Dear reader,
I have promissed to respond to Mr. Till's arguments because some
muslims (comments : I told on mcd that I am an agnostic not Muslim) like
Adnan and others listen to his word twisting without examining the facts.
By ignorance he might take with him many muslims to a Christless eternity.
To me as a Christian that is not a joking matter at all. That's why I think
it is crucial to answer him on mcd. Worse than that, he mocks the God of
Israel. I will reveal his scripture twisting by God's help. My God is the
God of Israel, and not The God of this world who makes tricks like the
magicians of ancient Egypt.
Mr. Till says: "Nebuchadnezzar did capture the mainland suburb of Tyre, but
he never succeeded in taking the island part, which was the seat of Tyrian
grandeur. That being so, it could hardly be said that Nebuchadnezzar wreaked
the total havoc on Tyre that Ezekiel vituperatively predicted in the passages
cited.".
The reason he has to twist the fact that mainland Tyre was not a fortified
city is to deny that Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled verses 7-11. But it will not
work nor his play with words can be sold to any Judge or Jury.
Now, all one has to prove is that Tyre(mainland) was not a simple unwalled
suburb, but a fortified city. If this is proved than verses 7-11 cannot be
questioned.
He uses the word "suburb" for mainland Tyre, and makes the island part "the
seat of Tyrian grandeur". Mr. Till has to try to shift things around to make
his presumptions fit, yet he contradicts history. He tries to cancel out the
mainland city by refering the mainland to the "daughter villages" in verse 8.
In the Encyclopaedia Britanica we read: "After a 13-year siege(585-573 B.C)
by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonian
suzerainty.".
A 13 year siege of what? It would have to be a fortified major city of
mainland Tyre. History records that when he broke the gates down he found
the city almost empty. The majority of the people had moved by ship to an
island about 1/2 a mile off the cost.
What Mr. Till forgets is that Tyre before Nebuchadnezzar took it was The
Mainland Tyre and not the island, it was later on that island Tyre became the
main city. Mainland Tyre was NOT just daughter villages. I quote a great
historian Quintius Curtius IV (2, 18-19): "The old city of Tyre did supply
stones and dirt to build the causeway(Loeb Classical Library:Quintius
Curtius IV, 2. 18-19)".
The great Greek historian Arrian also confirms the same as I quoted
previously
THE OLD CITY OF TYRE. A CITY ON THE MAINLAND WITH NO DOUBT. If it was not he
would have never used the words "OLD CITY".
And if the old city supplied the stones and dirt, then the city became a BARE
ROCK, history confirms this.
If Mr. Till is right then Quintius Curtius a great historian is wrong.
If Mr. Till is right then the Encyclopedia Britanica is wrong
If Mr. Till is right then Arrian must be wrong
Mr. Till, you must not ignore the historical facts, they testify against you.
Mr. Till, never refuted the historians in his past letters but simply recited
his story out of context again and again and again. We could go around and
around, just renaming and rewording, but it will not hold.
`
Then Mr. Till repeated this many times and kept asking about it as it was his
ace in the hole, he wanted to add more weight(hot air), he said:
"Even Ezekiel himself admitted the failure of this prophecy. Three
chapters after predicting the everlasting destruction of Tyre, Ezekiel, as
he often did in his prophecies, dated a long tirade against Egypt:
"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor
strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder
rubbed raw; _yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the
labor which they expended on it_. Therefore thus says Yahweh God: `Surely I
will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take
away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; _and that will
be the wages for his army_'"
(29:18-19).
How is this admitting his failure? Did the verse say that, or is Mr. Till
twisting the word to say that, he thinks because of his excellent english he
can make false statements. BOOTY and PILLAGE does not always happen in wars.
Nebuchadnezzar did take OLD TYRE but the people have ran away before he came
to the island and took their property with them. If Iraq pillaged Kuait does
not mean that pillage and booty happens in every war. Israel in 1967 did not
pillage the Palestinians, I was there myself, yet arabs almost always pillage
arabs. In fact, in Jericho I saw the arabs looting each other.
Also, How is it possible that a hebrew prophet admits and confesses to being
wrong when he knows very well that he would recieve the death penalty? That
alone we can talk about for weeks.
Walid