With the help of an expert on the Hebrew language I will finish my final
letter to Mr. Till's arguments.
Mr. Till likes to say that Ezekiel's usage of the words "many nations" (26:3)
should refer to one nation "Babylon", he tries to accuse Ezekiel of making a
mistake by using these words. The word is translated from the Hebrew words
*goyim rabbim* both of which are clearly plural. There is no way that anyone
can honestly emend the text to read "nation." Early in the prophecy, nations
other than the nation of Babylon are introduced. Thus the antecedent is
established for one or more plural pronouns in subsequent verses. The first
pronoun reference to the "many nations" is found in verse 6 where the
masculine plural pronoun has the "many nations" as its antecedent: "Then they
[the many nations] shall know that I am the Lord." This verse sets the
precedent for the antecedent of further masculine plural pronouns until a new
antecedent is clearly introduced. It is perfectly legitimate grammatically to
continue using the pronoun "they" to refer to the "many nations" until such a
change occurs.
In the context between verse 6 and verse 12, no clear alternative antecedent
is introduced that could be confused with the "many nations" apart from the
possible "men" of verse 10. However, because verse 12 mentions a second
breaking down of the walls, a second destruction of the houses, etc., it is
more likely that the antecedent is still the "many nations" in verse 12. Till
has greatly exaggerated the possibility of ambiguity here. It may seem
ambiguous to 20th century a Western English teacher, but it was not ambiguous
to Israelites of the 6th century BC.
Regarding Till's examples of incorrect plural pronouns in Ezekiel, he has
cleverly switched from non-collective nouns to collective nouns like "team,"
"house of Israel," "rebellious house," "Syria," "the land of Egypt," and
"Tyre." The context makes it clear in each case that the reference is to a
multiplicity of team members, citizens, or inhabitants. In Hebrew it is
grammatically permisssible to refer to such a collective noun by means of a
plural pronoun. Prof. Till does not know Hebrew grammar. He erroneously
judges Hebrew grammar by his knowledge of English grammar. The two are not
the same.
What Prof. Till(English Prof) erroneously proposed is that the plural pronoun
(they) should refer to Nebuchadnezzar. But king Nebuchadnezzar (vs. 7) is not
a collective as indicated by the 8 subsequent singular pronouns (vss. 8-11).
In this context, a switch at verse 12 from singular to plural is significant.
None of Prof. Till's examples involved a switch from a string of singular
pronouns to a plural one. All such sequences of pronouns demand a change of
referent. As usual, Prof. Till is more interested in winning a debate and
discrediting the Bible than he is in discovering the truth.
Now, let's review what Mr. Till answered previously and put it under the
light we showed above
The facts:
Nebuchadnezzar took the mainland city and passed by the island city as he
laid the mainland city waste three years after the prophecy. According to the
Encyclopaedia Britannica: "After 13 year siege(585-573 B.C) Nebuchadnezzar
II, Tyre made terms and aknowledged Babylonian suzerainty.
When he broke the gates down, he found the city almost empty. The majority of
the people have moved by ship to an island about 1/2 a mile off the coasts
and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573, but the
city of Tyre remained a powerfull city for several hundred years.
When Mr. Till was asked: Did The Bible promise that Nebuchadnezzar will
destroy Tyre? TILL answered Yes, absolutely.
When Mr. Till was asked: Did Nebuchadnezzar destroy mainland Tyre ?
TILL answered Yes, he argues: "so the part of Ezekiel's statement that
Nebuchadnezzar would slay [Tyre's] daughters in the field" was fulfilled, but
this was only one verse.
The 10 other verses are directed at Tyre [you] and what Nebuchadnezzar would
do to Tyre's [your] walls, towers, gates, streets, houses, etc.".
By the above explanations on Mr. Till's abuse of the text and the previous
response with historical facts this would be INVALID
Mr.Till was asked: If San Francisco was struck by an earthquake and was
destroyed, and the people moved to Alcatraz, can we say that San Francisco
was destroyed?
TILL responded: "Yes, but if there was a population living on Alcatraz, and a
prediction had been made that San Francisco would be "killed" and then
Alcatraz destroyed, if the earthquake didn't damage Alcatraz, it could not
be said that the prediction had been fulfilled".
By the above explanations on Mr. Till's abuse of the text and the previous
response with historical facts this would be INVALID since verses 7-11 only
are promised to Nebuchadnezzar, and the rest for the many nations.
Then I wrote: The fact that Alexander possesing no fleat, he demolished old
Tyre, on the mainland, and with the debris built a mole 200 feet across the
straits seperating the old and new towns, erecting towers and war engines
at the further end.
When Mr. Till was asked it that was true he responded: "Yes, but the only
problem is that Ezekiel said that Nebuchadnezzar would slay [your] daughters
in the field" and then "set up a siege wall against YOU...this cannot be a
destruction of some unwalled,
unfortified villages. Also, since the mainland villages were unwalled and
unfortified, how could this language have applied to them?".
This was answered in my previous letter which proved that this statement
contradicts historical facts, history testifies against your claims which are
false. This accusation is INVALID.
Then we presented another historic fact; The old city of Tyre did supply
stones and dirt to build the causeway(Loeb Classical Library:Quintius Curtius
IV, 2. 18-19).
And we asked Mr. Till if that was true he responded: "Who is denying this?
The only problem is that Alexander and not Nebuchadnezzar built the causeway
to gain access to Tyre.".
His argument does not square with the evidence presented above concerning the
context, Nebuchadnezzar did not have to fulfill that part. His accusations
are INVALID.
Then, I deleted all the parts about the wages of Nebuchadnezzar, the part he
repeated so much, that if an English prophessor would give him an "F" for so
many repetitions. I on the other hand deserve an "F" on English but I do have
a good excuse, I am an Arab. However, this was answered in the past letter,
wages and booty do not prove a no victory or destruction of Old Tyre.
Then Mr. Till was asked: Did the Bible promise the destruction of Tyre?
And he responded: Yes
Then he was asked: Did Alexander scrape the stones and debris from mainland
Tyre ? He responded: He used the debris from the villages to build a
causeway, if that is what you mean.
Then he seem to get angry and he repeats the same thing again and again:
"Walid's false analogies continue, so I am going to stop here and continue in
another posting to follow the tangent he is leading us into. Meanwhile, he
should try to tell us why Ezekiel said in 29:18-19 that Nebuchadnezzar and
his army received no wages for their labor against Tyre. Has anyone else
noticed how that these inerrantists always evade the information that
disputes their claims?".
Do I have to answer this.
End of case, I will not respond to more repetitions
Walid