Question for AlanF and Leo..
When do you believe Ezekial was written? What year roughly.
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled 601 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
PaNiCAtTaCk
I just got here, can someone just tell me who's winning and I will start reading from page 13.
-
thirdwitness
Proponents of 587,
You have just done what people do when they have no plausible explanation. And that is, make big long posts that could have been said in about 3 sentences thus trying to confuse the issue. Your whole entire theory is based on nothing but the meager secular evidence and your need to discredit JWs. Here is a summation of AlanF's essay:
(1) Ezekiel 26 contains a prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt; it was destroyed and rebuilt several times in the course of history and exists today with some 270,000 inhabitants.
(2) The false prophecy of Ezekiel 26 shows that all other prophecies in Ezekiel must be viewed in light of demonstrated historical facts.
(3) The 40-year prophecy of Ezekiel 29 contradicts known historical facts, as demonstrated by Leolaia and other posters.
(4) Various Bible commentators agree that the figure of 40 years in Ezekiel 29 must be viewed as figurative or symbolic.
(5) Watchtower defenders have given no reason to doubt the above points, but have given only speculation and mere nay-saying.
Considering them one at a time what do we find:
(1) Ezekiel 26 contains a prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt; it was destroyed and rebuilt several times in the course of history and exists today with some 270,000 inhabitants.
The ancient city of Tyre now lies in ruins. It was never rebuilt. This fact is ignored. You may presume to know the mind of God and what he meant but my belief is that all the Bible prophecis are true. I must therefore conclude that Jehovah meant that the ancient city would lie in ruins and not be rebuilt but that there would be activity there such as fisherman with their nets. Just because a city has been built around the site of the ancient city does not negate the prophecy. For your argument to have merit you must presume that you know more than God and that the interpretation of secular evidence negates His word. Thus your argument has no merit.
(2) The false prophecy of Ezekiel 26 shows that all other prophecies in Ezekiel must be viewed in light of demonstrated historical facts.
Again, I prefer to go with God's word rather than the interpretation of AlanF. Sorry about that but I do not consider your words equal to Ezekiels, Zechariahs, Isaiah's... For your argument to have merit you must presume that you know more than God and that the interpretation of secular evidence negates His word. Thus your argument has no merit.
(3) The 40-year prophecy of Ezekiel 29 contradicts known historical facts, as demonstrated by Leolaia and other posters.
So does the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Do you deny that also? I bet you were also one that claimed that Belshazzar never existed? And that Pilate never existed? Until they found the evidence. You are willing to accept the interpretation of secular historians from the meager historical information they have rather than accept the word of God. Sorry I am not willing to do that. For your argument to have merit you must presume that you know more than God and that the interpretation of secular evidence negates His word. Thus your argument has no merit.
(4) Various Bible commentators agree that the figure of 40 years in Ezekiel 29 must be viewed as figurative or symbolic.
Various Bible commentators also accept that God is a Trinity. In fact, most do. For your argument to have merit you must presume that you know more than God and that the interpretation of secular evidence negates His word. Thus your argument has no merit.
(5) Watchtower defenders have given no reason to doubt the above points, but have given only speculation and mere nay-saying.
Speculation you say. Here is some speculation for you.
Ezekiel 29: 10 Therefore here I am against you and against your Nile canals, and I will make the land of Egypt devastated places, dryness, a desolated waste, from Mig´dol to Sy·e´ne and to the boundary of E·thi·o´pi·a. 11 There will not pass through it the foot of earthling man, nor will the foot of domestic animal pass through it, and for forty years it will not be inhabited. 12 And I will make the land of Egypt a desolate waste in the midst of desolated lands; and its own cities will become a desolate waste in the very midst of devastated cities for forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the lands.” 13... “At the end of forty years I shall collect the Egyptians together out of the peoples among whom they will have been scattered, 14 and I will bring back the captive group of the Egyptians;
Ezekiel 30: 10 “This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘I will also cause the crowd of Egypt to cease by the hand of Neb·u·chad·rez´zar the king of Babylon. 11 He and his people with him, the tyrants of [the] nations, are being brought in to reduce the land to ruin. And they must draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain.... 23 And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the lands. 24 And I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon and give my sword into his hand, and I will break the arms of Phar´aoh, and as a deadly wounded one he will certainly do a great deal of groaning before him. 25 And I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon, and the very arms of Phar´aoh will fall; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah when I give my sword into the hand of the king of Babylon and he actually extends it out against the land of Egypt. 26 And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the lands; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.’”
Ezekiel 32: 11 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘The very sword of the king of Babylon will come upon you. 12 I shall cause your crowd to fall by the very swords of mighty ones, the tyrants of [the] nations, all of them; and they will actually despoil the pride of Egypt, and all her crowd must be annihilated. 13 And I will destroy all her domestic animals from beside many waters, and the foot of earthling man will no more muddy them, nor will even the hoofs of a domestic animal muddy them.’ ... 15 “‘When I make the land of Egypt a desolate waste and the land is desolated of its fullness, when I strike down all the inhabitants in it, they will also have to know that I am Jehovah.
Hmm, lets see. After reading these verses which do you suppose would be speculation?
A. The King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, devastated Egypt so that it was not inhabited for 40 years and scattered the inhabitants to different nations.
B. Egypt was never devastated for 40 years without inhabitant because the Egyptians never recorded such devastation.
For believers of God's word the answer can only be A.
For those people of the nations who do not know Jehovah and that he what says is exactly what happens then they will no doubt choose B.
For those who choose B think about this: 15 “‘When I make the land of Egypt a desolate waste and the land is desolated of its fullness, when I strike down all the inhabitants in it, they will also have to know that I am Jehovah. The Egyptians found out sure enough who Jehovah was. By your denying God's word and prophecy you can find out the same way the Egyptians found out just who Jehovah really is.
For your argument to have merit you must presume that you know more than God and that the interpretation of secular evidence negates His word. Thus your argument has no merit.
If the 40 year desolation proved 587 you would not be making these outlandish arguments against God's words and you know it. Your only reason for formulating such unreasonableness is because you cannot admit that JWs are right about 607 after all.
-
thirdwitness
I keep looking for Tyre, Lebanon on a Lebanese map and I cannot find it. There is this place called Sur though. Where is Tyre?
-
AuldSoul
thirdwitness: Hmm, lets see. After reading these verses which do you suppose would be speculation?
It would be speculation to state what set of circumstances fulfilled these prophecies without anything in either the Bible or the historical record to support that these prophecies were ever fulfilled.
You keep asking such easy question, but doing it as though the answer is complex or somehow enlightening. Have you got any more "no brain required" questions to ask? Will each of them require as much verbiage as you used in that last post? I anxiously await your future posts. Don't worry, there is no rush. You have PLENTY of time, despite what the District Convention talks said.
AuldSoul
-
AuldSoul
thirdwitness: I keep looking for Tyre, Lebanon on a Lebanese map and I cannot find it. There is this place called Sur though. Where is Tyre?
You wouldn't have found Tyre, Lebanon on a map of the region in 700 BC, either. Or 500 BC. Or 400 BC.
What is your point? Were you trying to establish that the English language translations don't give us the accurate phonetic names of locations that are written about in the Bible? Point proven. I agree. Beyond that, I can't figure out why you think this wordplay of yours is clever in the slightest. Annoying and infantile, yes. Clever, no.
AuldSoul
-
thirdwitness
So you are saying that it is speculation to assume that what Jehovah said came true unless we have secular evidence that it happened?
I am really glad that 587 proponents have shown that secular evidence supercedes Biblical evidence in their estimation. That is after all what 607 proponents have always said and now it has been proven.
-
AuldSoul
thirdwitness: So you are saying that it is speculation to assume that what Jehovah said came true unless we have secular evidence that it happened?
Wow. Given your apparent capacity for reading comprehension, I am glad you rephrased what I wrote so I can clarify.
No, what I am saying is that (1) presuming to know the timing of the fulfillment, when the timing is not specified and (2) presuming that it has already been fulfilled, when that is not specified by either Biblical or historical sources are speculative exercises. Each is nothing but speculation.
For instance, is it possible we could still be awaiting fulfillment of that prophecy? If not, why not? If so, why do you assert it has already been fulfilled? Now you may think that Ezekiel 30:10-32 makes this all crystal clear as it relates to point #2, but could there not be a future king name Nebuchadrezzar, or having the charateristics of Nebuchadrezzar (since even Jehovah can be typified by Nebuchadrezzar)? If not, why not?
Nothing in the text sets a date for fulfillment and nothing in the Bible relates the fulfillment, so why must it have already occurred?
When I can ask such simple and reasonable questions and present you with an incapacity to defend your assertion, you speculated your initial premises. Conjectured them, even. But, to your credit, you had help. At least you didn't arrive at the assumptive poppycock you posted single-handedly.
AuldSoul
-
thirdwitness
You say above: #2, but could there not be a future king name Nebuchadrezzar, or having the charateristics of Nebuchadrezzar (since even Jehovah can be typified by Nebuchadrezzar)? If not, why not?Okey dokey then. I tell you what. When you or any of your 587 friends come up with a legitimate reasonable explanation for the 40 year desolation of Egypt then let me know. I do not have time to answer every absurd straw grabbing comment.
But thanks for the efforts.
I think it has been demonstrated well that 587 proponents must ignore the Bible or call its prophecies false to maintain their theory.
-
Leolaia
Death to the Pixies....There was not any one single year. The author shows that it covers at least a period from 593 BC to 571 BC as its first and last dates show (Ezekiel 1:2, 29:17).
thirdwitness....
You have just done what people do when they have no plausible explanation. And that is, make big long posts that could have been said in about 3 sentences thus trying to confuse the issue.
It would have taken less than three sentences to state the basic fact that there was no "40 year period" that needed to be explained. But it takes much more than three sentences to explain why your reasoning is wrong and to show what facts disprove your hypothesis.
The ancient city of Tyre now lies in ruins. It was never rebuilt. This fact is ignored.
We've already pointed out many times that the city was rebuilt. You refuse to see this and instead say, "Gee, what's this totally different town Sur on the same site," totally ignorant of the fact already pointed out to you that this indeed was the ancient name of the city. "Tyre" is only the form of the name in Greek.
I keep looking for Tyre, Lebanon on a Lebanese map and I cannot find it. There is this place called Sur though. Where is Tyre?
See what I mean? This is a silly and ignorant question.
What you also ignore is the fact that Ezekiel 26 claims that no one other than Nebuchadnezzar would totally raze the city and throw its debris into the ocean. It also claimed that Nebuchadnezzar would take all the wealth of the city for himself. Even Ezekiel had to admit that this did not happen as expected. And Nebuchadnezzar never did such a thing. Your attempt to artifically impose a break of several centuries and a change in attackers in Ezekiel 26 is without foundation.
You may presume to know the mind of God and what he meant but my belief is that all the Bible prophecis are true. I must therefore conclude that Jehovah meant that the ancient city would lie in ruins and not be rebuilt but that there would be activity there such as fisherman with their nets.
All we presume to know is what the text says thanks to our own God-given reading abilities. The text prophesies that Nebuchadnezzar would raze Tyre and dispose even its very dust into the sea, never to be rebuilt. Did he do this? Yes or no?
Just because a city has been built around the site of the ancient city does not negate the prophecy.
So please tell us what "never to be rebuilt" means. I would guess that it means that a city bearing the ancient name of Tyre would not be built on the same site. Since you deny that Tyre was rebuilt, and since the above indeed happened, the phrase must have a totally different meaning to you. So what does "never to be rebuilt" mean to you?
For your argument to have merit you must presume that you know more than God and that the interpretation of secular evidence negates His word. Thus your argument has no merit.
Here are those a priori assumptions rearing their ugly head again. Face it, in order to properly respect what the text says and to place it above "secular evidence," not only will you have to invent an unknown period of Egyptian desolation/depopulation, you will also have to claim that Nebuchadnezzar did indeed destroy Tyre utterly (an event unknown to history), that the story about Alexander destroying it is pure legend and lies (because the Bible is truth and trumps secular evidence about Alexander), and that the present-day city of Sur -- or rather, Tsur to be more accurate to the pronunciation -- does not really exist and all the satellite photos and stories about this city are fictitious and a scam (since the Bible is truth and all present-day secular evidence of the existence of this city is inferior to the Bible's claim that it would never be rebuilt).
As I see it, you are not going the full length of defending the Bible against secular evidence. Why do you accept some secular evidence (such as the secular evidence about Alexander the Great and the present-day secular evidence that a city called Sur exists) and distort the biblical text in Ezekiel 26 to deny that Nebuchadnezzar did destroy Tyre. To go the whole hog in defending the Bible, you should deny ALL the secular evidence that contradicts the "inspired truth" that the prophet wrote in Ezekiel 26.
Again, I prefer to go with God's word rather than the interpretation of AlanF. Sorry about that but I do not consider your words equal to Ezekiels, Zechariahs, Isaiah's... For your argument to have merit you must presume that you know more than God and that the interpretation of secular evidence negates His word. Thus your argument has no merit.
So why don't you go with God's word and recognize that Nebuchadnezzar did indeed destroy the city completely? That's what it says in Ezekiel 26. Why do you accept later secular evidence that claims that Alexander tried to do this? Why do you negate Ezekiel by accepting secular evidence that someone else later attacked a city that did not actually exist? Rather, you yourself interpret Ezekiel in a creative way that denies that Nebuchadnezzar would have destroyed Tyre when v. 7-12 states exactly this. Why do you put your interpretation and secular evidence about Alexander above God's word? Why don't you insist that Nebuchadnezzar totally destroyed Tyre as the text states and all the evidence indicating otherwise are just plain wrong. You should try to be consistent.
I bet you were also one that claimed that Belshazzar never existed? And that Pilate never existed? Until they found the evidence.
Again you show you cannot make a distinction between absence of evidence and positive evidence. Was there ever positive evidence that Belshazzar or Pilate never existed? No. That claim was based on an absence of evidence. Is there positive evidence that a period of 40 years of desolation never existed? Yes. I presented some of that evidence in my prior post.
You are willing to accept the interpretation of secular historians from the meager historical information they have rather than accept the word of God. Sorry I am not willing to do that.
Yes, you have done that. You are willing to accept the obviously fictitious secular stories that deny that Nebuchadnezzar completely destroyed the city of Tyre. Funny how Nebuchadnezzar was able to completely raze the whole country of Egypt, destroy its cities, depopulate its millions of citizens off its land, yet he couldn't break through this puny city of Tyre after many years of war and had to accept a compromise. Come on, try to be consistent.
For your argument to have merit you must presume that you know more than God and that the interpretation of secular evidence negates His word. Thus your argument has no merit.
Ergo, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre and the city bearing its name on the same site DOES NOT EXIST.
Hmm, lets see. After reading these verses which do you suppose would be speculation? A. The King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, devastated Egypt so that it was not inhabited for 40 years and scattered the inhabitants to different nations. B. Egypt was never devastated for 40 years without inhabitant because the Egyptians never recorded such devastation. For believers of God's word the answer can only be A.
Hmm, let's see. After reading Ezekiel 26, which do you suppose would be speculation? A.The King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed Tyre so that it would not be rebuilt and he threw all its remains into the sea. B. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre but only managed to get the city to accept his yoke. The city continued to exist in the day of Alexander the Great who later besieged it, and the city was rebuilt and exists today. The remains of the ancient city are not in the sea but have been examined by archaeologists on land.
For a believer of God's word as yourself, the answer can only be A.