Interpretation of Texts (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 22:42 (5167 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

You seem to forget that this is the tale of two cities, as it were.
> 
> "The destruction of Tyre could have been plausible. However, the prophecy that Tyre would be thrown into the midst of the sea, and its former location be scraped like the top of a rock seemed more than implausible. Yet both these prophecies were fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon besieged the city and conquered it. The inhabitants of Tyre, however, escaped to a nearby island. Nebuchadnezzar then rendered the city to ruins. For two and-a-half centuries, these ruins were a mute contradiction of the Bible.
> 
> When Alexander the Great conquered the Medo-Persian empire, long after Nebuchadnezzar's siege, the new island city of Tyre resisted his advances. Frustrated by their efforts, Alexander ordered his troops to build a causeway to the island by throwing the ancient ruins of mainland Tyre into the midst of the sea, and using the dust to create a way for his troops, thus fulfilling the prophecy that Tyre would be thrown into the midst of the sea."
> 
> The map.
> 
> 
> So what you are seeing is that BOTH accounts are correct. The original city was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the second city by Alexander. So Nebuchadnezzar would never have entered the second city(the island city version of Tyre.)-Again shows that every verse of the Bible is potentially loaded with misdirection; how else am I supposed to interpret that he was "unable to earn his wages" from Tyre? And the suggestion that the old city was tossed into the sea is first-rate sophistry... that the causeway was built from the old city serves to Alexander's feat of engineering, but is only worth a chuckle in terms of biblical apology. Either we're supposed to take it literally or not; if not--great! Than we can engage in any post-modern reconstruction to fit events with the good book, but if we are to take it literally--sorry, you lose!-It's a very weak defense. Tyre is Tyre--if you conquer half of a city, you don't conquer it. Tyre never fell. Ezekiel's prophecy is pretty clear that it is Nebuchadnezzar that destroys it; yet in history it was long past Ezekiel and fell to Alexander. Ezekiel didn't say it would fall to Alexander, but Nebuchadnezzar. -In modern terms, if an invading army captured Manhattan, we wouldn't say that New York City fell, only Manhattan. The bible didn't say that PART of Tyre would fall, it said ALL of Tyre would fall. In those times, for a city to have "fallen" it would either have to be paying you tribute, or be entirely and completely destroyed. Neither of these things happened. -
Your play on words though--was absolutely fantastic!!!! I actually chuckled when reading that site, thank you!-[EDITED]
And by "play on words" I was referencing your "two cities" comment. Brilliant!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"