In the September/October issue of The Skeptical Review, I informed the readers that Farrell Till misinterpreted Ezekiel's prophecy concerning Tyre in the following ways: (1) He failed to note the changes in pronouns, from he and his (Nebuchadnezzar) to they in verse 12 (Greeks, Romans, etc.) and then to I (God) in verses 13-14. (2) Verse 11 ends the prophecy with respect to Nebuchadnezzar. Also, verses 7-11 refer to a siege--not the destruction of Tyre. (3) The they in verse 12 refers to various countries--Romans, Greeks, and so forth. These nations would "plunder" Tyre's riches, thus fulfilling verse 12. (4) The singular pronoun I refers to God himself.
Till responded by writing that pronoun shifts were common in the book of Ezekiel. He then cited five examples in an attempt to back up this claim.
My response: So what!
Till is erecting a straw house on an ocean beach amid ten-foot waves because how we interpret the Tyre prophecy is determined by the words "many nations" (verse 3)--not by what is written elsewhere in the book of Ezekiel.
Moreover, why would Ezekiel mention "many nations" if he meant that Nebuchadnezzar would be the one to destroy Tyre?
Till asks, "Why would a writer who was verbally inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent diety [sic] to prophesy the destruction of [Tyre] communicate his message as confusingly as Ezekiel did?"
Strange, I don't have any trouble understanding the Tyre prophesy [sic]! The only confusion regarding the Tyre prophesy [sic] is Till's.
Till also writes that "changes of direction in writing, and especially sudden changes, should be signaled with transitional devices."
In truth, no transitional device is needed because the "many nations" of verse 3 requires that the they in verse 12 be interpreted as refering [sic] to the Romans, Greeks, and so forth.
Thus, Till's allegations regarding "transitional devices" is just another straw house built on an ocean beach amid ten-foot waves.
Moreover, I could also perhaps argue that the plural pronoun they of verse 12 is a transitional device itself because of the words "many nations" (verse 3).
Till wastes much ink and copy space when he writes that I have "difficulty understanding fairly plain language, because that is not what Ezekiel 29:18-19 actually said."
What Till is refering [sic] to is the fact that I left out the word no immediately before "wages from Tyre" because I wrote that "Nebuchadnezzar didn't destroy Tyre because he wasn't the one prophesied to do so."
Likewise, Till should realize that the they (verse 12) refers to the Romans, Greeks, and so forth, because of the words "many nations."
Am I finally getting through to you Farrell?
On page six, Till writes much literary diddle.
"Destruction of the mainland villages, however, was not the extent of what Ezekiel had prophesied for Nebuchadnezzar," he writes.
Till's historical revisionism not withstanding, verses 7 through 11 refers [sic] to Nebuchadnezzar's siege against Tyre. This is why Ezekiel writes that Nebuchadnezzar would "heap a siege mound" against Tyre.
Verses 7 through 11 refer to Nebuchadnezzar's assault, in greater detail, against the "daughter villages" of Tyre. The you in verse 8 refers to the daughter villages" [sic] of tyre [sic].
Moving on, Till cites 2 Peter 3:10-11 in order to negate my claim that verses 13-14 refer to the final destruction of Tyre. Farrell, Ezekiel 26:20 makes it plain that Tyre will not be finally uninhabited until Christ returns.
Anyway, why do you cite 2 Peter 3:10-11? This assumes that I believe that these verses are inspired?
So what if Ezekiel doesn't mention Jesus specifically! Jesus' name is implied.
Besides, Till seems to think that the second coming of Christ is implied in the Peter citation above--so why can't I interpret that verses 13 through 14 refers [sic] to, or implies [sic], Jesus' second coming? So much for another straw house erected by Farrell.
At the bottom of page six till [sic] quotes verse 3 which says, "Therefore, thus says Yahweh God, `Behold, I am against you, O Tyre."
Till erroneously thinks that the "I" is "merely a return to the first person..."
Oh Mary, here we go again! The I refers to "Yahweh God." This interpretation makes much more sense than Till's bizzare [sic] "return to the first person" idea.
If Farrell can explain what Ezekiel meant when he wrote about the "many nations" that would come up against Tyre then perhaps I would admit defeat.
(Matthew Hogan, 177 Salisbury Street, Rochester, NY
14609-4137.)
