False Prophet=Joseph Smith=Brigham Young

[_LittleNipper]

(27-6) Ezekiel 26:1–14. A Remarkable Fulfillment of Prophecy

So what's your case now? I'm a bad Mormon? Is that it? You don't care that your entire understanding of the fulfillment of the Ezekiel prophecy has been shown to be a silly misunderstanding? All you want is to score a rhetorical point or two?

I believe you need to do more investigative work on your part. The prophecy was fulfilled and simply because a city called Tyre now exists several miles away from the original site, is no reason to be smug. And there is more than a few columns thrown into the sea. And personally I would throw perfectly good building blocks away. I would have used them to build something else ---- but in this case that isn't what happened. Atheists hate Tyre, because they cannot explain how someone could have the names, places etc., so correct so many years before the events. This is something Joseph has never accomplished...

[_maklelan]

I believe you need to do more investigative work on your part.

I promise you I don't.

The prophecy was fulfilled and simply because a city called Tyre now exists several miles away from the original site, is no reason to be smug.

No, the current city of Tyre occupies the exact site of the ancient city of Tyre. The city on the peninsula sits inside the remains of the ancient city walls, and the city on the mainland surrounds a small section of the abandoned portion of the ancient Roman city. You are completely and totally wrong.

And there is more than a few columns thrown into the sea. And personally I would throw perfectly good building blocks away. I would have used them to build something else ---- but in this case that isn't what happened.

You do not have the foggiest idea how ancient cities were built and maintained.

Atheists hate Tyre, because they cannot explain how someone could have the names, places etc., so correct so many years before the events. This is something Joseph has never accomplished...

Your abject ignorance of the facts here honestly bewilders me.

[_grindael]

Professionally? LOL now that is a ridiculous argument.

Is it? I've presented at SBL and a number of other international conferences every year for quite some time now. I've directly engaged a number of scholars of a number of different faith traditions throughout.

You are not a scholar of the Fundamentalist persuasion so you are not one either. Your argument is all kinds of silly. You just can't answer simple questions, and want to try and make is seem that someone has to be a "scholar" to know a subject better than someone else. That is ridiculous and you know it. And how about rebutting the scholar I did quote?

Who, Archer? I did. The ball's in your court now, but we both know you have nothing you can say in response, so that argument will be abandoned to the eternities while you move on to something else. Maybe you meant Carson? My comments already stand against the position to which you obliquely referred. If you'd like to quote actual parts of his publications, feel free. I'll be happy to respond.

You see, you are only playing word games here, using arguments that your own faith does not believe.

And you keep engaging strawman arguments.

Engaging someone “professionally” doesn't automatically give anyone expertise. Using your argument, you are not a scholar of the Fundamentalist persuasion, therefore you are not qualified to speak for them. I was talking about Carson, and I gave you a link. You said that you had never heard of any “scholar” giving that exegesis, and I provided one. It is legitimate, if you care to try and combat my argument, have at it.

The only strawman argument, is yours. You called Jesus a liar. You won’t say if you believe this is true. Of course you won’t, because you know it is being hypocritical on your part. Fundamentalist Christians believe no such thing, and neither do the Mormons, who you are supposedly here to defend. Unless you are not defending Jo and the Church and are only here to promulgate non-believer arguments. If so, then everything about Jo that was posted stands, because you have no argument.

I notice you never engage about matters of your own faith, why is that? You hide behind the term scholar, but that carries little weight. There are lots of those that disagree with all of your premises. I asked you a simple question whether you believe Jesus is a liar, since you called him one, but you won’t answer it. As to you being a bad Mormon, you brought that up, not me. Perhaps you are feeling guilty that you can’t defend your own faith?

[_grindael]

While commentators may haggle over Nebuchadnezzar's siege, Alexander's battle, the editing of the text by redactor-disciples, and Ezekiel's supposed admission of his failed prophecy, it seems obvious that his prediction has been fulfilled for the past 700 years. I am not aware of any scholar who claims that Ezekiel's predictions about the city not being rebuilt and its fishnets were inserted by disciples or redactors after 1300 A.D. or 1800 A.D. ~ IS FULFILLED PROPHECY OF VALUE FOR SCHOLARLY APOLOGETICS? John A. Bloom, Ph.D.

[Guest]

Joseph Smith disagrees with you.

Even your own restoration prophet does not agree with you. These accounts were not written down by clerks who were following them around like Joseph Smith had. They had to remember these things probably many days or years after they happened.

That's the whole point, isn't it? Now that seems rather foolish to me. Are you arguing from an atheist's perspective? So you believe that Jesus lied?

You see, you are only playing word games here, using arguments that your own faith does not believe.

You came here to defend the Mormon Church and Joseph Smith and yet use arguments that your own faith does not believe.

Instead of telling people what they think, why not try asking them?

Not every Mormon believes the same things. Some (such as myself) take a very nuanced view of what Joseph Smith said and taught. Others take a very literal view. Others occupy various points on a broad spectrum between literalism and the nuanced view. Viewing Mormonism from a monolithic perspective is clearly wrong. In other words, it's wrong to assert that just because Joseph Smith said X, you as a Mormon must therefore believe X.

[_grindael]

Maybe you should read this article, by Paul Ferguson PhD, which appeared in Bible and Spade, in 2006. He disagrees with you, and quotes a lot of other "scholars" that do. If I am being so "silly", then these "scholars" must be too. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... px#Article

[_The Erotic Apologist]

I will, thanks. Though if your last post was not aimed at me, you should probably say so.

[Guest]

Tyre was a significant coastal city located west of the mountains of Lebanon on the Mediterranean. It had a natural harbor that was protected by an island one-half mile off shore. Tyre fell under siege to Nebuchadnezzar as prophesied. The siege dragged on for thirteen years. During this time, the entire city of Tyre was moved to its much more defensible harbor island. Babylon took the mainland city of Tyre by 573 BC but, without a navy, was unable to pursue the war to the island stronghold. For more than two centuries, the city remained centralized on their island fortification.

In 332 BC, Alexander the Great marched on Tyre when it refused to deny the use of its harbors to his enemies. The Encyclopedia Britannica writes,


Possessing no fleet, he demolished old Tyre, on the mainland, and with the debris built a new mole 200 ft. (60m.) wide across the straits separating the old and new towns, erecting towers and war engines at the farther end. 2

When the use of every rock and remnant of old Tyre fell short of reaching the island by about one hundred yards, Alexander called on the help of other nations. With over two hundred ships which they supplied to him, he finally seized and ravaged the island city. Tyre thereafter recovered, but was again laid siege to and burned by Antigonus in 314 BC.

The next blow to the city was the gradual shifting of commerce to the south. Tyre continued to exist, but in declining wealth and influence. As late as AD 1291 the island city was intensely fought over and eventually won by the Moslems. They massacred the inhabitants and the city was utterly destroyed to prevent its use against Moslems in the future. Today, the harbor is port only to local fishing boats. A small fishing village exists on the island, but in a location opposite of where the island sheltered the extinct city of Tyre. As secular historian Philip Myers writes,


The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock - a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry. 3

Clearly, the 2,600 years of history which have passed since Ezekiel's day all look favorably upon his claim that he received special revelations of future events.

Ezekiel prophesied the permanent destruction of Tyre. (Ezekiel 26:3–14)

Tyre was an island fortress-city with mainland villages along the shore. These mainland settlements were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II, but after a 13-year siege from 585–573 BC, the King of Tyre made peace with Nebuchadnezzar, going into exile and leaving the island city itself intact. Alexander the Great used debris from the mainland to build a causeway to the island, entered the city, and plundered the city, sacking it without mercy. Most of the residents were either killed in the battle or sold into slavery. It was quickly repopulated by colonists and escaped citizens, and later regained its independence. Tyre did eventually enter a period of decline, being reduced to a small remnant. Echoing Ezekiel's words, historian Philip Myers writes in 1889:

The city never recovered from this blow. The site of the once brilliant maritime capital is now "bare as the top of a rock," a place where the few fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry. Older sources often refer to the locations as a "fishing village". However, it recovered and grew rapidly in the 20th century. The ruins of a part of ancient Tyre (a protected site) can still be seen on the southern half of the island whereas modern Tyre occupies the northern half and also sprawls across Alexander's causeway and onto the mainland. It is now the fourth largest city in Lebanon with a population of 14,000 people.

The conclusion is that God is STILL dealing with Tyre, and that like Daniel's explanation of the vision of Nebuchadnezzar. The process is ongoing but will be concluded in the total destruction of Tyre in the last days, as the 10 little toes of the Image are only now coming to reality.......

[_sr1030]

Can someone remind me how identifying supposed false prophecies by biblical prophets helps to support Joseph Smith as a prophet? Wouldn't this just mean both Joseph Smith and the biblical prophet were false prophets?

Joseph Smith set some pretty strict criteria for identifying a true prophet.

sr

[_grindael]

Not every Mormon believes the same things. Some (such as myself) take a very nuanced view of what Joseph Smith said and taught. Others take a very literal view. Others occupy various points on a broad spectrum between literalism and the nuanced view. Viewing Mormonism from a monolithic perspective is clearly wrong.

I'm well aware that not all Mormons believe the same things. However, the official site of the Church teaches doctrine that is approved by the First Presidency of the Church. In the case of the prophecy of Tyre, and Jesus prophecies in Matthew 24 (which we are talking about) I stand by my words. If individuals don't believe it, that is fine. But that has nothing to do with what the Church teaches, which is that the prophecy of Tyre was fulfilled.

Not all "Fundamentalists" believe the same things either. But that is really not the point. Daniel went after someone with the claim that Jesus is a liar. He offers no proof of this, but an exegesis of Matthew 24 that he somehow ascribes to "Fundamentalists", after the fact. Of course they don't believe this.

As for viewing Mormonism from a monolithic perspective, they have set it up to be that way. Can you get up in a Sacrament Meeting and say that because Ezekiel's prophecy of Tyre failed you must be calling Jesus a liar? Serious questions would be raised. You can believe whatever you like in Mormonism, but if your beliefs clash with the approved doctrine of the church, and you teach them publicly, there are consequences. Individual beliefs carry no weight in Mormonism. One must be ordained and set apart as a "prophet, seer, and revelator" for doctrinal statements to carry weight. One of the purposes of this discussion forum is that people disagree with what statements carry weight.

Daniel is slandering an entire group of Christians, saying that because of the way they interpret Biblical prophecy they must logically be calling Christ a liar, yet his own faith teaches as official doctrine that those prophecies were literally fulfilled, and so using his argument, Mormonism does the same thing.

His argument is a straw man.