Sauron

Whatsamatter? Did we stop feeding you information before you got to finish your homework paper?

Really sucks when the well runs dry and you weren't quite through stealing water.

:rolling:

Amaleq13

Please focus on the arguments presented rather than speculate about motivations which are, ultimately, irrelevant to a rational discussion of the facts. Also, saying "uncle" is not a requirement no matter how soundly demolished one's argument might become.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Actually, most of the other folks here seem to hold that position too. But what you say would be pertinent, why do you put the mainland part of Tyre down the coast a ways?

Well, I would be interested in hearing more, could you tell me where you read about this?

Sorry, maybe I didn't make it clear where my response was in my rather long post: "Alex didn't have to be the one to make it a bare rock, though, and in a one or two-paragraph summary, you won't get a complete set of details, and if Tyre became a bare rock, then a rock plateau sinking would not be noticed very readily by the neighbors, and thus not noticed by the historians, if it took an extended time."

Well, histories of Caesarea that mention Herod's harbor don't have to speak of it sinking, though.

Yes, but neither of these will work on a causeway, nor will they help within a city…

Because we need to understand what the Bible means in referring to Babylon, to understand the prophecy.

I cited Curtius and Arrian, and just now, the above web sites, and MSN Encarta, among other sources.


I meant for seven years, they withstood the siege, which implies some good defenses! Walls, almost certainly, because usually, in a siege of a city with walls, when the walls were breached, the siege was over quickly.

Their statement doesn't imply they have museum pieces though, so they don't have to be fabricating, they could be estimating.

That's interesting! Where did you find that, if I may ask? This makes it more probable that another area offshore of the current site of Tyre also sank, saying they expect to find ruins, I don't mind…

Maybe it escaped notice! An abandoned rock sinking would probably not cause much flurry, except among the seagulls…

Well, I guess the next step would be to inquire into what they are finding there, I can't seem to find any further information.

So "most of the remains" implies similar remains, whether there is a connection between their excavation and another set of remains, or not!

Well, if it comes to that, I did not initiate this discussion, it was a challenge on the part of the skeptics. But this is unreasonable to insist that one side need not provide references if the other side refuses, both sides in such a discussion are obligated to give evidence.

How is the way a contemporary used a word not helpful in understanding another person's use of that same word? It is just what dictionaries do, comparing people who speak the same language at the same time in the same culture.

Well, let's have the evidence that they were, if you do know this! Please and thank you.

An explanation is still needed as to why we must read "I sent the first division and the third platoon in the first division" here, though.

Because I would expect this to be said as "I will bring the kingdom of Babylon."

No, it was directed against the Israelites, not against the Chaldeans, and the Babylonians were the Chaldeans, and the Chaldeans were the Babylonians, before this statement in Jeremiah:

2 Kings 20:14 Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah, and said to him, "What did these men say? And from where did they come to you?" And Hezekiah said, "They have come from a far country, from Babylon."

Well, sometimes it does mean (as in English) "nation," that is why translators consider using "nation" in translating the Hebrew, as in Gen. 10:18. But not in 1 Sam 9:21, which is the same Hebrew word as in Gen. 10:18, but this Hebrew word has a range of meanings, it is more broad than just "nation," it usually means "immediate family," as far as I understand.

Um, we need to be a bit more specific here … though.

Well, I will take a different tack, and ask, is there a port at Tyre now? The port seems to be only historical. What are those reefs obstructing, I would wonder, and when did they probably arrive? Then implications can be examined.

This could imply confidence, and that they are setting out to find the ruins they expect to find.

Yes, I did change my view to include this new statement. Yet if some were spirited away, and some were executed, and all the rest we sold into slavery, then none were left.

Not according to these statements, though.

Maybe so, I don't mind! It's only not to be rebuilt after it is reduced to a scraped-clean rock.

That's fine, I only wonder how extending the wall around all those contours would be worth all the effort. Fortresses don't generally look like that, because it makes the wall weaker to zig zag it.

Weren't we just discussing Neb's attack on the mainland though? And weren't you holding that it didn't have walls during the siege? And where is this attack by Neb on the island mentioned, I have never heard of this.

Well, that's what I read in a review of Arrian's book on Amazon.com, and for sure anything posted on the web must be true! But this link has a similar statement about Arrian, and also debunks some other folks who wrote historical comments about Alex…

"The writings of Curtius, Diodorus, and Justin are of dubious worth. All of these authors relied upon suspect sources for their works on Alexander despite the fact that good primary sources were still available to them. Justin's main source was a shadowy man named Trogus who had no love for Alexander. Diodorus and Curtius are, respectively, the earliest writers on Alexander, having written their accounts in the first century A.D. However, their works are riddled with inaccuracies and folk tales. Each seems to have relied a great deal on another writer whose works are largely lost to us and who was named Cleitarchus. This man was thought to have been a contemporary of Alexander and a reliable source for many years, but writers such as Cicero and Strabo believed him to be dishonest. Much of the writings about Alexander that were based on the works of Cleitarchus are no longer deemed reliable by most historians."

It's important if you're trying to catch people who are hiding, though, and trying to avoid people spotting you out of windows with their arrows on the string.

Not if LA became a bare rock for a number of years, though. People might lose interest in the current state of its foundations.

Regards,
Lee

spin

That's where the archaeologists put it. (The source is a monstrous tome simply called "the Phoenicians", written by a group of Italian scholars under the direction of Sabatino Moscati, published by Bompiani in 1988, p.148.)

This is mentioned inthe book I've just cited.

This is Chehab's book on his research:

Maurice Chehab. Tyre: History --Topography -- Excavations. Translated by Leila Badre. Beirut. n.d.


spin

noah

Since you ducked my first posting of these links, I am going to try again. And I will keep trying until you see them:

I went to the online Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15109a.htm
Please read it.

Please note:

1) How quickly they pass over Ezekiel and his prophecy
2) how quickly they pass over Neb's siege
3) The continuous uninterupted history they give about Tyre
4) The omission of any mention of Tyre's sinking into the sea.
5) "Although Alexander razed the walls,the city was restored very quickly, since seventeen years later it held out for fourteen months against Antigonus, father of Demetrius Poliorcetes."

Please consult this timeline:
http://i-cias.com/e.o/tyre.htm

Please note from above
3
4

Please look at this brief survey of Tyre's history
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0849868.html

Please note from above
3
4
5
Also please note this from infoplease:
It was built on an island just off the mainland, but the accumulation of sand around a mole built by Alexander the Great to facilitate his siege of the city (333–332 B.C.) has formed a causeway more than .5 mi (.8 km) wide.

Please look here:
http://w.encyclopedia.com/html/t/tyre.asp

Please note:

"There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town."

3
4

Look here too:
http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/history.html

PLease note:

4

Lee, I'm going to try giving you links to the history of Lebanon. Please note that none of these mention the island of Tyre sinking:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15109a.htm

http://www.lebguide.com/lebanon/history/default.asp

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/lbtoc.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...ok/geos/le.html

http://www.mountlebanon.org/historyoflebanon.html

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destina...non/history.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/T/Tyre.asp



-----Yes, but neither of these will work on a causeway, nor will they help within a city…---

What's your point here Lee? Chariots will work on a causeway. Who says they won't. If you check the dimensions I gave you you will see the causeway was wide enough.You can use chariots in a city. Cities have roads and streets. Trust me I know. Here in town you can rent a horse and buggy ride through the city, down mainstreets residential roads etc. Besides, who says you have to use every weapon in your arsenal in order to wage a battle? You would bring one part of your army in order to fight one kind battle and another to fight a different type. In any case I have given you proof that chariots are suitable for siege warfare. If you choose to ignore me than that's your choice.

Have you studied any miltary history Lee? On whose authority are you making this claim about chariots?

Do you see what the problem is here Lee? You continually gainsay everything we show you, every source we use without providing any credible sources to support your claim or objections to ours.[COLOR=Sienna]

----if it took an extended time."----

But Lee the prophecy was not a geological topographical prognostication.
The destruction of the island was to be a result of Neb's siege,
Or are you rewriting the prophect now?

Well, histories of Caesarea that mention Herod's harbor don't have to speak of it sinking, though.----
Lee, a small part of an urban metropolis sinking may or may not be mentioned.
You know it will be mentioned somewhere by someone.
But if Caesaria sank you can be darn well sure someone would have recorded it. And it would be included in every history about the area.
Again. Do you have any sources to support your claim that Tyre sank into the sea?
I have provided you with a dozen or so that make no mention of Tyre's sinking.

How many more do you require?

Jack the Bodiless

Lee, Tyre never became a bare rock, and never sank. We know this because it's STILL THERE, and STILL INHABITED.
Wow! Now the mainland sububrb held out for seven years?

You mean, like Brooklyn held out against Osama Bin Laden for seven years, before Manhattan sank?

What color is the sky in your world, Lee?
OK, now I KNOW that you're not participating in a serious discussion here.

That map was from the link Noah gave you, way back on page 2 of this thread (post #32). I described THIS MAP in the next post. Because I suspected that you weren't bothering to follow links, I then quizzed you about that linked page in post #38, addressing the map above it, AND this one.

YOU HAVE SEEN THIS MAP BEFORE.

...So why are you now pretending that this is new to you?
This statement is false, AND YOU KNOW IT. The northern (Sidonian) port is still in use, and YOU HAVE SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF IT.

The prophecy failed. WE know it, YOU know it, WE know that YOU know it, YOU know that WE know that YOU know it... and so forth.

...So why are you still here, Lee?

noah

Lee, I am going to give you a series of links to go with the links I just gave again.
These ones have to do with Lebanon's history and geography.

This is by a noted expert on the history of Lebanon. Note no mention of Tyre sinking or a former Tyre:
http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/902/Kamal-Salibi/

This shows you that Tyre has been rebuilt Lee. Otherwise ther would be no Phoenician ruins to build on. Or do you require that a city never rebuild or build over its previous structures in order to have space for the new buildings?

The silted up harbour on the south side of the peninsula has been excavated by the French Institute for Archaeology in the Near East, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period still lie beneath the present town.Please note, no mention of Tyre sinking anywhere in the article.
http://www.phoenicia.org/cities.html

PLease note here in this article, no mention made of Tyre sinking either slowly ot quickly at anytime:
http://www.phoenicia.org/history.html

In this article , no mention is made of Tyre ever sinking:
http://www.arab.net/lebanon/

Here is a geographical history of Lebanon:
http://almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/project...tes/index.html
Note no mention of Tyre ever sinking slowly or otherwise.

Same here:
http://almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/project...gy-of-lebanon/

All these pictures have been taken at or near the old city.
http://almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/project...gy-of-lebanon/

Here's a map of Phoenicia. Note Tyre on it:
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/...geog/geog.html

Here's a history of Phoenicia:
http://www.elkhazen.org/lebanon/hist..._phoenicia.asp

Here's more from the Catholic Encyclopedia about Lebanon:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09104a.htm

Lee, I went some fifteen pages into google under hisory of Tyre and history of Lebanon. Nowhere could I find any mention of Tyre going underwater.

spin

So, ain't it time that lee_merrill acted responsibly and showed either primary sources or archaeological sources for his claims? Not questionable third hand opinions of some totally committed to prophecy person, but material that can be considered acceptible to all parties.

I call a moratorium of content responses until lee_merrill provides reputable (ie primary or archaeological) sources for island sinkages, and other approaches to forced fulfillment of texts taken as prophecies in the Hebrew bible.


spin

noah

Hi Spin.
I join you in this moratorium. I can find nothing in Google or Yahoo!, and believe me I've looked, that indicates Tyre went underwater at any time.
Lee must support his claim with substantial documentary evidence.
I hope others join me and Spin in this moratorium.

Best,

Sauron

I'm not responding until lee gets his act together. At first I thought he was simply a thick-headed bible literalist. I can tolerate those people, as long as they are sincerely interested.

But watching lee over the last few exchanges, it's become clear to me that this is just entertainment for him; he has no serious interest in the topic, other than to see how many people he can make jump. Each answer becomes the jumping-off point for another hypothetical or baseless objection -- and lee hopes that nobody notices he isn't doing any work here to support his positions.

On another note: I've long maintained the position that honest debate is hard work, and requires a lot of careful thought. So when I spend a lot of time to round up sources and carefully frame my arguments and someone fails to respect that contribution and do the same in return, it's an insult. It fails to give proper respect to the effort shown.

The key is to avoid falling into the trap of feeling the need to respond to game-players like lee. We've proven our point here with about 1000% overkill. Earlier lee complained that short answers without proof weren't 'advancing the discusion. Ha. Fancy that. Well, if lee is truly interested in 'advancing the discussion,' he needs to invest some time in his responses.

Until then, I'd like to declare this thread closed. Spin, noah, Jack - agreed?