Sauron

The fact that you confuse Sauron and Saruman is hardly surprising, considering how you've tried to swap Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander.

Moving along now, before you start telling us that ruins of Isengard underwater is somehow proof that Isengard must have sunk......

1. Citing another skeptic is not a source. I asked for sources.

2. <deleted>You did cite links, but that wasn't what I said above. I said, when was the last time you provided a link that supported one of your claims.

No, it isn't. It's a plural. The plural of man is men. Sheesh.

You recall wrongly. Your "response" was to make another claim that the rule failed, to which I (once again) pointed you back to the rule with instructions to read it, since you clearly didn't do so the first time.

That's because the question of subject / direct object is not part of the rule. Nor did I ever say it was. If you weren't so busy playing games, you would have read the text where I said:

Having thought about this last night, I realized that your example backfired for not one, but TWO reasons. Let's look at it again:

"I saw three men go into the store where they met two Marines, and then they went to their car and drove away."

Your example isn't really that confusing. The subject of the sentence is the personal pronoun "I". The direct object (and the topic) are "three men." Since the topic of the sentence (three men) didn't change, then it was obvious from the grammar that they were also the ones who drove away. In order to get the Marines to drive away, the sentence would need to be re-worded:

"I saw three men go into the store where they met two Marines, who then went to their car and drove away."


The second reason your example failed has nothing to do with the rule previously given. Your example failed for an entirely different and unrelated reason. Which only makes the example doubly pathetic, because you had two different opportunities to catch your own mistake, yet failed to do so.

You mean sarcastically. You should also learn the definition of words.

Actually, it is a requirement for the prophecy to be considered convincing at all. Otherwise the "prophecy" is no different than political commentary or stock market prediction.

Another distraction? Trying to make people forget you suggested a criterion for this prophecy that actually works against the claim that it's a prophecy in the first place?

Yes - I am quoting experts.
And yes - I have studied these campaigns.
And no - by studying the campaigns, I am not claiming to be an expert, but it sure helps me to quickly spot bullshitters who make stuff up as they go.

Let's remember: you tried to suggest that the prophecy was close in time to Nebuchadnezzar's rule. But the closer the prophecy comes to the actual event, the less it qualifies as a prophecy. ESPECIALLY when the attack on Tyre was patently obvious to anyone in the region, given the history of Nebuchadnezzar's previous military campaigns in the area.

1. Then why did you suggest that was the case, in your earlier post?

2. Are you sure you agree with me? Because doing so contradicts that earlier stated position.

Yes, Ezekiel did.

Not conclusions. Proven, through two separate lines of evidence. You've yet to offer any counter-evidence; only what-if scenarios and lame handwaves.

The city *does* deteriorate with age. And it was rebuilt between 1291 and the time that Renan saw it. Several times, in fact. And it changed ruling hands - several times. "Does not deteriorate?" Your comment -- as usual -- makes zero sense.

Yes it does matter. It very much matters. The fact that you are clueless about the history of so-called biblical archaeology (pre-Dever) speaks volumes to the hollowness of your phony position.

But then again, this is just another afternoon of games for you.

To correctly interpret what you are seeing does require it.

And again, the main point here is that Tyre did not fall to Nebuchadnezzar, nor did it fall to Alexander, nor to any of the other conquerors. The prophecy is wrong, and you are now trying to rescue it based upon a one-line entry from a book that you deliberately misquoted previously. A one-line entry that the author herself warns us was made by a man who did not practice modern techniques of archaeology.


1. Ephemeral? Who says it is ephemeral? That assumes that it happened at all, which is still your unproven claim - you get to expend the energy to prove it. As far as the evidence shows, it never happened at all.

2. Reminder: it's up to those people who say the prophecy is correct to prove that the city was abandoned at some time; it's not up to the skeptics to prove otherwise. Burden of proof is on the prophecy supporters; not the other way around.

Totally not parallel, for about a million reasons:

1. Machu Picchu was in a remote and forbidding place. Tyre was not.

2. Machu Picchu was unknown and lost to western civilization for centuries. Tyre was in the middle of both Western and Islamic civilization, and was never lost, nor was it out of sight.

3. Machu Picchu was inaccessible and not a hub of trade. Tyre was a high-value piece of real estate sitting amidst trade routes; had it gone abandoned, someone would have scooped it up like a prime condo in Manhattan.

I'm not surprised that you tossed out another ridiculous comparison, and are now expecting us to process it for you. After all, your other bogus parallels have just about run their course and you've exhausted all the mileage you're likely to get out of them. So - golly gee! - it must be time for another detour in the discussion! Some way to distract the audience and spawn a whole new group of irrelevant side-trips while you try to avoid the main point. What happened here, lee merrill? Did you see a special on Machu Picchu on the Discovery Channel last night, and now you've decided to try and work it into the debate?

You were not wrong; you were lazy. In point of fact, I had given you the location of the links twice. And to make your case worse, you had even made reference to the links in some of your own previous responses. So you forgot that you yourself had already discussed the links.

You'll have to go back and find them, lee merrill. Nothing has changed. <deleted>

1. How do you know that this technique is inappropriate for Phoenician ruins underground? There is zero in the article to suggest that. On the contrary; the article confirms the usefulness of this technique in precisely such scenarios.

2. Moreover, that isn't what the link says. Nor is it required that this technique be used for that purpose. Your original statement -- long discredited by now -- was that "sounding" meant excavation. This link proves definitively that such is NOT the definition of "sounding".


No, that isn't the point.

1. Britannica uses soundings the same way that a professional archaeologist would use them - to describe any of a series of techniques, and not just excavation, which is your private, home-made definition.

2. And as I said before -- if you think that Britannica is wrong in their definition, then by all means present some proof, write the editors, and let them know. But so far you haven't been able to *find* any proof; all you've given us is your <deleted> handwaves.

3. The real point here, by the way, was YOUR attempt to restrict the definition of "sounding" to only mean "excavation". Which this link effectively shot down. Everything else that's been generated here since that time is just you thrashing about, doing your best to avoid admitting that you fucked up on trying to restrict the definition.

Sauron

Nice try -- but you know better. No one said anything about whether this was a good design or not. None of your opponents here has to prove anything about this fort. You, however, made statements that straight-line forts were militarily superior. Since you're the only one that took a position, you're the only one who has to prove their point.

Your attempt above was merely to assume that it was a bad design, and skip the proof. That isn't going to work. There is no evidence that this is a bad design, and the link above that discusses the fort says nothing of the kind. So if you want to claim that is the case, then you're going to have to prove it.

Interesting assertion. However, I don't see that at all. An open courtyard is an open courtyard. It seems no harder to move people inside a square fort, than it does inside a star-shaped one.

Why not? What prevents them from doing that? Seems perfectly possible to me.

Why would that be? You earlier claimed that it takes more wall (bricks, material, etc.) for a non-square shape. That implies that there is more, not less, interior wall space to be used.

Your question also assumes that supplies were stored inside of walls - as opposed to inside the inner courtyard, or in underground depots or bunkers. Considering how frequently walls were either breached, rammed, or set on fire - are you sure you want to make yet another unfounded assertion? Doesn't the ice sound like it's cracking underneath you a little bit? :rolling:

1. You've shown no evidence that such a wall is militarily inferior in withstanding a siege.

2. You've also shown no evidence that such a wall would have less "cupboard space."

3. You've also failed to show that storing items inside of walls was the norm anyhow; and finally

It doesn't indicate that at all.

Nor did the article indicate any of the other handwaves and assertions you made.

Holy fucking batshit -- it absolutely amazes me the amount of mileage you are trying to squeeze out of one tiny word, "unique". Did you really think that you could tie so many of your previous assertions to this one word, and expect the whole mess to hold water? :rolling:

That's because it's not a deduction. It's an unproven assertion. Typically we don't make those around here - not and expect anyone to believe them, anyhow. :rolling:

Sauron

Incorrect.

1 . The fact that something is old does not make it correct. Nor does it make it the most accurate. Especially in this case, when we already know that the LXX had so many errors and mistakes that a special effort by Jerome had to be launched just to resolve the variant spellings between the versions.

2. If a younger copy belongs to an older text family that is more reliable, then the younger copy is to be preferred over the older error-filled one. A basic principle of textual criticism: accuracy trumps age.

Wrong again.

1. I do know language - it's patently obvious by now that you do not -- even if you ignore my responses, the rest of the participants have shredded you on the same point. Your current post smacks of hurt pride; given your performance in this thread, no wonder.

2 . My modern-day example is both relevant and intact. You've certainly offered nothing to refute it

3. You miss the point - deliberately. This new Sur that you're focusing our attention on may be near Egypt. But who cares? It isn't Tyre, nor does it match the description of Tyre that Ezekiel gives us. Introducing it into the discussion only makes your point more difficult, not easier -- which is why I said I was a at a loss to understand why you bothered to introduce it. So this new Sur could be in fucking Antarctica, for all the good it does your argument.

4. I have read the texts given. However, I also know what I said before:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/judith.htm

Most modern scholars recognize that Judith is a historical romance written for didactic purposes. The author appears to have deliberately ignored historical fact in order to focus attention exclusively on the religious message. Nebuchadnezzar II, for example, was king of Babylon, but he was never styled "king of Assyria," nor did he have his capital at the Assyrian capital Nineveh, which was destroyed in 612BC by his father, Nabopolassar. Indeed, any participation by the historical Nebuchadnezzar in the story of Judith is a chronological impossibility: Nebuchadnezzar died in 562BC, while the action of Judith is said to take place after the end of the Babylonian Captivity in 538 (4:3; 5:19). The geography of Judith is similarly open to question. The itinerary of Holofernes and his army (2:21-28) is geographically impossible, and the site of Bethulia - the town around which the action revolves - resists identification, despite the presence of topographical details in the text that should fix its location with precision.

And
http://www.anova.org/sev/htm/ap/02_judith.htm
Introduction

Judith, perhaps more than any other biblical book, consistently reverses the reader's expectations. The potent Assyrian army, able to defeat mighty nations both east and west, is routed by the tiny town of Bethulia. Judith, a Jewish widow, so beguiles Holofernes, the invincible head of the Assyrian army, and all his servants and soldiers that she is able to assassinate him in the middle of his camp and sneak away without being caught. The book's characters and scenes resonate with irony, humor, wordplay, suspense, and the unexpected. The story's characters are vividly drawn and take on lives of their own. Judith is an especially compelling figure. She is morally ambiguous: Although pious, faithful, and religiously observant, she lies, seduces, and murders. She is introduced as a traditionally ideal Jewish woman in many aspects: beautiful, well-connected, devoted to God and her late husband; yet it is she, and not the male rulers of Bethulia, who acts to save the town and rallies the people to her cause. She has often been viewed as a model for human liberation, and her courage and complexity have fascinated artists, writers, and composers for centuries.

The book of Judith is a well-crafted work of fiction, an example of the ancient Jewish novel in the Greco-Roman period. Its tone is exaggerated throughout; it contains historical inaccuracies so great that they strike a reader as absurd; and many of the geographical sites, including the principal scene of the action (the town of Bethulia), are unknown. Religion is a primary concern of the book. The plot's central conflict revolves around the question of whether true power lies with Israel's God or with the military might of a foreign ruler. The work provides evidence of traditional religious practices, including prayer, fasting, and observation of dietary laws.

The unity of plot and detail suggests that the book of Judith is almost certainly the work of a single anonymous author. Because the story reflects Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic persons and practices, it is difficult to know when the book was originally composed. Most scholars agree that it was written at some point during the Hasmonean dynasty (165-37 BCE). As 1 Clement mentions Judith in the first century CE, it is clear that the book was completed and well known by this time. The geographical setting of the story in Palestine, along with its emphasis upon worship in Jerusalem, may suggest that it was composed by a Palestinian Jew.

1. I have no way of verifying what you are saying, so it is not relevant to the discussion.

2. I don't care what so-called "other atheists" have said to you; all I care about is what you can prove (or not prove) relative to your claims. The fact that you would even make such a statement is bizarre.

I have no idea what he says, nor does it matter. We're discussing your claims and posts, not someone else's ideas. If you're unable to defend your position, then just say so. But bringing up someone else's ideas and expecting me to be impressed is a total waste of time - especially since:

a. the context of his quotes is lost;

b. the precise question at hand (Tyre/Sur) is not covered by the Zindler quote; and

c. Zindler is appealing to the "true believer" error - the older text is the better text; but as I discussed above, that is not proper textual criticism;

d. we're talking about an obvious spelling error that has been fully explained, but that you are trying to build an entire hypothesis on. Based upon the limited comment above, Zindler is not talking about a triviality of that nature; he is discussing real differences in content or doctrine, while you are not;

So I would say that Zindler is still more on my side of the argument, than on yours.

Unfortunately for you:

1. You have not proven that the translation is incorrect;
2. We are not talking about a translation error; we are talking about a variant spelling

Not true. The mispelled word is written down. But the hypothesis is not; that is a recent fabrication of your own imagination. Don't try to inflate the quality of your hypothesis by tieing it to the LXX.

Well,

1. these "other atheists" are not here at the moment, nor are they able to be questioned. So your comment is irrelevant.

2. I don't know why you think this would impress me anyhow. I'm not a fan of group-think; apparently you are.

3. Perhaps you'd like to supply names and email addresses of these (so-called) "other atheists", so they can be invited here to give their viewpoints themselves, instead of having them filtered through your less-than-reliable lens.

4. Finally - sigh- your comment above isn't really much more than an admission that they found something interesting. You left yourself an enormous amount of wiggle room with that particular phrasing - on purpose, perhaps? Anyhow, it's hardly a ringing endorsement of your position.

Wrong. The city described in 26, 27, and 28 is described as being a mercantile powerhouse. In 29, the only reference is to Nebuchandezzar's failed invasion, and the second (failed) prophecy about being given Egypt.

More in the next section.

Sauron

Far more than you ever will.

In point of fact, Assyria did not exist at the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Assyria had been dismantled earlier, when its capital Nineveh was sacked in 612 BCE. What is worse for your argument, by the time of the 26th dynasty - a hundred years earlier than Nebuchadnezzar - Assyrian power had waned so much that they weren't even capable of maintaining a sufficiently large military force in the Delta.

Ethiopia? Perhaps you mean Libya or Nubia. There were Kushite dynasties in Egypt at about the time of Nebuchadnezzar.

So yes -- please tell us how much you (think that you ) know about Egypt, and how much (you hope that) I do not.

Yes. So what? The Sack of Thebes took place in 663 BCE. That has nothing to do with the claim at hand.

1. Cite the chapter and verse of Herodotus when quoting him, or claiming that he likened the two. The verse closest to this claim does not actually support your claim:

2:44 I moreover, desiring to know something certain of these matters so far as might be, made a voyage also to Tyre of Phenicia, hearing that in that place there was a holy temple of Heracles; and I saw that it was richly furnished with many votive offerings besides, and especially there were in it two pillars,[47] the one of pure gold and the other of an emerald stone of such size as to shine by night:[48] and having come to speech with the priests of the god, I asked them how long time it was since their temple had been set up: and these also I found to be at variance with the Hellenes, for they said that at the same time when Tyre was founded, the temple of the god also had been set up, and that it was a period of two thousand three hundred years since their people began to dwell at Tyre. I saw also at Tyre another temple of Heracles, with the surname Thasian; and I came to Thasos also and there I found a temple of Heracles set up by the Phenicians, who had sailed out to seek for Europa and had colonised Thasos; and these things happened full five generations of men before Heracles the son of Amphitryon was born in Hellas. So then my inquiries show clearly that Heracles is an ancient god, and those of the Hellenes seem to me to act most rightly who have two temples of Heracles set up, and who sacrifice to the one as an immortal god and with the title Olympian, and make offerings of the dead[49] to the other as a hero.

2. "Likened" - how much broader can you get?

3. And after you explain the above, then please get to the point: what value does this comment have to your argument? Even if true, cross-pollenation of Mediterranean religion was a well-known fact. Isis was worshipped by Roman troops; wonder how that happened?

Note - I also have to say, how quaint. Someone who accepts Herodotus at face value. But there are problems:

(a ) Herodotus did not personally verify all the topics that he mentioned in his work - he was not a forensic investigative reporter.

(b) Herodotus occasionally accepted unlikely or even scientifically impossible events as being factual. Winged snakes, anyone?

1. It's traditional respect to give the link when you block quote from someone else's website.

2. We are still left wondering -- what does the above have to do with your argument?

On the contrary - so far you appear to be trying to bury me with a small pile of non-relevant information that I already know. What I have yet to see you do, however, is show a city by the name of Sur that was located on the "front of Egypt" that had the prerequisite trading links.

That was, after all, the crux of your (ahem) creative hypothesis.

1. We're talking about Ezekiel, not Isaiah.
2. Nebuchadnezzar was not around in Isaiah's time.
3. Rebuilding is wonderful. All well and good. Now show a city by the name of Sur that was located on the "front of Egypt" that had the prerequisite trading links.

Not surprising. Judith is known to have historical and geographic errors.

1. If you have something to show, you're going to have to do better than the general webpage link.

2. Even if it is Sennacherib, that doesn't help out the failed prophecy of Ezekiel 29, which said that God would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar -- not Sennacherib -- as payment.

Yeah, you are - and poorly, as well. You started out by trying to defend your hypothesis rooted in an obvious spelling error. Now you're trying to tell us that Sur isn't the mainland city, it's actually ANOTHER city that "fronts on Egypt".Totally incorrect. There is no evidence for Nebuchadnezzar ever in Egypt. The quotations you list for Ezekiel below do NOT list Nebuchadnezzar. From my article on the failed Babylon prophecy:

Moving along.....

OK, fine. You said that. Now please tell us how it supports your claim of a place called Sur that "fronted Egypt", or how it demonstrates a trade powerhouse by that name, in that area.

I'm trying to figure out what your motive is for bringing up details which apparently have nothing to do with the discussion, and from what anyone can see, don't support your positions.

Wrong. See the above.

Yes, they are. Your spelling error hypothesis is simply not working.

*sigh* Also wrong. YOU said that the reference was to the people, when you tried to pretend that the Joshua reference wasn't talking about the city. Here is exactly what you said:

The word used in Joshua 19:29 is different in the Greek and means “Tyrians� which describes the people and not the place itself.

I told you that you were wrong, and that it was INDEED a reference to a place. That is because the ENTIRE phrase is as follows:

(Youngs)
29and the border hath turned back to Ramah, and unto the fenced city Tyre; and the border hath turned back to Hosah, and its outgoings are at the sea, from the coast to Achzib,

It specifically calls out the city, and notes that it is fenced. That is the place it is talking about - only a *place* can be fenced. Even in the interlinear Greek, it is obvious that a place is being described; the interlinear says "unto the fortress city of the Tyrians". A fortress city is a place.

Thus contradicting your earlier claim that it was an adjective.
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

The rest of your claim is nonsense, as demonstrated immediately above - the Joshua reference is to a place, just like saying "the country of the Americans" would also be a reference to a place: the USA. The "land of the Irish" would be a reference to a place: Ireland. "The realm of the Svear" is a reference to a place: Sweden.

As for pretense - it was you, dear child, who tried to teach me a lesson in language. You're understandably embarrassed by your mistakes.

And yet in spite of claiming to know "enough" you still fixate on a spelling error and think it means two places instead of one.

The evidence in this thread says otherwise.

SHow me some evidence for this hypothesis of yours. You have presented no evidence that hasn't been successfully explained and refuted 3 or 4 different ways. You ask for belief; but you offer nothing that stands up under the mildest of investigation.

Because movies are for children's bedtime stories. Reality is what gets you, in the end.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I think I shall bow out now, the discussion is mostly on minor points, and the discussion of major points has become repetitious. Kudos for anyone who can remember why we are discussing star-shaped fortresses! Speaking of points.

It seems we have gotten to a high level of smoke as well, it is difficult to continue to read responses which have this much rancour in them...

Three months! Do I get a prize? I think Amaleq gets a prize, for working through these posts so patiently, to try and keep the discussion on a more appropriate level.

But to sum up, "many nations" could include more than Neb, the switch from "he" (undoubtable referring to Neb and his army) to "they" indicates more than just the Babylonians, and we do see such judgments on Tyre as were predicted, one writer whom MacDowell quotes did even say it was a bare rock, though people here would, I expect, not consider that to be real evidence. The Tyrians were said not to return, as well, and indeed, they did not, Arabs and then crusaders lived there afterwards, and the prize fortress of Tyre, we read, has ruins underwater, again, matching the prediction.

And loose stones are not, however much others may insist otherwise, ruins, for then Nina would have said the ruins of Tyre may be found far away, instead of saying the stones of Tyre were found far away, in many cities...

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

How can Lee still spout the same drivel that has been disproven? Sounds like the old "declare victory and run away" tactic. :banghead:

But Kudos to Sauron and everybody else who participated in this monstrosity. You all did real fine work. :thumbs:

Sauron

We always knew your positions, lee. What we were waiting on was proof. If you deserve any prize, it would be for dragging out a debate for three months and managing to go that long solely by tossing out what-ifs and quibbles.

Sven

(my emphasis) Wonder why this could be? :rolling: :rolling:

[snip lots of 152 times refuted drivel]

Sauron

I missed that the first time I read it. What lee merrill doesn't know (and likely doesn't *want* to know) is that McDowell wrote none of the chapter in question. Instead, he farmed it out to "research assistants" who knew zero about the topic in question.

The person that McDowell quotes here is Floyd E. Hamilton, in The Basis of Christian Faith, a 1927 Christian apologetics text - and a creationist:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones...#hstrypcfhmltn

In the other chapters of McDowell's now-defunct book, Hamilton is quoted making laughable statements that put him in the same bucket as Henry Morris and Ron Wyatt.


Of course, the claim that it was a "bare rock" is handily refuted by photos.

cajela

Congrats, Sauron. That was an extraordinary feat of endurance. :notworthy:

It's been most enlightening. It's hard to believe that some people would deny that the sun is hot if the bible told them so, but here it is plainly demonstrated.