Johnny Skeptic

The embarrassment is on your side. In the thread on the Babylon prophecy, which you eventually withdrew from, and quite conveniently I might add, you said that the Iraqis, and other Muslims, would have much to gain by rebuilding Babylon because if they did they would discredit the Bible. However, you never specified anything at all what this gain would be in practical terms. No rational person would accept a dare without the probability of rewards. I told you that the best possible rewards for Muslims would be if 1) the Christian Church would become substantially smaller, and/or 2) if the U.S. adopted a friendly foreign policy towards Muslims. Regarding item 1, you said that you found a couple of people at the Theology Web who, like yourself, said that they would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt, but you did not provide names and e-mail addresses, and you refused to poll your pastor and the members of your church, even though I asked you to do so on several occasions. Regarding item 2, I asked you to contact the U.S. State Department about this issue, but of course you refused because you know that they would have laughed at you. Even among fundamentalist Christians, I doubt that even 1% would give up Christianity if Babylon were to be rebuilt.

You are well-known for making all kinds of claims without providing proper corroborating evidence. You DID NOT provide any evidence at all that rebuilding Babylon would significantly benefit Muslims, or even moderately benefit Muslims, even though you had (and still have I might add) many opportunities to poll Christians and contact the U.S. State Department. Do you really believe that undecided readers will pay any attention to you?

Ok, can we agree that regarding prophecies where dating and possible revisions are issues, there are two necessary parts to discuss, part A, whether or not the events came true, and part B, whether or not the prophecy was revised, and that unless A is accompanied by B, it is completely useless, otherwise stated, useless as far as reasonably proving that the prophecy was divinely inspired? Regarding B, I hope you know that it is impossible to reasonably prove that the Tyre prophecy has not been revised, and the same probably goes for A. I submit that you do, and that that is why you never want to discuss the issues of dating and possible revisions.

As far as I know, you mostly or exclusively debate prophecy, and regarding prophecies where dating and possible revisions are issues, you never discuss those issues, and quite conveniently I might add, so year after year, both at the Theology Web and here, your arguments have never been complete, and hence, useful only when dealing with people who are gullible and uninformed. Since you have such an interest in prophecy, why don’t you stick to debating prophecies where dating and possible revisions are not issues? Years ago I contacted a Christian organization at http://www.100prophecies.org/. They specialize in prophecy. I asked the person that I spoke with about the issues of dating and possible revisions. He wisely said that his organization only discusses prophecies where dating and possible revisions are not an issue. Why don’t you pick one of the 100 prophecies and start a new thread? You aren't going to get anywhere at all in this thread.

dongiovanni1976x

Tell me if I understand your theory correctly now:

Tyre boasts arrogantly at Jerusalem’s fall and Ezekiel delivers God’s message:
1. Tyre’s walls will be destroyed (26:4)
2. Tyre will be made into a bare rock (26:4, 14)
3. Tyre will become a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea (26:5, 14)
4. Tyre’s daughter towns (such as Ushu) will be slaughtered (26:6)
5. Tyre’s riches will be plundered (26:5, 12)
6. Tyre will be laid waste, like an inhabited city (26:19)
7. Tyre will be covered by the great waters (26:19)
8. Tyre will be lost and never found again, nor rebuilt (26:21; 26:14)

Gleason Archer demonstrates that Tyre's walls were destroyed, Tyre's mainland area (Ushu) was made into a bare rock, Tyre was plundered, Tyre sank as predicted and all that remains of it are a series of black reefs offshore where fishermen unbeknowingly dry there nets- exactly as predicted.

What all the pictures indicate as Tyre the island + the causeway, that juts out from the coast, “probably was washed up along the barrier of Alexander's causeway, but the island itself broke off and sank away when the subsidence took place.” – G. Archer

So when Nina Jidejian says that the Sidonian Harbor is still in use to this day she is mistaken because this is a different harbor that was later rebuilt, whereas the real one is still under the sea with the rest of the island that broke of sometime before the “the first and second millennia B.C.” by a possible earthquake, (which we now have some evidence for) as Mr. Archer asserts.

Do I have this correct Lee?

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding your claim that it probably took divine inspiration for Ezekiel to know that the island settlement of Tyre would end up under water, you do not have any idea whatsover what you are talking about. To credibly make such a claim you would have to produce evidence regarding the average rise of sea level in ancient times in the general area of Tyre. Only then could you calculate probablities. Do you have supporting evidence from any oceanographic records? Of course you don't. Of course you don't. I doubt that you know anything at all about the average rise of sea level in ancient times. Of course, when did facts and logic ever make any difference to an inerrantist like you. Inerrancy is provable fraud. I would love to debate that topic with you. Historically, thousands of islets and small islands have ended up underwater.

Of course, Ezekiel might have just had an emotional temper tantrum and wanted the island settlement to be covered with water. Jewish prophets were notorious for having hateful emotional outbursts and predicting, actually wishing, all kinds of bad things that God would do to their enemies. No "turn the other cheek" for those guys. They probably would have killed Jesus if he had been around back then. Killing, vengeance, hatred, and hostility were their trademarks. They were the very flower of morally bankrupt ancient Judaism. Ezekiel was a racial bigot. Because of Abraham, he believed that he was one of God's chosen people. He had no idea that genetics do not make anyone superior or more deserving than anyone else.

dongiovanni1976x

It is plausible that once the causeway was built, that silt began building up causing the water level on the southern portion of the island to rise in comparison to the north. This is likely why the Egyptian harbor may be under water. This is not all that improbable given that silting has occurred and it has formed what seems to be a semi-circular reservoir on the south. Continual habitation in the area caused successive generations to live nearer to the north and the disuse of the southern portion likely led to its current state. Especially after 1291 CE.

noah

I should add here that in my emails to various University profs regarding Tyre, one point has emerged and that is that islands, islets and cities in fact ie Alexandria, have, over the course of centuries, simply been overcome by the Mediterranean as Charles D. Smith of the University of Arizona said to me in a recent email.

In other words if Tyre were ever to have sunk it would have been no big deal. In fact, it would have been rather mundane. Lee's problems don't stop there as we all know however. He still has to provide evidence of Tyre ever sinking and has the additional self-imposed burden of showing us some evidence that Tyre sank because of an earthquake. To date all we have heard from Lee is that we don't have evidence which is demonstrably false and he knows it, or that we and Lee both have evidence and everyone has to judge for themselves. Hardly the stuff of convincing evidence. Hardly the stuff of a solid presentation of good evidence.
It will be interesting to see whether Lee ever turns his objections to himself and decides to do a little research and actually find something to back up his claim.
It's not as though Lee has made claims that are difficult to substantiate. What could be more provable than the sinking of a famous island empire, especially, since as Lee says, it was sunk by a phenomenal earthquake?

One wonders why Lee has refused to contact Dr. Sader at the American University of Beirut or members of the Archaeology, Geology or History departments at one or a number of reputable Universities around the world or why he hasn't talked to Salim at A bequest Unearthed who has devoted himself to the study of Phoenicia or why Lee hasn't shown us a journal or book related to this topic which might support his claims.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

That it doesn’t say specifically all I conclude it means. Let’s leave our motives out of this, though!

Well, I have not convinced you! But I have presented what convinces me.

It does if you try and get back to that business again, and cannot succeed, though.

Though if both are stated, then the sinking must be substantial, enough to say it went under the waves, and that is a way it might reasonably have been meant, as in this verse with another prediction of judgment:

Jeremiah 44:14 None of the remnant of Judah who have gone to live in Egypt will escape or survive to return to the land of Judah, to which they long to return and live; none will return except a few fugitives.

Artifacts? Pottery is not buildings, and I have only heard of artifacts being found.

That is actually the easiest part of my argument, many witnesses reported Tyre being ruined (“Ruins built out of ruins” Renan, quoted by Nina, and Nina concludes “Ezekiel’s prophecy was all but fulfilled”, “Tyre Through the Ages”, pp. 20-21).

Oh, I don’t know. But I’m evidently not in it for the money.

Yes, I subscribe to all you said here, with the one caveat that “never found” doesn’t refer to the geographical location of the city.

Alrighty, so it seems we all agree that some part or parts of Tyre probably sank.

The island of Hercules? Peter Woodward saying in fact part of it did?

But Ezekiel mentioned no earthquake…

Wonder no longer! I didn’t know he could be reached, nor did I know Salim could be spoken to, and I still don’t know how to speak with either of them. Did you send a comment to the web page you posted, in order to talk to Salim? But it would be nice if Don could present his case to some of these tourist groups, they would be very interested…

Blessings,
Lee

noah

Well guess what Lee? You just heard of more than pottery ever being found. As my email from Dr. Sader states, the actual layers of Phoenician Tyre were reached in the 70s.

First of all Lee, what makes you the authority on what constitutes discovery of Phoenician Tyre?

Given the fact that you have yet to support any of your claims and do even the most elementary research, why should anyone listen to you?

Second any part of Phoenician Tyre recovered means that Phoenician Tyre was seen or found again. A piece of pottery is a part of Tyre. A piece of pottery from Phoenician Tyre means Tyre was seen again.

Third, read the email Lee. Dr. Sader said Bikai reached the Phoenician layers on Tyre. That means that B]Phoenician[/B] Tyre was seen and found again.

The pottery thing is just an incidental discovery. The main point is that the B]Phoenician[/B] layers were reached in the 70s.

Good-bye prophecy.

Fourth, do you really expect Phoenician Tyre with all or some of its buildings to be discovered standing there in the earth under three or four layers of other civilizations?
Those buildings will be sandwiched and compressed under the layers. The layers are compressed every day under the weight of modern Tyre.

But you knew that already Lee. This is just a game we play.

dongiovanni1976x

So what do you believe it refers to? If God says that he will cause the great waters to cover Tyre and he will thrust it down (where Gleason gets his sinking idea from) How much clearer can this prophecy be?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill:

Have you not agreed with me that unless you reasonably prove that the Tyre prophecy was written before the events and that is has not been revised that no one should pay any attention to what you say? If so, then why don’t you discuss those issues BEFORE you discuss whether or not the prophecy came true? Lest you claim, as you have done before, that you will eventually get to those issues as soon as you have completed your debates regarding whether or not the prophecy came true, I will tell readers that after having observed you debating the Tyre prophecy for many months at the Theology Web and for many months here at the Secular Web (and you have always ended up withdrawing, as you will again) that you have NEVER gotten around to discussing dating and possible revisions, nor is it your intention to ever do so because you are well aware that it is impossible to reasonably prove that the prophecy was written before the events and that it has not been revised. You are obviously hoping that gullible and uniformed people will be convinced ONLY by your discussions about whether or not the Tyre prophecy came true, but by your own words you agreed with me when I said that your arguments are not complete until you discuss the issues of dating and possible revisions.

It is not my position that the Tyre prophecy was not written before the events, and that is has been revised, but surely your position is that it was written before the events and that it has not been revised. So, where is your evidence that such is the case?

Why don’t you stick to debating prophecies where dating and possible revisions are not issues? Years ago I contacted a Christian organization at http://www.100prophecies.org/. They specialize in prophecy. I asked the person that I spoke with about the issues of dating and possible revisions. He wisely said for the very reasons that I have been telling you that his organization only discusses prophecies where dating and possible revisions are not an issue. Why don’t you pick one of the 100 prophecies and start a new thread? You aren't going to get anywhere at all in this thread.

Why have you wasted years of your life debating prophecies where dating and possible revisions are an issue when you could have been discussing numerous prophecies where dating and possible revisions are not an issue? Surely you have not spent your time wisely, which is actually quite good for skepticism.

You mentioned that dating and possible revisions are not an issue regarding the Babylon prophecy. It is your position that it ought to be attractive to Muslims to discredit the Bible by rebuilding Babylon, but what good would it be for them to discredit the Bible without any credible evidence at all that the Christian Church would become substantially smaller, or even 1% smaller, and that the U.S. would adopt a friendly foreign policy towards Muslims? You wouldn’t attempt to discredit Islam under similar circumstances.

lee_merrill

It seems Dr. Bikai's book is unavailable, I would like to read what she found. I did find this quote here: "Near the southern border of the country, a small controlled test excavation of 'about 150 meters square, less than one percent of the whole island area,' produced material (Bikai 1978) attesting island Tyre's early urban history of the third, second and first millennia BC, a vital period in the development of towns. When the results of these ten months' excavations are combined with a careful study of maps and pictorial records of the island produced by early western travellers to Tyre, fascinating new information on the remote past and growth of this legendary city emerges..."

Tyre was a country? I’m not sure what this means, or where this means they dug, nor does “material” indicate much to me of what it is they found, specifically.

Well, I’m doing the best I can, if you have specific refutations of my views on these, do please proceed.

I see. I have some articles made in China, do I have part of China?

Well, they do find structures underground, you know, and say “This was a house, this was a portico,” and so on.

Did you by the way, forget to send me contact information for these sources?

Well, what I’ve been saying to Gullwind, Don, that some parts naturally refer to the city (destroyed walls) and other parts refer to people (down to dwell with other people in the depths).

Well, because people do ask if prophecies such as Tyre were fulfilled, there are several aspects that are critical, as we agreed, did we not?

Speaking of agreement, I think maybe Don and I practically agree now, if I give him his Phoenician wall, and if I can have my fortress largely undersea. Then we can fill our tankards with mead (good for what ales you) and celebrate...

Regards,
Lee