Who wrote 2 Timothy

[Gary Creely]

I recently listened to a sermon that cited 2 Timothy, and some of the content rested on the context of Paul's authorship while in captivity. I was under the impression Paul was not the author, but there seems to be some debate about that. Who do most Nazarenes think wrote 2 Timothy?

[Dennis Bratcher]

I recently listened to a sermon that cited 2 Timothy, and some of the content rested on the context of Paul's authorship while in captivity. I was under the impression Paul was not the author, but there seems to be some debate about that. Who do most Nazarenes think wrote 2 Timothy?

Since we do not know the author, authorship cannot be an important factor in the interpretation of 2 Timothy. In fact, that is true for almost all biblical books.

Late 19th and early 20th century approaches used historical data as a basis for exegesis. However, most of the so-called data were actually logical deduction. By the late 1960s, biblical scholars began realizing how much exegesis rested on assumptions, and began moving to a closer focus on the biblical text itself. Few biblical scholars now depend heavily on such historical reconstructions as a key to interpretation (a notable exception is John Watts in the two Isaiah volumes of Word Commentary, especially the second volume).

FWIW: I don't think it is Pauline, but it really doesn't matter.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Shea Zellweger]

I am comfortable calling it a Pauline Epistle. Question: Dodged :D

[Mike Fraley]

You can call it Pauline insofar as it is ascribed to Paul. There are lists of books (and segments of books) that try to sort out which ones really are written by Paul and which are not. However, the mileage varies from scholar to scholar.

[Jim Chabot]

Not to appear as though i am a logically deducing knuckle dragger, but. The opening verse claims Pauline authorship, it would appear that if Paul in fact did not write it then it should be deemed fraudulent and should be removed from the canon. Now maybe he wrote the beginning and somewhere left off and another added to his letter? I realize that Isaiah more likely than not was written by two or three authors, Isaiah's name is not found past the thirty ninth chapter. Is this the theory with 2 Timothy? I am only reading the english, but whomever wrote it sounds like Paul to me, I don't see a disconnect with his thought process.

[Ryan Plott]

Not to appear as though i am a logically deducing knuckle dragger, but. The opening verse claims Pauline authorship, it would appear that if Paul in fact did not write it then it should be deemed fraudulent and should be removed from the canon. Now maybe he wrote the beginning and somewhere left off and another added to his letter? I realize that Isaiah more likely than not was written by two or three authors, Isaiah's name is not found past the thirty ninth chapter. Is this the theory with 2 Timothy? I am only reading the english, but whomever wrote it sounds like Paul to me, I don't see a disconnect with his thought process.

Pseudonym practices were pretty common in NT times, as they were in OT. One of my professors told me that the summary of Paul's work was admitted into the canon because so many heretical groups claimed them for their own, as well as the works of the Johannine community. Canonizing all the works of Paul was an effort to mark their territory, if you will.(Which is why you see stuff like Philemon which is more like personal correspondence than any kind of sermon/truth-seeking of his other works.) As far as being removed from the canon goes, if my professor is correct then you might have a case since that was the original intent, however I do really like the work. I'd like to keep it, regardless of who wrote it.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Not to appear as though i am a logically deducing knuckle dragger, but. The opening verse claims Pauline authorship, it would appear that if Paul in fact did not write it then it should be deemed fraudulent and should be removed from the canon. Now maybe he wrote the beginning and somewhere left off and another added to his letter? I realize that Isaiah more likely than not was written by two or three authors, Isaiah's name is not found past the thirty ninth chapter. Is this the theory with 2 Timothy? I am only reading the english, but whomever wrote it sounds like Paul to me, I don't see a disconnect with his thought process.

Philippians 1:1 reads:


1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons . . .

Likewise Colossians 1:1:


1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to . . .

Or 2 Cor:


1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To . . .

Or both 1 and 2 Thess:


1:1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians . . .

Or Philemon"


1:1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,

Why do we never credit Timothy or Silvanus as the author of those letters? Maybe those headings do not tell us what many think they do (superscriptions in the Psalms are another example).

You are assuming a Western mindset relating to authorship. That is an assumption that does not apply to eastern writings or to ancient writings. Ancient writings were not as concerned about authorship as with tradition and authority. That is why there are so many pseudepigraphical books, like the Gospel of Thomas.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Hans Deventer]

Not to appear as though i am a logically deducing knuckle dragger, but. The opening verse claims Pauline authorship, it would appear that if Paul in fact did not write it then it should be deemed fraudulent and should be removed from the canon.

Jim, the idea of identity and authorship as we know it today is something that developed mostly in the Renaissance. Some were a little earlier. I remember a painting by Medieval painter Hieronimus Bosch where he looks wearily at Christ, who looks like Albrecht Dürer's self portrait. Dürer was the first to paint himself as himself, not merely including himself as a bystander, or even as Christ! Bosch felt this was totally vain.

http://www.bovenlichten.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/doornenkroning-jeroenbosch-geheel.jpg

http://www.jim3dlong.com/1498_Albrecht_Durer_Self-Portrait-WL400.jpg

[Keith Mullins]

(2Ti 1:1) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

(2Ti 1:2) To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.


If Paul didn't write it, then it is wrong. If it is wrong. The book is wrong. If the book is wrong. The bible is wrong.

[Bill Morrison]

(2Ti 1:1) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

(2Ti 1:2) To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.


If Paul didn't write it, then it is wrong. If it is wrong. The book is wrong. If the book is wrong. The bible is wrong.

Keith:
Although I wince a little at the strong wording, I guess I am pretty much in agreement with your sentiment. If the Bible is wrong on common statements like this, why should we trust any other part of it? This is why I am a conservative Nazarene, literal Creationist, etc. I do have some brains though and see the fallacy in being KJV only, though I respect that beautiful example of literature more than some Naznetters seem to.

BILL

[Todd Erickson]

(2Ti 1:1) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

(2Ti 1:2) To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.


If Paul didn't write it, then it is wrong. If it is wrong. The book is wrong. If the book is wrong. The bible is wrong.

Most of the languages that the bible was originally written in (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) do not in any way translate into the English language directly, both by nature of being language from a different culture, and from being around 2000 years ago.

Additionally, there are common issues with customs of the time which were so normal that they didn't need to be written, as it would be moronic, but that are completely confusing to us now. When we claim that if we can't take verses at face value in modern English with no context then they must not be true, we do violence to the entire bible as an ancient work.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, the idea of identity and authorship as we know it today is something that developed mostly in the Renaissance. Some were a little earlier. I remember a painting by Medieval painter Hieronimus Bosch where he looks wearily at Christ, who looks like Albrecht Dürer's self portrait. Dürer was the first to paint himself as himself, not merely including himself as a bystander, or even as Christ! Bosch felt this was totally vain.


Thanks Hans and Dennis, I understand where you are coming from, I have read quite a bit on the dual or triple authorship of Isaiah and I agree with the thought that the subsequent authors were of the school or tradition of Isaiah.

I'm not quite ready to do that with Paul, that is not to say that my mind is closed on this, just not yet. Paul exhibits some of the best in western thought, I believe that Paul could be quite successful as an attorney today, his logical thought is contemporaneous to our present system. I can see the point in referencing the pseudepigraphical books, the thought process involved there is quite strange, I have read a few of them, they are a frustrating read.

[Shea Zellweger]

(2Ti 1:1) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

(2Ti 1:2) To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.


If Paul didn't write it, then it is wrong. If it is wrong. The book is wrong. If the book is wrong. The bible is wrong.

well, there are a lot of areas where "the Bible is wrong," so that doesn't really worry me too much.

[Ryan Plott]

If Paul didn't write it, then it is wrong. If it is wrong. The book is wrong. If the book is wrong. The bible is wrong.

I'm not sure I follow the logical progression. Why does Paul's name being attached to the document mean it gets the final word?

[Eric Vail]

If Paul didn't write it, then it is wrong. If it is wrong. The book is wrong. If the book is wrong. The bible is wrong.

These types of issues are where I delight in the Nazarene article of faith on Scripture.

"We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and
New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing
the will of God concerning us in all things necessary
to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is
not to be enjoined as an article of faith."

It does not say the Bible is without error in all things. It says that the Bible reveals "the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation" without error. Thus the Bible can contain mis-statements (or misleading statements) about who wrote various portions of it and I can still trust what it reveals about God's will as it pertains to matters of our salvation.

[Mike Fraley]

(2Ti 1:1) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

(2Ti 1:2) To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.


If Paul didn't write it, then it is wrong. If it is wrong. The book is wrong. If the book is wrong. The bible is wrong.

You realize that this is imposing a 20th Century understanding of ascription of authority on a 1st Century text. They didn't think like that when it came to putting a name on a text. Suppose for the sake of argument that I begame a student or a follower of a famous television chef... let's just pick Jamie Oliver, for example. He's into promoting the health of school children through healthy diet. Now suppose that he dies, and I compose a cookbook based on a lot of his ideas, and complete in line with what his ideology. I have the authority to know what he would endorse.

In the 21st Century, it would be considered fraudulent to put his name on the cookbook. In the 1st Century, it would have been considered appropriate.

I'm not saying that you have to change your personal beliefs about who wrote the bible, but can you at least understand this mindset that existed centuries ago on another continent?

[Dennis Bratcher]

Ezekiel 26:14 I will make you [Tyre] a bare rock; you shall be a place for the spreading of nets; you shall never be rebuilt; for I the LORD have spoken, says the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel made this pronouncement around 586 BC concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre and its destruction by the Babylonian armies under king Nebuchadrezzar.

The city was not destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar and would not fall for another 250 years, when it was taken in 332 BC by the Greek Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great). It was only partially destroyed by Alexander and was immediately rebuilt as a Greek port. Tyre stands today in the country of Lebanon, with a population of over 100,000.

If this biblical passage doesn’t match the facts of history, then it is wrong. If it is wrong, the book of Ezekiel is wrong. If the book of Ezekiel is wrong, then the Bible is wrong.

A perfect example of a faulty syllogism.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Keith Mullins]

Keith:
Although I wince a little at the strong wording, I guess I am pretty much in agreement with your sentiment. If the Bible is wrong on common statements like this, why should we trust any other part of it? This is why I am a conservative Nazarene, literal Creationist, etc. I do have some brains though and see the fallacy in being KJV only, though I respect that beautiful example of literature more than some Naznetters seem to.

BILL
Sometimes the strong wording is required to get the point across. Why dress it up in fluff when a simple statement can be more effective. As for the KJV onlyism, I am not nor do I fail to see the fallacy. Glad to see a conservative Nazarene here. I was wondering if any were left.

[Keith Mullins]

These types of issues are where I delight in the Nazarene article of faith on Scripture.

"We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and
New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing
the will of God concerning us in all things necessary
to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is
not to be enjoined as an article of faith."

It does not say the Bible is without error in all things. It says that the Bible reveals "the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation" without error. Thus the Bible can contain mis-statements (or misleading statements) about who wrote various portions of it and I can still trust what it reveals about God's will as it pertains to matters of our salvation.

This is a new concept for me. I believe the scriptures to be inerrant in there original form. I am well aware that through translations from the original text there are some statements that are difficult if not impossible to translate 100% accurate. I do not feel that Paul's statement at the beginning of the epistle falls into that category. Apparently this is quite differant than the Nazarene point of view.

[Keith Mullins]

You realize that this is imposing a 20th Century understanding of ascription of authority on a 1st Century text. They didn't think like that when it came to putting a name on a text. Suppose for the sake of argument that I begame a student or a follower of a famous television chef... let's just pick Jamie Oliver, for example. He's into promoting the health of school children through healthy diet. Now suppose that he dies, and I compose a cookbook based on a lot of his ideas, and complete in line with what his ideology. I have the authority to know what he would endorse.

In the 21st Century, it would be considered fraudulent to put his name on the cookbook. In the 1st Century, it would have been considered appropriate.

I'm not saying that you have to change your personal beliefs about who wrote the bible, but can you at least understand this mindset that existed centuries ago on another continent?
I understand the mindset and the theory behind the arguments. However I hold to inerrancy of the scriptures. No matter what the customs of the times was if it says that Paul wrote it either he wrote it, dictated it, or it is in error.

[Keith Mullins]

Ezekiel 26:14 I will make you [Tyre] a bare rock; you shall be a place for the spreading of nets; you shall never be rebuilt; for I the LORD have spoken, says the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel made this pronouncement around 586 BC concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre and its destruction by the Babylonian armies under king Nebuchadrezzar.

The city was not destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar and would not fall for another 250 years, when it was taken in 332 BC by the Greek Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great). It was only partially destroyed by Alexander and was immediately rebuilt as a Greek port. Tyre stands today in the country of Lebanon, with a population of over 100,000.

If this biblical passage doesn’t match the facts of history, then it is wrong. If it is wrong, the book of Ezekiel is wrong. If the book of Ezekiel is wrong, then the Bible is wrong.

A perfect example of a faulty syllogism.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.
No where in the passage does it state that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city. The city was destroyed by Alexander and the rubble was put in the sea. While there may be a physical city in the site Tyre of the old testament has never been rebuilt. It is no longer an internatially prominent city.

[Andy Mistak]

This is a new concept for me. I believe the scriptures to be inerrant in there original form. I am well aware that through translations from the original text there are some statements that are difficult if not impossible to translate 100% accurate. I do not feel that Paul's statement at the beginning of the epistle falls into that category. Apparently this is quite differant than the Nazarene point of view.

Are you a member of the Church of the Nazarene?

[Keith Mullins]

Obviously, I am not a Nazarene. I came here because someone very close to me has asked what the Denomination taught and believed. I was familiar with the beliefs of 25 years ago but wanted to learn more. Thank you all for putting up with my old fashioned beliefs and for your cuortesy.

I do not wish to cause confusion or srtife in your midst, so I will graciously bow out of the forum. May God be a blessing to you all and may you lead many to Christ. I look forward to meeting you all in heaven some day.

Love and God Bless,
Keith

[Dennis Bratcher]

This is a new concept for me. I believe the scriptures to be inerrant in there original form. I am well aware that through translations from the original text there are some statements that are difficult if not impossible to translate 100% accurate. I do not feel that Paul's statement at the beginning of the epistle falls into that category. Apparently this is quite differant than the Nazarene point of view.


If God supervised the writing of Scripture to the degree that people could produce absolutely inerrant, flawless writings beyond their own capability to do so, why could God not have, or why didn’t he, just as easily superintend the transmission of that text so that it would remain inerrant as it was copied through the centuries. What is the purpose of having inerrant originals if that inerrancy is not to be maintained in some way? What purpose is served in allowing a perfect text to deteriorate?

And if we allow this, how then do we know we can trust the text we have today since it is admittedly errant, and since we do not have the "originals" with which to compare it? If our faith is in an inerrant text, and if that text has been allowed to deteriorate in one area to the point that it is no longer inerrant, how do we know that other areas have not likewise been corrupted?

In other words, if the criterion of inerrancy is to be the judge of truth, it solves nothing to push the inerrancy into the distant past since we only have the text today as it is. If that criterion is valid, then we do not have the truth. (The Problem with Autographs (http://www.crivoice.org/autograph.html))

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Jim Chabot]

You realize that this is imposing a 20th Century understanding of ascription of authority on a 1st Century text. They didn't think like that when it came to putting a name on a text. Suppose for the sake of argument that I begame a student or a follower of a famous television chef... let's just pick Jamie Oliver, for example. He's into promoting the health of school children through healthy diet. Now suppose that he dies, and I compose a cookbook based on a lot of his ideas, and complete in line with what his ideology. I have the authority to know what he would endorse.

In the 21st Century, it would be considered fraudulent to put his name on the cookbook. In the 1st Century, it would have been considered appropriate.

I'm not saying that you have to change your personal beliefs about who wrote the bible, but can you at least understand this mindset that existed centuries ago on another continent?

I understand what you are saying, and I understand this to be true at least in the case of Isaiah. I cannot buy into this thought with Paul, it just doesn't make sense to me. This letter bears a clear opening. From Paul to Timothy. The text reflects personal experience such as in the case of Onesiphorus, Demas and Alexander. I suppose one could say that these individuals interacted with the "tradition" of Paul, however I think that one is a bit of a reach. I honestly don't see eastern thought in Paul's writings, he writes with logic, explaining as he writes.

So yes I would conclude that if Paul did not actually write this letter purported to be from Paul to Timothy, then something is amiss. I understand the argument, I don't see how Paul fits with it. JMHO

[Dennis Bratcher]

No where in the passage does it state that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city.

You are mistaken (Nebuchadrezzar is a Hebrew phonetic or transliterated spelling used in Jeremiah and Ezekiel of the Akkadian name, Nabû-kudurri-sur, which occurs as Nebuchadnezzar in other biblical references).


Ezekiel 26:7 "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 26:8 He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a siege wall against you, and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 26:9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 26:10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as one enters a city which has been breached. 26:11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword; and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 26:12 They will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 26:13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 26:14 I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for the spreading of nets; you shall never be rebuilt; for I the LORD have spoken, says the Lord GOD.



The city was destroyed by Alexander and the rubble was put in the sea. While there may be a physical city in the site Tyre of the old testament has never been rebuilt. It is no longer an internatially prominent city.

And where in the passage does it state that Alexander would destroy the city? If it is invalid for me to use something not in the biblical text (which in fact is in the text!), why is it OK for you to do so? The biblical text says quite specifically that it was Nebuchadrezzar (another phonetic spelling of Nebuchadnezzar), not Alexander, who would " break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters."

Are we really going to read the biblical text and deal with what it actually says, or just make it say what fits with our ideas?

To claim that the city named Tyre that was rebuilt in the third century BC on the same site is not really Tyre is playing word games. The fact is that the island of Tyre was never a bare rock even after Alexander's conquest. To say that this rebuilding doesn't count because it was not the Old Testament city is kind of silly, since there are no qualifications whatever in Ezekiel's pronouncements about Tyre's permanent destruction. Again, are we going to deal with the biblical text or make it say what fits with our ideas?

Likewise, there is nothing in the passage about whether or not it would be an internationally prominent city. In reality, Tyre was a popular resort and tourism center before the Lebanese civil war that began in 1975, which inflicted heavy damage on the city.

So: If the passage doesn’t match the facts of history, then it is wrong. If it is wrong, the book of Ezekiel is wrong. If the book is wrong, the bible is wrong.

That still stands as an example of a seriously flawed logical syllogism.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[James Diggs]

I honestly don't see eastern thought in Paul's writings, he writes with logic, explaining as he writes.

the authorship issue aside, why does "eastern thought" equate with a lack of logic?

[Dennis Bratcher]

I understand what you are saying, and I understand this to be true at least in the case of Isaiah. I cannot buy into this thought with Paul, it just doesn't make sense to me. This letter bears a clear opening. From Paul to Timothy. The text reflects personal experience such as in the case of Onesiphorus, Demas and Alexander. I suppose one could say that these individuals interacted with the "tradition" of Paul, however I think that one is a bit of a reach. I honestly don't see eastern thought in Paul's writings, he writes with logic, explaining as he writes.

So yes I would conclude that if Paul did not actually write this letter purported to be from Paul to Timothy, then something is amiss. I understand the argument, I don't see how Paul fits with it. JMHO

I think the argument for Pauline authorship is on much more solid ground in dealing with the things you mentioned here, rather than just pointing to the heading of the book. This is really the track that biblical scholars follow in dealing with historical questions.

It is not that we must of necessity challenge what Scripture says. It is just that the text is far more complex than assuming that "I, Paul" is a statement of authorship in terms of what that means in the 21st century. It is the same issue in places like the Psalms, Song, or the complexities of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Finally, however, we must admit that authorship is not a crucial determining factor in either accepting the text as Scripture or interpreting the text. Such issues are really more of curiosities dictated by our modern thought processes and assumptions than they are of significant theological import. Which is why I quit worrying about such issues long ago.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Shea Zellweger]

You are mistaken (Nebuchadrezzar is a Hebrew phonetic or transliterated spelling used in Jeremiah and Ezekiel of the Akkadian name, Nabû-kudurri-sur, which occurs as Nebuchadnezzar in other biblical references).


Ezekiel 26:7 "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 26:8 He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a siege wall against you, and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 26:9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 26:10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as one enters a city which has been breached. 26:11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword; and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 26:12 They will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 26:13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 26:14 I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for the spreading of nets; you shall never be rebuilt; for I the LORD have spoken, says the Lord GOD.




And where in the passage does it state that Alexander would destroy the city? If it is invalid for me to use something not in the biblical text (which in fact is in the text!), why is it OK for you to do so? The biblical text says quite specifically that it was Nebuchadrezzar (another phonetic spelling of Nebuchadnezzar), not Alexander, who would " break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters."

Are we really going to read the biblical text and deal with what it actually says, or just make it say what fits with our ideas?

To claim that the city named Tyre that was rebuilt in the third century BC on the same site is not really Tyre is playing word games. The fact is that the island of Tyre was never a bare rock even after Alexander's conquest. To say that this rebuilding doesn't count because it was not the Old Testament city is kind of silly, since there are no qualifications whatever in Ezekiel's pronouncements about Tyre's permanent destruction. Again, are we going to deal with the biblical text or make it say what fits with our ideas?

Likewise, there is nothing in the passage about whether or not it would be an internationally prominent city. In reality, Tyre was a popular resort and tourism center before the Lebanese civil war that began in 1975, which inflicted heavy damage on the city.

So: If the passage doesn’t match the facts of history, then it is wrong. If it is wrong, the book of Ezekiel is wrong. If the book is wrong, the bible is wrong.

That still stands as an example of a seriously flawed logical syllogism.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

A few other examples...
When Solomon built the temple, God promised to dwell there "forever." As it turns out, the temple was destroyed- three times!- and presently the resting glory of God is not on the temple mount.
The book of Joshua says that God wiped out the peoples of Canaa, yet for the remainder of the book, the people of Israel spend an inordinate amount of time ferreting out peoples who had reportedly been destroyed.
The book of Matthew claims Jesus lived in Nazareth to fulfil the prophecy "he will be called a Nazarene." there is no such prophecy recorded in the Old Testament.
Shall we assume that these are also wrong, and therefore the books in question should not be in the canon? I'll bet if we tried really hard, we could eliminate more than half of the Bible on such grounds, all for the sake of maintaining the integrity of 2 Timothy.