verses that show Ezekiel's perspective is that the island city is the heart of Tyre, and is likely always in view unless specifically spoken otherwise.
But there is a switch to the mainland:
Ezekiel 26:8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword...
Are you saying Ezekiel has to keep saying "on the mainland ... on the mainland"?
quote:
... the Lebanese city of Tyre, whose pictures you saw in the hyperlink I provided, is located on both the mainland and the island - or former island, I should say. Since ancient times, an isthmus has grown connecting what was once an island to the mainland. ...
The "scraped bare rock", sunken beneath the seas in Ezekiel's prophecy (literally interpreted), instead is today Lebanon's fourth largest city, complete with mid-rise hotels and apartment buildings. Here is another hyperlink: http://www.lebanon.com/tourism/tyre.htm
Well, I looked up the link, and read through the description, and found no mention of buildings on the island. But even if they are there!
Ezekiel 26:20 ... then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living.
This probably refers to the people, and not to the buildings.
quote:
Lee: Why is [proclamation of God's view of current affairs] convincing evidence of God's divinity, then?
Isaiah 41:23 ... tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.
I can tell you my view of current affairs...
Scott: This raises a good point. What is the point of predictive prophecy? Is it to prove God? For that is what it would be, wouldn't it, to have a written and detailed prediction of future events which could not by chance or good human foresight have been guessed - where the prediction then comes true literally and exactly. It would be plain, objective, scientific verification of God (and not just any God, but the traditional Judeo-Christian one).
Yes, I think that is just what we have, and why God makes his claim to divinity, to being better than all the idols, even, based on fulfilled prophecy.
Isaiah 41:22 Bring in your idols to tell us what is going to happen.
quote:
Scott: ... when we see some predictive prophecy that is generally, loosely, hyperbolically, metaphorically, or otherwise non-literally fulfilled, or even unfulfilled, I don't consider that a failing, but rather a natural outcome of the kind of world that God has ordained.
2 Peter 1:19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns...
Romans 9:6 It is not as though God's word had failed.
Why were the false prophets taken out and stoned when they missed it, if the true prophets made mistakes just like they did?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/2/2004 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
But there is a switch to the mainland:
Ezekiel 26:8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword...
Are you saying Ezekiel has to keep saying "on the mainland ... on the mainland"?
Ezekiel uses "you"/"your" in a geographic sense to refer to the island. This is what the other verses I cited establish. So if he wishes to refer to the outlying settlements, he must use "your daughter towns" or (after at least one such usage) pronoun forms like "them" and "their" instead. But he does not - he uses the same "you"/"your" as when referring to the island city.
In other words, you would have a point if Ezekiel 26:8-9 etc read like this in translation (my changes are in bold:
"Your daughter-towns in the country he shall put to the sword. He shall set up a siege-wall against you them, cast up a ramp against you them, and raise a roof of shields against you them. He shall direct the shock of his battering rams against your their walls and break down your their towers with his axes..."
By using the second-person form, rather than third-person plural form, the translation at least rules your interpretation unlikely. Now, I'll be the first to admit I don't know the original language, so if there's any evidence regarding conflation of those senses in the original Hebrew, so that the translations we have are not accurate, I'd be very interested to know.
quote:
Well, I looked up the link, and read through the description, and found no mention of buildings on the island.
Sorry to confuse with the other reference. I mentioned it just informationally, not to say that it contained evidence of the development I was talking about, but I can see the misunderstanding.
Photographs of the evidence of development in Tyre today are available at the previous URL I gave, http://tyros.leb.net/tyre - here in particular is a photograph of Tyre today from the air: http://tyros.leb.net/img/tyr002.jpg . The former island is apparent in the center and right of the photograph, with the isthumus to the left. Note the ruins set aside and preserved in the upper center and right of the former island, and the modern development in the center and left.
quote:
But even if they are there!
Ezekiel 26:20 ... then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living.
This probably refers to the people, and not to the buildings.
Yes, I would agree that this verse refers to the inhabitants, with its Sheol-like imagery of "the pit" and so forth. But other verses deal with the city including its buildings and foundation. Look immediately prior to the verse you cited, at verse 19:
"When I make you a city laid waste, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you..."
Tyre is envisioned by the prophet as being not merely abandoned/uninhabited, but swallowed-up by the sea. This is further evidence against literal fulfillment of the prophecy. Interestingly, some hard-core inerrantists agree, and thus look to a still-future fulfillment of Tyre sinking into the sea - perhaps in the end times (this is probably what Tim LaHaye and other dispensationalists would say). Needless to say, there is nothing in Ezekiel's text suggesting such a massive, multi-thousand-year gap between stages of prophetic fulfillment. But though I discount that view, I mention it to point out that even some conservative inerrantists agree with the view I'm presenting, namely that Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy is (at the moment at least) not fully and literally fulfilled.
quote:
quote:
Scott: This raises a good point. What is the point of predictive prophecy? Is it to prove God?
Lee: Yes, I think that is just what we have, and why God makes his claim to divinity, to being better than all the idols, even, based on fulfilled prophecy.
Isaiah 41:22 Bring in your idols to tell us what is going to happen.
2 Peter 1:19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns...
Romans 9:6 It is not as though God's word had failed.
Why were the false prophets taken out and stoned when they missed it, if the true prophets made mistakes just like they did?
This is an area frankly in which I'm still studying and learning. The only thing I can say is that, in the ancient world, standards of epistemology were different, ie less critical, than today. This includes the area of evaluating prophetic fulfillment. The ancient world lacked critical, skeptical methodology (a product of the Enlightenment with its roots in Greek tradition of a few hundred years B.C. at most - whereas Ezekiel comes from a different intellectual culture entirely several hundred years before even then). And they didn't care that they lacked it. Thus prophecy could be fulfilled in their eyes despite a lack of exact down-to-the-detail accuracy, even though today - in modern scientific eyes - such prophetic fulfillments generally have to be granted as debatable. It is because we labor under a different intellectual standard than them, and we have no guarantee that God considers our modern standards normative and thus condescends his revelation to them so that it meets our standards. No, he condescends his revelation to them so that it meets their standards, and we experience it over their shoulders.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/3/2004 2:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Scott,
quote:
Lee: Are you saying Ezekiel has to keep saying "on the mainland ... on the mainland"?
Scott: Ezekiel uses "you"/"your" in a geographic sense to refer to the island.
That is true, but if Ezekiel had said, "he will kill your sailors on all your ships, he will plunder your treasures," we may reasonably think of treasures in the ships' holds being plundered as fulfilling that prophecy.
quote:
Ezekiel 26:20 ... then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living.
Lee: This probably refers to the people, and not to the buildings.
Scott: But other verses deal with the city including its buildings and foundation. Look immediately prior to the verse you cited, at verse 19:
"When I make you a city laid waste, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you..."
But this doesn't say it won't ever be reinhabited.
quote:
Tyre is envisioned by the prophet as being not merely abandoned/uninhabited, but swallowed-up by the sea.
I would say this refers to the people, though, as in the next verse. Ocean water doesn't normally rise and cover an island! And what goes down are the people, not the land.
quote:
Lee: Why were the false prophets taken out and stoned when they missed it, if the true prophets made mistakes just like they did?
Scott: … prophecy could be fulfilled in their eyes despite a lack of exact down-to-the-detail accuracy, even though today - in modern scientific eyes - such prophetic fulfillments generally have to be granted as debatable.
Well, they certainly did make a distinction for detailed fulfillment, though!
Genesis 41:13 And things turned out exactly as he interpreted them to us…
1 Kings 8:56 Not one word has failed of all the good promises he gave through his servant Moses.
And again, why is this the test of a false prophet: when what they said doesn't happen?
Deuteronomy 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.
Isaiah 44:25 … who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners…
Isaiah 44:26 … who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers …
There's a difference here! The difference is just this, whether the prophesied event happens or not. Really happens, I mean…
"I have listened to them with a horrible attention, with a hideous fascination. For it was like watching a man energetically sawing from the tree the branch he is sitting on. If these happy democrats could prove their case, they would strike democracy dead." (Chesterton)
I don't think you all realize the implications here! If God can't bring down the king of Tyre in one blow, then how can he for sure defeat the devil? That second problem has got to be more challenging than the first…
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/4/2004 1:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee,
quote:
quote:
Scott: Ezekiel uses "you"/"your" in a geographic sense to refer to the island.
That is true, but if Ezekiel had said, "he will kill your sailors on all your ships, he will plunder your treasures," we may reasonably think of treasures in the ships' holds being plundered as fulfilling that prophecy.
Your analogy is helpful but not quite perfect. In your analogy, the prophet first speaks of "your sailors on all your ships". The sailors are features or attributes pertaining to, or located upon, the ships. This is crucial, because it serves to override the default context, where "you/your" refer primarily to the island-city and its features rather than the ships and their features. It is because your hypothetical Ezekiel first speaks of sailors on ships, that it then becomes reasonable to infer the location of the next object, "treasures", aboard the ships as well.
But Ezekiel never overrides the operative context of "you/your" in this way. He mentions merely that the daughter-towns in the country/mainland will be put to the sword, period, without explicitly mentioning any features of them that would set the precedent for infering that what follows also discusses their features.
Now, if your Ezekiel had said the following, then the analogy would be an apt fit: "he will sink your ships, he will plunder your treasures." Is the prophet now refering to (i) treasures aboard the ships, (ii) treasures in the island-city, or more generally (iii) any treasures under the control of the island-city everywhere, whether aboard ship or on the island? Of all these possibilities, (i) is least likely, because it goes against the default, operative context without any specific textual cues to override it.
quote:
quote:
Scott: Look ... at verse 19:
"When I make you a city laid waste, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you..."
But this doesn't say it won't ever be reinhabited.
You're right, it doesn't. But I didn't cite verse 19 in support of the claim that Ezekiel prophesies Tyre will never be reinhabited. I cited verse 19 in support of the claim that, if interpreted literally, Ezekiel prophesies Tyre will be emptied (become uninhabited) and immersed in the sea (see below for my response to whether that refers to the buildings or people). And that is exactly what verse 19 says.
quote:
quote:
Scott: Tyre is envisioned by the prophet as being not merely abandoned/uninhabited, but swallowed-up by the sea.
I would say this refers to the people, though, as in the next verse. Ocean water doesn't normally rise and cover an island! And what goes down are the people, not the land.
It is a distinct possibility that the people of Tyre are in view rather than the physical infrastructure of the island-city itself. But I don't see what difference it makes to the point under discussion, as there is no more a historical record of the people of Tyre being immersed in the sea than there is of the island-city itself being deluged. It didn't literally happen.
And that leads, I think, to the most interesting part of the conversation:
quote:
Lee: Why were the false prophets taken out and stoned when they missed it, if the true prophets made mistakes just like they did?
quote:
Scott: ...prophecy could be fulfilled in their eyes despite a lack of exact down-to-the-detail accuracy, even though today - in modern scientific eyes - such prophetic fulfillments generally have to be granted as debatable.
Well, they certainly did make a distinction for detailed fulfillment, though!
Genesis 41:13 And things turned out exactly as he interpreted them to us...
1 Kings 8:56 Not one word has failed of all the good promises he gave through his servant Moses.
And again, why is this the test of a false prophet: when what they said doesn't happen?
Deuteronomy 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.
Isaiah 44:25 ...who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners...
Isaiah 44:26 ...who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers...
There's a difference here! The difference is just this, whether the prophesied event happens or not. Really happens, I mean.
Again you have raised this very important issue. If biblical prophecy is not fulfilled according to exactingly literal, modern standards, then what value or truth is there in it? The answer to this lies in examining how the biblical community itself, in ancient times, treated prophecy. Some years later, for example, beginning in Ezekiel 29:17, we see Ezekiel recasting the prophetic expectation for Nebuchadnezzar and Tyre - redirecting it without batting an eye. And we wouldn't have witness to that today, if Ezekiel's community and their descendants hadn't likewise chosen to honor and preserve both Ezekiel 26 and 29, despite the literal "failure" and amendment of the prophecy.
What this should tell us is that the ancient near Eastern cultures, such as the Hebrews, did not evaluate prophetic fulfillment using critical standards applied to every exacting detail interpreted literally and statically. From what else we know of their cultures, this should not surprise us. The ancient Hebrews were, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, thoroughly premodern in their outlook. Instead, prophecy was evidently seen as dynamic and fluid and evokative - the proclamation of God's intent given current and past affairs, conceptualized under inspiration by human minds and witnessed-to expressively and even poetically in a full literary vocabulary. It was the gist that mattered, and prophecy was fulfilled if the gist came to pass in a convincing way, even if non-literal (and this says nothing about the contingency of prophecy, too, which we see recognized in places like Jonah). What this means is, it is anachronistic in the extreme to reach back from the modern age and impose our standards on the text, as if that is what the text meant in that community at the time. Rather we should evaluate prophecy in the bible according to the standards they used - this is what it means to consider the full historical and cultural context in doing exegesis.
Note none of the verses you cite can contest what I'm saying here, because they all necessarily refer to "fulfillment" as it was understood in the day. They are all, in this way, self-referential. It thus begs the question to apply them to a discussion over what "fulfillment" actually did mean in the day. It certainly is inappropriate to assume it meant the same thing modern science would consider it to mean now.
quote:
"I have listened to them with a horrible attention, with a hideous fascination. For it was like watching a man energetically sawing from the tree the branch he is sitting on. If these happy democrats could prove their case, they would strike democracy dead." (Chesterton)
I don't think you all realize the implications here...
Modern skeptics will actually find little comfort in what I'm saying here. The skeptic who judges and dismisses prophecy on the basis of its admitted lack-of-proven-success by modern critical and scientific standards, can only do so by committing the fallacy of anachronism, evaluating the text based on standards foreign to it. It should come as no surprise, and be considered of little import, when the text then fails to meet with those inappropriate expectations.
But in any case, please do not think I am saying that Ezekiel was wholly wrong in both spirit and detail concerning Nebuchadnezzar and Tyre. If the appropriate standard to apply when evaluating the fulfillment of prophecy is the one in use at the time, in which it is the gist that matters more than the poetry and imagery of the details, then Ezekiel 26 is fulfilled prophecy. I have only been arguing against misplaced standards for evalution, not fulfillment per the appropriate standards. After all, Nebuchadnezzar did besiege Tyre for years, during which Tyre's mainland was conquered and destroyed and its fortunes depleted. Tyre lost the war, entered into the vassalage of Babylon, and never recovered to its former glory as an independent and powerful city-state. After Babylon, it passed in fealty from one power to another, until Alexander heavily damaged it in the late 4th century B.C., killing or exiling many of its people and putting an end to even its nominal independence. That was the end of Phoenician Tyre, and it was Phoenician Tyre that was, for its sins, the subject of the oracle. What does it matter that a prosperous Greco-Roman city on the same location continued for hundreds of years, let alone that a Lebanese city of the same name and location exists today? They bear no link to Phoenician Tyre, which beginning with Nebuchadnezzar was rendered "no more", "sought for" but "never found again". By the standards of the day, Ezekiel's prophecy, by being generally and loosely fulfilled (by modern critical standards), was fulfilled.
Best regards,
PS. I should probably say at this point that I am not an open theist, meaning I have not studied the issue and come down on the side of open view theology. For that matter, I can't say I am committed to a traditional view of God's sovereignty and foreknowledge either - I really haven't studied the issue. What attracted me to this thread was the discussion on Ezekiel 26 and un-literally-fulfilled prophecy in general. (Incidentally, I've just picked up a copy of D. Brent Sandy's Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic - if anyone has read this, I'd be interested in your thoughts.) So, my apologies to anyone if I've diverted this thread away from the purpose of this forum, and by all means, please return the thread to "previously scheduled programming" if that is desired :-)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/6/2004 1:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott:
quote:
That was the end of Phoenician Tyre, and it was Phoenician Tyre that was, for its sins, the subject of the oracle. What does it matter that a prosperous Greco-Roman city on the same location continued for hundreds of years, let alone that a Lebanese city of the same name and location exists today? They bear no link to Phoenician Tyre, which beginning with Nebuchadnezzar was rendered "no more", "sought for" but "never found again". By the standards of the day, Ezekiel's prophecy, by being generally and loosely fulfilled (by modern critical standards), was fulfilled.
It wasn't the end of "Phoenician" Tyre. The main part of the city was on an island that wasn't connected to the mainland. Nebuchadnezzar didn't have ships, he spent 13 years trying to take the city and gave up. God recognized this as I've already posted. Because Nebuchadnezzar didn't get treasure as "wages", God sent him down to Egypt for his "wages". God was cognizant that Nebuchadnezzar didn't take Tyre.
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/prophecy.htm
"Phoenician Tyre"...
If God prophesized that your dad would be dead within 500 years, how could that prophecy fail? 
If God was prophesying regime change, He'd prophesy regime change NOT destruction of a city.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/6/2004 6:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Scott,
quote:
Lee: … if Ezekiel had said, "he will kill your sailors on all your ships, he will plunder your treasures," we may reasonably think of treasures in the ships' holds being plundered as fulfilling that prophecy.
Scott: … if your Ezekiel had said the following, then the analogy would be an apt fit: "he will sink your ships, he will plunder your treasures." Is the prophet now referring to (i) treasures aboard the ships … Of all these possibilities, (i) is least likely, because it goes against the default, operative context without any specific textual cues to override it.
I think it is reasonable to consider taking treasures out of ships as fulfilling this statement, though. How do you cover an island city with horses like dust? I think the mainland city is what people would think of, in Eze. 26:7-11, "build a ramp" would bring to mind the mainland settlement, not the island, I think.
quote:
"When I make you a city laid waste, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring up the deep over you, and the great waters cover you..."
Scott: I didn't cite verse 19 in support of the claim that Ezekiel prophesies Tyre will never be reinhabited. I cited verse 19 in support of the claim that, if interpreted literally, Ezekiel prophesies Tyre will be emptied (become uninhabited) and immersed in the sea (see below for my response to whether that refers to the buildings or people).
Becoming uninhabited I can live with. The island was a "bare rock" for a while, according to someone who visited there, as I have read.
quote:
Scott: Tyre is envisioned by the prophet as being not merely abandoned/uninhabited, but swallowed-up by the sea.
Lee: I would say this refers to the people, though, as in the next verse. Ocean water doesn't normally rise and cover an island! And what goes down are the people, not the land.
Scott: But I don't see what difference it makes to the point under discussion, as there is no more a historical record of the people of Tyre being immersed in the sea than there is of the island-city itself being deluged.
I would take the sea waters as rising and covering them as metaphorical:
Lamentations 3:54 the waters closed over my head…
quote:
Lee: … why is this the test of a false prophet: when what they said doesn't happen?
Deuteronomy 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.
Scott: Some years later, for example, beginning in Ezekiel 29:17, we see Ezekiel recasting the prophetic expectation for Nebuchadnezzar and Tyre - redirecting it without batting an eye.
But again, "many nations" were to be involved. Thus Neb did his part, for no reward.
quote:
Scott: It was the gist that mattered, and prophecy was fulfilled if the gist came to pass in a convincing way, even if non-literal … By the standards of the day, Ezekiel's prophecy, by being generally and loosely fulfilled (by modern critical standards), was fulfilled.
But now virtually no prophet is a false prophet, because some of what they say comes true, or could be interpreted as being fulfilled non-literally.
Deuteronomy 13:2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place…
So now what is left of the test of a false prophet?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/6/2004 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott: … if your Ezekiel had said the following, then the analogy would be an apt fit: "he will sink your ships, he will plunder your treasures." Is the prophet now referring to (i) treasures aboard the ships … Of all these possibilities, (i) is least likely, because it goes against the default, operative context without any specific textual cues to override it.
Lee:I think it is reasonable to consider taking treasures out of ships as fulfilling this statement, though.
Ezekial distinguishes between the city and "her daughters on the mainland". He says "you" and "your daughters on the mainland". So "you" is referring to Tyre on the island.
What Nebuchadnezzar would do against "you", the island city of Tyre:
1. make seige walls
2. cast up a ramp
3. raise up a large shield
4. battering rams against their walls
5. axes would break down towers
6. dust raised by multitude of his horses would cover them
7. walls would shake at the noise of cavalry and wagons and chariots
8. enter their gates as men enter a city that is breached
9. hoofs of horses will trample all their streets
10. slay their people with the sword
11. strong pillars will come down to the ground
12. make a spoil of their riches
13. make a prey of their merchandise,
14. break down their walls
15. destroy their pleasant houses
16. throw their stones and timbers and debris into the water
17. silence the sound of their songs
18. make Tyre a bare rock, a place for the spreading of nets
But Nebuchadnezzar never got on the island because he had no ships.
And Nebuchadnezzar never got their riches:
Ezekial 29:
18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare. But he and his army had no wages from Tyre for the labor that he had performed against it."
Lee:But again, "many nations" were to be involved.
Ezekial 26:7 For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry and a great army.
Nebuchadnezzar, King of Shumer, King of Akkad, King of Ur, King of Larsam, King of Nippur, King of Shirpurla, King of Kish, King of Babylon, King of of Uruk. That's why it was the Babylonian Empire. That's why he was "king of kings", verse 7
How many nations were in the Roman Empire? More than one.
How many nations were in the Babylonian Empire? More than one.
There's a distinction between nations (England) and empires (English Empire). That's why historians refer to the Babylonian Empire.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/6/2004 8:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
Scott:
quote:
That was the end of Phoenician Tyre, and it was Phoenician Tyre that was, for its sins, the subject of the oracle. What does it matter that a prosperous Greco-Roman city on the same location continued for hundreds of years, let alone that a Lebanese city of the same name and location exists today? They bear no link to Phoenician Tyre, which beginning with Nebuchadnezzar was rendered "no more", "sought for" but "never found again". By the standards of the day, Ezekiel's prophecy, by being generally and loosely fulfilled (by modern critical standards), was fulfilled.
It wasn't the end of "Phoenician" Tyre. The main part of the city was on an island that wasn't connected to the mainland. Nebuchadnezzar didn't have ships, he spent 13 years trying to take the city and gave up. God recognized this as I've already posted. Because Nebuchadnezzar didn't get treasure as "wages", God sent him down to Egypt for his "wages". God was cognizant that Nebuchadnezzar didn't take Tyre.
I don't believe you've closely read what I've written. I know and agree with everything you say above, about the mainland as distinct from the island city, Nebuchadnezzar's campaign which took the mainland and failed to take the island, Ezekiel's recasting of the prophetic expectation in chapter 29, etc. I don't contest any of the historical or biblical data you present, and I certainly did not say that Nebuchadnezzar was "the end of Phoenician Tyre" (against which idea your response above is apparently directed).
What I wrote was that Alexander's conquest was the end of Phoenician Tyre, and Phoenician Tyre's long decline began with its war with Babylon. If you will re-read that section of my posting, that this is what I wrote should be quite plain. And you would likely agree with those observations (about Tyre's decline and fall between Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander), since you are as aware of the historical record on that as I, although you would evidently disagree with the interpretation I give to them.
quote:
If God prophesized that your dad would be dead within 500 years, how could that prophecy fail...If God was prophesying regime change, He'd prophesy regime change NOT destruction of a city.
You and Lee both seem to labor under the same misapprehension: that predictive prophecy, in its biblical historical/cultural context, was a literalistic crystal-ball look into the future. Lee argues that the crystal ball succeeded - all the literal details were exactly actualized in history. You argue they were not, and therefore it means the future is open and/or God has freedom to "repent" (as the Bible elsewhere puts it - incidentally, I am not necessarily against your conclusion).
But your presupposition - that prophecy was a crystal ball, purporting to offer what we moderns would recognize as a DVD/VCR-type recording of future history - is not biblical. And that is my contention here. If we want to see how prophecy was intended, we need - as everywhere else in scripture when trying to adduce meaning - to look at the historical and cultural context, as evidenced by how prophecy is treated in scripture after it is given. And prophecy is treated as significantly more non-literal, colorful, poetic and evokative than I think either you or Lee give it credit for. Look at how Peter applies Joel's prophecy in Acts 2, for example, in a decidely hyperbolic and non-literal fashion. To the day of Pentecost, he relates an end-times prophecy of Joel in which the moon turns red and the sun turns black! And there are several other such clues through scripture, including the faithful, unembarrassed transmission of both Ezekiel 26 and 29 to us today, that suggest the same thing: the historical/cultural standard for prophetic fulfillment was whether the perceived gist of the prophecy had visceral impact on the community when seen in the light of subsequent events. I know we don't like that standard today, with our post-Enlightenment, Greek-rooted critical thinking, but we violate our own well-considered maxim of seeking first the historical meaning to determine the meaning for us.
So, so what if biblical prophecy does not satisfy modern critical, skeptical and scientific standards, as if God were putting himself to our test when revealing himself to the people of a totally different culture thousands of years ago. Satisfying our critical minds is not what God intended with prophetic inspiration. Sorry to disappoint :-)
As to those would say this line of reasoning is just a dodge: there is no guarantee in life that everything in the wide scope of reality and human experience is always subject to the microscope and dissection knife of critical thinking. Thank God - what a dull world it would be (and I say this as a successful software engineer with a passion for science). What this means is simply that those things not amenable to critical method simply remain unproven and unaddressable by critical method. Nothing more.
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/6/2004 9:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by scott_jorgenson
Lee argues that the crystal ball succeeded - all the literal details were exactly actualized in history. You argue they were not, and therefore it means the future is open and/or God has freedom to "repent" (as the Bible elsewhere puts it - incidentally, I am not necessarily against your conclusion).
But your presupposition - that prophecy was a crystal ball, purporting to offer what we moderns would recognize as a DVD/VCR-type recording of future history - is not biblical. And that is my contention here.
I agree with what you say, I, too, don't think prophecy is a crystal ball look into the future. Because the future hasn't happened yet.
And there's no need to massage the truth in order to make it appear these prophecies came true when they didn't. If God doesn't have a problem when they don't, then we shouldn't either.
The lack of accuracy regarding prophecy disproves exhaustive foreknowlege, imho.
The lack of accuracy regarding prophecy due to God interacting with people, proves that the future hasn't happened yet and is thus, unknowable.
Software engineer? Join the crowd....  | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/6/2004 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee,
quote:
quote:
Scott: … if your Ezekiel had said the following, then the analogy would be an apt fit: "he will sink your ships, he will plunder your treasures." Is the prophet now referring to (i) treasures aboard the ships … Of all these possibilities, (i) is least likely, because it goes against the default, operative context without any specific textual cues to override it.
I think it is reasonable to consider taking treasures out of ships as fulfilling this statement, though.
I wouldn't completely rule out that interpretation either, but what I wrote is that it would be the least likely - I would say by far.
As I've said, elsewhere Ezekiel has established that "you/your" refers by default to the island city. He further tends to affirm as much in Ezekiel 26, by specifically describing the "daughter-towns" as "your daughter-towns", again emphasizing in the immediate context that the default object of "you/your" is the island-city (for if it were the daughter-towns themselves, they would not be referred to in such peripheral fashion).
What this all means is that when Ezekiel then proceeds in Ezekiel 26 to describe features such as "your walls", "your towers", "all your streets", etc, he most likely has in mind those features, not of the daughter-towns, but of the island city. If he had had the daughter-towns' features in mind, he would have had every opportunity to more clearly qualify his writing in that regard, by, just at least once, specifying something like "walls of your daughter-towns" or "their towers" or etc. As it is, though, his writing is exactly what one would expect if he had had the islands' features in mind all along.
Note furthermore verse 12, where the unambiguous referent of "he", Nebuchadnezzar, shifts to the more ambiguous referent of "they" (more ambiguous because it could refer to the "many nations" of verse 4, or it could refer to the troops or nations under Nebuchadnezzar's command as king of kings). Your interpretation would have us believe that here, where Alexander's assault is supposedly forecast, the features mentioned in verse 12ff such as "riches", "walls", "pleasant houses", "stones", etc, now encompass not just the mainland but the island-city as well.
In other words, your interpretation would have us believe that:
- Yes, in agreement with me, "you/your" by default refers to the island city, but...
- No, in the verses clearly referring to "he" (ie Nebuchadnezzar), "you/your" refer only to the mainland settlements, and yet then...
- In the verses referring to "they", "you/your" seamlessly shifts to refer to the island city again, whether exclusively or in conjunction with the mainland.
Your view, in other words, postulates three different referents of "you/your" - with no internal textual clues to justify any such shift in referent, which clues Ezekiel could have easily provided if indeed he had had those shifts in mind. Now, I cannot rule out that Ezekiel wrote according to your interpretation, but as I said, the rules of grammar argue against it.
I would submit that anyone reading Ezekiel 26 in advance of the events involving Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander would plainly have considered the literal details of the prophecy to refer grammatically to Nebuchadnezzar, and would never have guessed at the arbitrary shifts you postulate, which can only be argued for in an ex-post-facto attempt to get the literal details of the prophecy to fit the historical record. That is simply not a convincing argument to establish critically that Ezekiel's prophecy really was fulfilled in exacting, literal detail. Which, as I've been saying elsewhere, is not to say the prophecy was not fulfilled according to biblical standards.
quote:
How do you cover an island city with horses like dust? I think the mainland city is what people would think of, in Eze. 26:7-11, "build a ramp" would bring to mind the mainland settlement, not the island, I think.
The instruments of war mentioned in Ezekiel 26:7-11 are the instruments needed for taking a city, whether the city is located on an island or the mainland. Getting onto the island would just be part of the effort; once there, those instruments would be needed to breach the city. Thus the instruments of war mentioned in 26:7-11 are not determinative of the location of the city features (walls, gate, etc) being mentioned. What is determinative of the location of those features is the grammar, as I've been describing eg above.
quote:
Becoming uninhabited I can live with. The island was a "bare rock" for a while, according to someone who visited there, as I have read.
From what I've read, the closest Tyre has come to "bare rock" was due to the Moslem Mamluk reconquest of Tyre from the crusaders, in 1291 A.D. The Mamluks apparently totally destroyed the city as part of a "scorched earth" campaign, to discourage future crusader reconquest. At this time, Tyre was apparently nearly uninhabited for many years, perhaps a century or more. (In contrast, Tyre was only damaged by Alexander, not destroyed, and within 18 years in fact was rebuilt and doing pretty well as a Hellenic port, albeit the old glory of being an independent city-state and commercial center-of-the-world was long gone.)
If anything from the historical record was pressed into service to argue for literal fulfillment of the prophecy, it seems it should be the Mamluks. But even then, as I've argued, the grammar of the prophecy weighs against arguing for Mamluk fulfillment or indeed fulfillment by anything other than Babylon (as do other criteria, such as Phoenician Tyre - the subject of the oracle per Ezekiel 26-28 - having already been extinct for 1500 years at the time of the Mamluk conquest, as well as Tyre's already being a relatively small player at that time rather than the great power depicted by Ezekiel). In thousands of years, lots of opportunities for cherry-picking events and pressing them into service as literal prophetic fulfillment are bound to present themselves.
quote:
I would take the sea waters as rising and covering them as metaphorical...
We agree.
quote:
quote:
Scott: Some years later, for example, beginning in Ezekiel 29:17, we see Ezekiel recasting the prophetic expectation for Nebuchadnezzar and Tyre - redirecting it without batting an eye.
But again, "many nations" were to be involved. Thus Neb did his part, for no reward.
And not only that, but that he got no reward is presented by Ezekiel as having come somewhat unexpectedly. Ezekiel seems to implicitly acknowledge that the literal expectation of his earlier oracle was not fulfilled. For if it had been fulfilled, there would be no reason to comment on Nebuchadnezzar's failure to "get anything" from Tyre, and, especially, offer that failure as a reason for the redirection of the prophecy against Egypt ("because they labored for me"). In other words, if Nebuchadnezzar was perceived by Ezekiel as having literally fulfilled the oracle against Tyre, then it could not be said by the same Ezekiel that Nebuchadnezzar had failed to "get anything" from Tyre, since he would have gotten exactly what he had been intended and prophesied to get: the mainland settlements.
So Ezekiel in 29 seems to recognize that the literal fulfillment of the prophecy was turning out differently than originally expected. Yet neither Ezekiel, nor his community of followers down to the time of the canonization of the Hebrew Bible, seem to have cared. They had plenty of opportunity to redact Ezekiel 26 and make it fit historical events better, or simply write Ezekiel 26 out of the inspired canon. But they didn't. That is an important clue - a clue that, in the biblical context, the total literal fulfillment of prophecy didn't matter so long as the gist held true viscerally. And the gist did hold true, in that Phoenician Tyre's glory days began their decline with Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of the mainland and entry of Tyre into his vassalage, and were eventually stamped-out by Alexander.
(Incidentally, note how Ezekiel considers Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of the mainland to nonetheless constitute next-to-nothing. That further demonstrates Ezekiel's perception that Tyre's heart and focal point is the island-city, not the mainland. And that further buttresses the grammatical argument I've been making above, about what "you/your" refer to by default (namely the island and not the mainland).)
quote:
But now virtually no prophet is a false prophet, because some of what they say comes true, or could be interpreted as being fulfilled non-literally.
Deuteronomy 13:2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place…
So now what is left of the test of a false prophet?
Again, good question, and it is the same question I've also been trying to answer in our conversation. The test of a false prophet is the test of the time: does what he say ring true in the gut or not, as borne out by comparing the gist of his message with the gist of subsequent events. That test is apparently what the scriptures mean when they talk about testing whether that "of which he has spoken takes place", and etc. Not the exactitude of a modern critical test foreign to the culture of the time.
Now, I don't know how else to answer this other than the way I already have. I'm sorry I can't present the view of non-literal prophetic fulfillment any better. Perhaps we should begin to wind down our exchange, since I am just beginning to repeat myself.
Best regards,
Scott
PS. Read Sandy's book that I referred to in my previous posting :-)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/6/2004 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
Software engineer? Join the crowd...
By the way, I hope I didn't appear boastful in calling myself a "successful" software engineer. I'm just an ordinary laborer in the information marketplace, not a dot-com millionaire or 37-year-old retiree. What I meant to convey is that I spend a lot of time in the cerebral, critical world myself, with my profession, and my interest in the sciences. I am not submerged in liberal arts postmodernism. But nonetheless I see the value of the non-literal world, and don't believe that God shares my natural bias in tending to eschew that world and favoring the critical, literal one. If God wants to inspire non-literal expression, in accommodation to a culture where that is the norm for prophetic expression, more power to him.
And now - lunch is over and I've got to get back to my job! Best regards,
Scott
PS. By the way, I would be interested in your explanation of why - if the future is open and yet prophecy is meant to be taken literally - why then prophecy even exists. Because if prophecy is meant to be taken literally, and yet the future is open, it would seem that prophecy is meant to fail, in your view. What is the purpose of prophecy then? But if prophecy is non-literal expression, as I've been trying to represent here, the future may be open, or it may be settled, because the prophetic utterance does not try to capture it in detail anyway. The prophetic utterance rather has its value in giving poetic voice to what God will deem to happen within the community. But what value is there if instead such utterance is simply doomed-to-fail crystal-ball attempts to read a future which is open? Note this is not an argument against the open view - but it is an argument for your considering prophecy to be non-literal, as that seems to be the only approach compatible with the open view. And if you accept prophecy as non-literal, it is possible, in agreement with the ancient community, to accept Ezekiel 26 as fulfilled in a non-literal, non-critical sense - not simply and flatly failed.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mark C.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 8/6/2004 3:25 PM (GMT -6) | | May I break in here?
To us who are Believers, Seeing is not Believing. Those who must see before believing will not believe after seeing. And those who insist on seeing do not believe already. This is a proof the flesh must have, yet the flesh will never believe, but is always hostile toward Truth. We who Believe that all prophecies of Scripture have been, or will be, fulfilled exactly as prophesied have placed our trust and hope and faith in the Author Whom we have found to be faithful. Many are the difficulties in Scripture, and we do not pretend to have full understanding of much of them, even very little at times. It is the Author of our Salvation we hold as Faithful and True. That is why we believe even when we can't see all the evidence or facts of many of the prophecies of the OT prophets, and even hard saying of the New. But to the one whom God has graciously opened the eyes to know his lost condition and to know the love of Jesus HE is Whom we have confidence in--over and above what some would have us to believe is untrue about our God and His testimonies. This KNOWING of the Savior, this "love of God shed aboard in our hearts by the Holy Spirit", having experienced His love to us by saving us literally "out of the kingdom of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His Beloved Son", is far more superior than knowing all the mysteries of the Bible! Some here desire to know of God, but have you KNOWN the love of God and Known HIM in reality and experience? IF you knew HIM in this way, you would know Him as the Faithful and True One! We love Him BECAUSE He first loved us. Do you know that God loves you? Trust Him and you will see!
Titus 3:3-8
I and most of Gods children have limited knowledge of a lot of difficulties of Scripture, but the love of Christ keeps us where knowledge fails. Can you say, "Amen"?
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
barryatk
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 101
| Posted 8/7/2004 5:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Mark C.
May I break in here?
To us who are Believers, Seeing is not Believing. Those who must see before believing will not believe after seeing. And those who insist on seeing do not believe already. This is a proof the flesh must have, yet the flesh will never believe, but is always hostile toward Truth. We who Believe that all prophecies of Scripture have been, or will be, fulfilled exactly as prophesied have placed our trust and hope and faith in the Author Whom we have found to be faithful. Many are the difficulties in Scripture, and we do not pretend to have full understanding of much of them, even very little at times. It is the Author of our Salvation we hold as Faithful and True. That is why we believe even when we can't see all the evidence or facts of many of the prophecies of the OT prophets, and even hard saying of the New. But to the one whom God has graciously opened the eyes to know his lost condition and to know the love of Jesus HE is Whom we have confidence in--over and above what some would have us to believe is untrue about our God and His testimonies. This KNOWING of the Savior, this "love of God shed aboard in our hearts by the Holy Spirit", having experienced His love to us by saving us literally "out of the kingdom of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His Beloved Son", is far more superior than knowing all the mysteries of the Bible! Some here desire to know of God, but have you KNOWN the love of God and Known HIM in reality and experience? IF you knew HIM in this way, you would know Him as the Faithful and True One! We love Him BECAUSE He first loved us. Do you know that God loves you? Trust Him and you will see!
Titus 3:3-8
I and most of Gods children have limited knowledge of a lot of difficulties of Scripture, but the love of Christ keeps us where knowledge fails. Can you say, "Amen"?
This thread amazes me. Mark, I think I may be alot like you in thought. I know many who pride themselves on pointing out supposed troubles with God's Word. But I join you in saying any trouble there is is on man's part, not God's. Maybe I'm jealous that I don't have the time to write huge answers on this kind of subject...certainly some of these posts had to have taken hours to write. And what is the hoped for outcome? To be proven right? To pursuade the others? I guess I'm on here partly for those reasons...but larger than those is the reason to find out how others are coming along in their Christian struggles. One thing I'll not struggle over is supposed errors in bible prophecies. They were all given by men through the Holy Spirit unless they were the false prophets. I trust that God's message was given faithfully and truthfully by the prophets that today we know were true: Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. Did these guys ever miss one? Probably. Did King David ever sin? Certainly. Do we not gain in studying these lives, mistakes and all?
So I guess I've not understood this to be a discussion of the MOST IMPORTANT, but seems to me a side issue. The Big Deal is God and His message to us now breathing and what will we do. Iooo words on bible difficulties doesn't seem to me to be edifying at all.
I have been blessed to be a part of this community for the short time I've been posting. Please be graceful with me as you consider what I put in. Thanks | | Back to Top | | |
|
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 8/7/2004 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by barryatk
And what is the hoped for outcome? To be proven right? To pursuade the others?
As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)
That's why I'm here.
quote:
I trust that God's message was given faithfully and truthfully by the prophets that today we know were true: Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. Did these guys ever miss one? Probably.
My understanding is that the requirement for a true prophet was 100% accuracy. Anything less (even ONE less) implied a "false" prophet. That's why I'm curious to this issue. If those guys missed even "one" prophecy then they are/were false by comparison. The point being, if you knew a prophet was only right some of the time, would you listen intently to that person? I wouldn't.
quote:
Did King David ever sin? Certainly.
The difference is that nobody assumed David wouldn't sin, rather, they didn't think if he did commit ANY sin that he was improperly qualified to be king. Perhaps they'd assume he wouldn't commit adultery and murder, but I don't know of any scripture that implies that he wouldn't sin. Whereas prophets were supposed to be right. After all, a lack of accuracy breeds a lack of confidence with reference to prophecy.
quote:
Do we not gain in studying these lives, mistakes and all?
I don't understand. It would seem that this sentence would show favor toward studying even the false prophecies or seeming discrepancies in scripture which is what this and other threads actually are doing.
I'm not being a jerk, just trying to understand where you're coming from. 
"What's partner yoga?"
"It's when you're two with the universe."
-My Friend Keith
---
When life gives you dish rags, you make...a kite that won't fly in the rain. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mark C.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 8/7/2004 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, if a prophet's testimony fails in any way he is considered false.
I personally have no problem with the "apparent" contradictions, knowing that what God had/has spoken through His prophets were and are true. If God said it would be, it will be, or has happened as He said it would. What is subsequently recorded of a person or event does not mean that the prophecy did not take place as prophesied. There are to me many cases where a recorded event tells something otherwise than what was foretold. I do not doubt God, even if we are not given to see the exact fulfillment: the event a prophesied did take place and with it there was also "this and that" which happened. But beyond the difficulties and explanations, knowing the God of the prophet, makes HIM accountable more so than the prophet. IF God is the Author of the Scriptures than HE is the One Who is being examined and tried. IF God is not the author then we can debate whether the prophecy failed or truly came to pass. But some suppose that some prophecies did fail therefore our present theism needs altering or adjusted to fit the failures of prophecy. Is seems some are trying to figure out God, which to me means failure of man to believe or trust in God. Some may trust and still feel the need to figure out God and devise a new way of seeing Him, but that kind trust is elementary--it was a beginning trust but not a continual relational-ship [fellowship] walking with God day by day, trusting always in all things knowing HE is GOD. How can one fail in a theism of this sort--the traditional historical theism of the Church?
That may just muddy the waters more!?!
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/7/2004 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
This thread amazes me. Mark, I think I may be alot like you in thought. I know many who pride themselves on pointing out supposed troubles with God's Word. But I join you in saying any trouble there is is on man's part, not God's. Maybe I'm jealous that I don't have the time to write huge answers on this kind of subject...certainly some of these posts had to have taken hours to write. And what is the hoped for outcome? To be proven right? To pursuade the others? I guess I'm on here partly for those reasons...but larger than those is the reason to find out how others are coming along in their Christian struggles. One thing I'll not struggle over is supposed errors in bible prophecies.
Maybe I'm being defensive, but I suspect some of the above sentiment is directed at me (yes, my postings in total have taken several hours to write :-), so please allow me to explain.
I am not here to knock anyone's view on biblical prophecy or inerrancy in general. I am here to acknowledge that there are those among us Christians, though, who have struggled with inerrancy and prophecy and other such things in the light of modern reason, and for whom it simply does not always work to say either (a) "there are no such problems; the text passes critical muster splendidly" (ala well-known apologetic authors Josh McDowell and Lee Stroebel and so forth), or (b) "although we can't explain the problems, I'm sure it all pans out somehow". Perhaps it is our weakness, but we want to be able to "give reason for the hope we have" that does not deny or equivocate over any reasonable criticism given in good conscience. We want this - need this - not only to provide an answer to others, but to assuage our own doubts that germinate when those reasonable criticisms are recognized.
Other Christians may not have a problem with this, but we do, and so that is why I am here: to learn what I can that will edify myself, and to contribute what I can that might edify others who are in the same boat as myself: Christians who are not encouraged, and are in fact discouraged, for example, by seeing attempts to explain Ezekiel 26 in the same old, in-our-eyes-discredited, way (eg, "history shows Ezekiel 26 was fulfilled in exacting and literal detail"). Perhaps I'm the only one, but in any case, from the rest of my fellow Christians, I'd ask the charity to acknowledge myself and those like me as fellow siblings in Christ, and not critical skeptics (though to passing eyes we may sometimes seem like the latter), and bear with us.
Thanks,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
| 62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:53 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|