****************************************************************************** **ubj: Re: A Challenge to All Prophe... Date: 95-04-20 19:36:56 EDT From: mtiemeye@helios.ks.symbios.com
From: mtiemeye@helios.ks.symbios.com (Matt Tiemeyer) To: Jftill@aol.com
*sigh*...
> Look again, Matt. Ezekiel 26:7-14 clearly describes in detail what
> Nebuchadnezzar would do to Tyre: set up his battering engines against the
> walls, break down its towers with his axes, his horses and chariots would
shak
> e the walls of the city after they had entered the gates, he would destroy
> the pleasant houses and lay the stones of the city into the waters, etc.,
> etc., etc. Then the switch to the 1st person declared, "I will make thee a
> bare rock... thou shalt be built no more" (vv:1`3-14).
Yes.
>
> But Nebuchadnezzar never wreaked this kind of destruction on Tyre. His
siege
> succeeded only against the mainland part of Tyre, but the island
stronghold,
> which was the center of Tyre's power, survived the siege, and
Nebuchadnezzar
> withdrew his forces.
And? Nebuchadnezzar did everything mentioned above. He set up the engines, he broke down its towers, and the walls were shaken. Houses destroyed.
> To say that the switch from third person
> (Nebuchadnezzar) to first (Yahweh) changed the import of Ezekiel's prophecy
> is to resort to quibbling, because the Bible is filled with examples of
where
> Yahweh spoke in the 1st person about what he had done through the agency of
> others.
Right. "Others" is key. "Others" includes people that came after Nebuchadnezzar, which explains how God destroyed the city completely later. I certainly say that it's far from quibbling. This passage does not say that Nebuchadnezzar would completely destroy it; he said it would be completely destroyed.
> Clearly Ezekiel's intent was to predict the total and complete
> destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, but it just didn't happen.
As noted, I disagree. It happened, but not through Nebuchadnezzar, and the prophecy is very much intact.
> Ezekiel 29:17-19 is an admission that Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre had
> failed. Look in some reputable Bible commentary to see what was meant by
> verse 18: "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to
> serve a great service against Tyre: EVERY HEAD WAS MADE BALD, AND EVERY
> SHOULDER WAS WORN; yet he had no wages, nor his army, from Tyre, for the
> service that he had served against them." If he had no wages for his
> service, then he failed to realize any spoils from Tyre, and this failure
to
> receive spoils resulted from his failure to take the city.
I'm completely with you until you say that this failure resulted from his failure to take the city. First, he wasn't supposed to take the city; he was supposed to destroy it. Second, it's well-documented that God sometimes wanted His "agents of wrath" to take nothing from a conquered city, but rather to destroy all its goods and spoils as well. I contend that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the spoils he normally would have taken. Or, the people of Tyre may have destroyed them themselves in defiance. But in any case, yes, Egypt was payment.
> Now notice verse 19: "Therefore thus saith the Lord Yahweh: Behold, I will
> give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; AND HE SHALL
> CARRY OFF HER MULTITUDE, AND TAKE HER SPOIL, AND TAKE HER PREY; AND IT
SHALL
> BE THE WAGES FOR HIS ARMY." That's clear enough to see for anyone who
wants
> to see it.
Yes, that's pretty clear.
> The siege of Tyre had failed, so Nebuchadnezzar had received no
> wages for his service; therefore, Yahweh was promising to give him Egypt as
> wages for his service.
This is also true, save the fact that the siege did not fail. He just got his spoils from somewhere else.
> This is verified by verse 20: "I have given him the land of Egypt AS HIS
> RECOMPENSE FOR WHICH HE SERVED, BECAUSE THEY WROUGHT FOR ME."
Again, this does nothing to say anything against what I have clearly outlined above.
> You need to read the "prophecy" more clearly, Matt. With this many
loopholes
(quickly dispelled... :))
> in the claim of wonderful prophecy fulfillment in Ezekiel's tirade against
> Tyre, no one can say with a straight face that it is a clear case of
prophecy
> fulfillment. For one thing, the book of Ezekiel obviously wasn't written
in
> its entirety until after Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre; otherwise, all the
> discussion of Nebuchadnezzar's failure to take the city couldn't have been
> written into the book in Chapter 29. Let's be sensible.
The fact is, as I've already mentioned, that the entire prophecy was not fulfilled until centuries later, through other agencies. Hence, the entire book most certainly was written after Nebuchadnezzar's siege, but long before the city was actually completely destroyed.
> Also if you want to discuss the failure of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt
> in chapter 29, I'm fully prepared to do that. It is just another example
of
> prophecy failure. You guys have listened to too many sermons that make
> superficial claims of prophecy fulfillment. Believe me, the last examples
of
> prophecy fulfillment that you want to cite in an argument like this are
those
> in the book of Ezekiel.
Who's arguing? I'm engaged in a debate that will strengthen my faith, and I'm getting feedback from someone who's becoming more and more exasperated.
> Farrell Till, Editor
> The Skeptical Review
-- Matt