Wallener

Reading this thread is like watching a gerbil run a wheel.

spin

Yup. That was Tyre. And that was Tyre to Ezekiel. As has been pointed out, Tyre was "in the midst of the sea" (Eze 26:5), was "in the heart of the seas" (Eze 27:25), and sits "in the heart of the seas", ie Tyre was an island. In fact if you read Josephus A.J. 8.5.3 you'll find that Hiram is attributed to have joined two islands together by filling in the area between the two heights. The original Phoenician cities were concerned about protected location so they were built on islands where possible, such as Tyre and Arad (others on difficult peninsulas). Shalmaneser III received tribute from Tyre via ship. It is inevitable that Tyre was the island.

Nope. Tyre was never the place on the mainland. Tyre had possessions on the mainland back in Nebuchadnezzar's day and before. Tyre the island had Greek bits and Roman bits and more Roman bits, probably Muslim bits, then Crusader bits. The island was rebuilt more times than you can count on your hand.

You're not discussing it, Lee. But you are ducking and weaving, ducking and weaving. One line responses are the depths of shallowness. Stand still and show you've got something. If you want, I'll forget all about you.


spin

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, a part of the harbor was indeed underwater.

This is true of all harbors, because they're designed to accommodate ships. Ships float on water. Apparently, harbors that don't contain any water are somewhat useless...
Please cite your evidence that the mainland suburb of Tyre was protected by walls and towers.
You seem to be hopelessly confused.
McDowell's reputation is already in tatters.

Evidence That Demands a Refund

Earlier, you said that proof of the failure of the Tyre prophecy would destroy your religion. Proof has been provided, hence your religion has been destroyed. This is your idea of fun? Perhaps it's just as well that you weren't too attached to it.

Sauron

Wrong as usual. We've already discussed this, Lee, and shown you why your claim doesn't work. Once that happens, repeating a refuted claim only demonstrates that you can't deal with the truth.

1. The phrase "nation of Bablyon" does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Period. So your sweeping claim about "the bible's way" of referring to Bablyon is laughably incorrect.

2. But Ezekiel refers to Babylon as follows:

EZE 26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

The phrase "king of kings" means that Nebuchadnezzar held sway over many other conquered nations. So Babylon truly was "many nations", especially since those conquered nations had to provide soldiers as part of the tribute payment to Bablyon.

3. And Jeremiah makes clear that Babylon was a conglomeration of nations:

24:1 In his days King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up; Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him.

24:2 Yahweh sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, bands of the Arameans, bands of the Moabites, and bands of the Ammonites; he sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of Yahweh that he spoke by his servants the prophets.

4. Finally, the historical record demonstrates that Baylon was comprised not of just one group of people, but was an empire of many states, as well as vassal states.

"Almost certainly weren't"? What makes you say that, other than pure desperation?

In point off act, you are wrong. That was precisely the situation: these other three groups were vassal states to Babylon and were required to provide soldiers.

Evidence? Evidence?
(looks right, looks left)
Did I miss something here?

Why are you bringing up evidence, Lee? You've presented no evidence; you've merely tossed out another home-made claim that these three groups "almost certainly weren't" associated with Babylon. That's not evidence; that's wishful thinking. And it's contrary to what history tells us about Babylon.


No, implying that the armies of the north would be led by Nebuchadnezzar who, as the ruler of the Babylonian Empire, would naturally be at the head of the Babylonian army.

And by the way: this passage in Jeremiah is discussing not the destruction of Tyre, but the invasion of Judah by Babylon. History shows that event occurred not by a collection of individual armies "from the north", but under Nebuchadnezzar's imperial army. So either "all the peoples of the north" is the same as Babylon, or else Jeremiah gives us another example of a failed prophecy.

Conclusion? No "conclusion" needed - it's a plain and simple fact, shown by the photographs. Your dishonesty is really showing, Lee.


I already refuted that point four times, lee. And noah saw the refutation, just as you did. Given tha fact, why are you repeating this claim, after it has been shot down multiple times? Do you think that anyone still believes the claim has value after being shown that it's hopeless?

Time for more blue text, I guess.

Ah, yes. The "silted up harbour." It's interesting that you quote the reference from Britannica to try and prove your wishful thinking about the island sinking. Yet the very next sentence in that same Britannica paragraph point-blank refutes your claim:

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. Pop. (1982 est.) 23,000.

In any event, the French excavation of the Egyptian harbor does not demonstrate anything about the island itself sinking. Excavations of harbors for sunken ships, ancient cargo, etc. happen all the time. Some sections of the Mediterranean are absolutely littered with Roman-era amphorae.

And even before that:


1. They could be rubble, tossed there after a building project was finished.
2. They could be part of the rubble left over from Alexander's siege.
3. Or, rubble from another military event.
4. It could be the remains of buildings that were cleared away by the Romans, to make room for their own buildings and amphitheaters.
5. It may even be that the rubble represents an ancient port/dock that fell out of use and was simply allowed to fall into the sea over which it was positioned.

The key difference is that we *know* from other historical sources that items 1 through 5 above ALL happened in Tyre's history. So no special circumstances are required for them. But sad for you, we have ZERO evidence from Tyre's history to support the idea of the island ever sinking. That makes any one of these five explanations more plausible than your sketchy claim.

You can't even make a good guesstimate, lee. Your explanation has no evidence, and flies in the face of the available facts we have on Tyre.

1. You still haven't proven anything about "walls to the edge of the sea." You've claimed it numerous times, but we're all waiting for some evidence. Got any?

2. And when asked why walls couldn't be built to the jagged edge of the island, you admitted that you had no solid reason other than the fact that you didn't believe it. And we're just supposed to take YOUR word for it, I suppose.

3. You were also told about the narrow causeway that connected the island to the mainland - an obvious place to use horses and chariots - and of course horses could ride on ships just as easy as soldiers could;

4. You were also shown historical records from Arrian showing that horses were indeed used by Alexander when his army sieged Tyre two centuries after Nebuchadnezzar

Now you're telling us that if the walls were to the edge of the sea, then there wouldn't be room for chariots?? That's exactly the opposite of what would happen. If the walls were at the outer edge of the island, then there would be MAXIMUM room for chariots, since the walls would be on the extreme outer boundary of the island's land mass. Your dishonesty and desperation are making you say patently foolish things.

You have it backwards. You are the one claiming the prophecy was fulfilled. The burden of proof is on your back. YOU need to show that the city was not rebuilt, or that it was not rebuilt on the same place.

He who claims first, has first burden of proof.

This has already been answered as well. Encyclopedia Britannica:

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. Pop. (1982 est.) 23,000.

That is the record from written evidence in that time, Lee. As for reasons/evidence, the skeptics have been doing an outstanding job of providing sources.

Where are your sources, hmmm?

That's because the majority of the Phoenician ruins are under the modern city. More blue text:

You might want to stop guessing about archaeology, Lee, and study it - especially if you plan to make comments about it. They *do* have samples; that's how they know that the earlier levels are available for excavation. But because the modern city sits on top of the Phoenician ruins, this isn't going to be easy. It's not like going into an empty field and just starting a dig; if they want to excavate the Phoenician layer, they're going to be disrupting businesses, homes, roads, etc. So it's important that they be as precise as possible.

By the way, there's nothing really unusual about excavations having to tippy-toe around a modern city, and needing to be precise before digging. The Viking-age ruins of Dublin are almost all underneath the modern city. You have to down about nine feet (if I recall) before you get to the Viking layer:
http://www.ncte.ie/viking/dubarch.htm

Maps of the island exist from ancient times, Lee. Just one more fact about archaeology that you are ignorant of, I suppose.

Wrong. Part of the shallow water on the north side and south side of the causeway started accumulating sand and clay. That is what "silted up" means. This made the causeway grow thicker; so thick that it became a peninsula and was stable enough to put houses and buildings on it.


Sorry; this is just your apologetics booklet, written by someone who doesn't know anything about the archaeology of the city. Nor does this person know much about navigation, either; the reefs he mentions did not obstruct ships - neither in Herod's time, nor in the time of the Arabs. In 1185 Ibn Djobeir, a Spanish-Arab born at Valencia, had this to say about Tyre's ports:

The port of Tyre is most famous and beautiful. 'Akka has a port like it, but which does not afford anchorage to such large ships, and the port of Tyre is far the larger.

No navigation problems there. :thumbs:

No, the references to "they" refer to Nebuchadnezzar's armies, soldiers, chariots, and horses. Just like the text in Ezekiel says.

Correct - since the bible itself equates "many nations" with Nebuchadnezzar, there is no room for doubt about what Ezekiel meant when he wrote chapter 26.

1. Well if you read Jeremiah 25, it actually says that the "families of the north" would be led by Nebuchadnezzar against Judah. That is a reference to Nebuchadnezzar's armies, made up of many countries. So Jeremiah understand that the Babylonian army was comprised of many nations.

2. And to repeat: However, showing me that Jeremiah used a particular turn of phrase doesn't prove your claim that Ezekiel intended that same usage. Especially when Ezekiel *never* used that turn of phrase himself.

Incorrect. Josephus was writing a history. Therefore if such a destruction *had* ever occurred, it certainly would have been worthy of being included.

1. You've presented no evidence for that. The chief city was the island city: that's where the money was, the power, the influence: the kinds of things that you would put towers around. The mainland city was just the suburbs. I see nothing that would require walls and towers to be in both places. If you have evidence to that effect, then by all means present it.

2. Even if they both had towers, that doesn't help your argument; it only helps mine.

Prove what? That the prophecy indicated both the island and the mainland? Read the prophecy: it mentions the island, as well as slaughtering the "daughters in the field." That is a reference to the mainland colonies.

1. The prophecy indicated BOTH would be wiped out.
2. However, BOTH were not wiped out.
3. Only the mainland colony was destroyed.
4. Thefore, the prophecy failed.

End of argument, quick and easy. :rolling:

As for "demanding evidence for every claim" - yeah, evidence is needed. Does that surprise you, or make you uncomfortable? I wonder when lee merrill is going to present any evidence for his side, hmmm?

1. The prophecy states the island will not be rebuilt.
2. But it was. Multiple times. And it exists even today.
3. Thefore, the prophecy failed.

End of argument, quick and easy. :rolling:

Yep.

Why not?
Of course these events can be true. They ARE true.

What a stupid statement for you to make.

Because he was sieging the city and infuriated at the residents. Hell, Alexander used leftover materials from mainland Tyre to build the causeway in the first place, Lee. In all that construction work, do you think that some of the raw materials might have fallen down / got misplaced, dropped / knocked off during the siege / etc.?

Ever built a house? Ever seen the stack of leftover lumber, bricks, insulation, shingles, siding, etc.? What do you think that a military commander might do with those materials, in the heat of battle, with arrows and flaming missiles being shot at him?

Herod's port? A port is positioned over the water, lee. You asked for an example of a port that fell out of use and was allowed to just drop back into the sea. It has nothing to do with an island rising, or sinking.

And your apologetics booklet is not a source; we've already seen from the discussion on the Hittites that christian apologetic books make very poor sources about actual history or archaeology.

What a stupid objection. No one asked for eyewitnesses. We asked for evidence. Not the same.

Get off your lazy backside and do some research on the topic. Find some reputable historians or archaeologists that support your point of view.

As I said before: no one asked for eyewitnesses.

I have scientific evidence, archaeological evidence, historical records
You have nothing.

End of argument.

And I already explained the problems with McDowell. Time for more blue text:


1. Unfortunately, McDowell has been refuted a half-dozen times; his Tyre section is especially bad history.

2. Even if McDowell is correct here, having walls out to the edge of the sea does not require a round tip, either. Not sure why you thought that would help you any here.

If you knew anything about that book, you would realize that Josh McDowell didn't write it. He handed the hard work over to research assistants. Josh (and his 'researchers') played fast and loose with the facts, got things reversed and even flat-out wrong. There are several rebuttals to "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" on the SecWeb site. There are also several threads in this forum that discuss it.

Because I've studied him and this particular chapter of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." He plays fast and loose with the facts. He misquotes people. He quotes people out of context, and confuses statements made about one city with statements made about other cities. It's a riot to watch him wander around a topic aimlessly, making claims out of thin air.

Who said he made it up? I didn't. He just:

* didn't know what he was talking about;
* was incredibly sloppy with his research and sources;
* allowed his religious bias to interfere with his (alleged) research; and
* handed the workload off to 'research assistants' who didn't know diddly squat about the subject matter.

As for him endangering his career? No it wouldn't. He would still have people like you to swallow his every word, because you're too scared to actually face the unpleasant facts of science and history. People like you don't want to deal with reality; we have seen that from the way you avoid answering hard questions about your positions here.


*sigh* are you being deliberately stupid?

1. Who said it was house? The city had a large metropolitan are

2. Try using your brain: what good is a tank, or a jeep against soldiers? The same answer for chariots against soldiers.

1. Yes.

2. Don't forget - you were trying to say that horses *couldn't* have been used on Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, because there would have been no place for the horses or their chariots. The existence of the causeway refutes your attempt to say that.

I gave you references. Go read them.

Uh, sorry - but yes it will. The fact that you are uneducated and ignorant of the technology is not a refutation of its effectiveness.

Lee, I'm trying to say this as gently as possible: *No one cares what you "think." You don't know what the hell you are talking about, when it comes to how archaeology is conducted. This debate has demonstrated that you don't know a thimbleful about real science, history, or archaeology.

Soundings are done with various technologies, including sound, radio, blast imaging, etc. - just like I told you on Jurassic Park.


Asked, and answered already - twice, now. Blue text:

No. *sigh*

PAY ATTENTION.

1. You stated that this technique would not be used for that purpose.
2. I responded that no, you aer wrong - it could be.
3. That does not mean that they ARE using it for finding ruins in this scenario. I am correcting your misunderstanding about how the technology works. That is not saying that the Tyre archaeologists are using it that way. It is dual purpose technology.

Again:
The technology used to find the extent of the ruins can also be used to verify whether ruins might exist in a new location, or not. And since the technology doesn't require digging underneath an existing business, home, or highway, it's painless and non-intrusive. If they didn't have this technology, then a lot more money would be spent digging up ground that was barren and empty. Most such explorations are funded by grants or international societies with a very fixed budget, etc. so there is a high premium placed on getting it right the first time.

Asked and answered, above.

Why not? Already answered. Because excavations occur underwater all the time. That does not prove that the area sank.

"This is not amphorae"? Oh, really? Why don't you tell me what you think it is, then? Include your sources, by the way.

There is no connection between Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Being contemporaries is not sufficient. Hitler and Mussolini were contemporaries; but if I wanted to know what Hitler meant in his diaries, I would not consult Mussolini's memoirs.

The prophecy causing you so much trouble is in Ezekiel. That's where you have to make your case - not by borrowing words from other books of the bible.

Scholar folks - funny how you appeal to scholarly works, yet run like hell from such information when it doesn't suit your needs. :rolling:

1. Um, no. You cannot. Not unless you can prove some connection. See the example above about Hitler and Mussolini.

2. What dictionaries do is entirely different from what you are trying to do. You're trying to use a quotation from a totally different person to twist the words in Ezekiel so that they are no longer a problem for you. But Ezekiel himself never, ever used the phrase you are wishing so badly to insert into his mouth. Too bad.

Perhaps that's because we don't think you're taking this very seriously. We've spent a lot of time answering questions 3 and 4 times for you, because you were too lazy and disrespectful to read the answers the first time.

Just a thought.

1. Anonymous? Ridiculous. The notes are not anonymous - they are from a college class on this topic, taught by an expert in the field. The notes themselves are just transcriptions of what the historian, Arrian, of that time period, wrote about Tyre.

2. The particular activity - Sidon coming to the rescue of Tyre - is entirely consistent with other events we know about in Phoenician history as well.

3. Your "published encylopedia" is just MSN Encarta. Encyclopedia Britannica and the other sources that have been quoted trump Encarta, any day of the week.

Look it up.

Because my sources are historians and archaeologists; yours are not?
Just a thought. :rolling:

Too bad you never seem to *give* any proof for a claim, though. Why should anyone else lift a finger, if you're too lazy to do so?

Wrong as usual. This is not my interpretation; this is what the historical and archaeological record indicates. My viewpoints are not even involved; this is just what the data says.

Fifty bucks says lee merrill will forget being given this reference by tomorrow. Anyone want to take me up on it?

Nope, doesn't work. The history explicitly states that the Sidonians transported 15,000 to safety. So the entire town was NOT "massacred or sold into slavery."

And thus, you are simply wrong again and refusing to acknowledge that fact.

Not with axes they didn't - not unless the walls were made of wood.

*sigh* Wrong. I'm convincned that you're just being deliberately stupid and trying to waste our time.

But for the lurkers: the engines were readied on the mole. That means they were fitted up, wheels greased, loaded, etc. The horses were used to pull the engines across the mole. Not only is that obvious, but it's also why the text says:

Horse transports and triremes experienced difficulties approaching the walls due to the heaps of stones.

If the horses weren't pulling the engines, then why would the horses be experiencing difficulty approaching the walls?

To summarize:
lee merrill's original claim was that horses couldnt be used here at all. This proves with a real example from Alexander that they obviously WERE used.

Oh, I don't mind the sarcasm. But it's a dangerous thing to use, if your claims aren't correct. In that case, trying to be sarcastic with your opponent only backfires in your face - like we've seen here with you.


Oh, crap, lee. Stop making this up as you go. It doesn't say "a victory parade." It's talking about warfare.

EZE 26:10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

EZE 26:11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

EZE 26:12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.


You were trying to say that Ezekiel's reference to horses must be talking about the destruction of hte mainland colony. Your claim was that because horses couldn't be used on the island.

The existence of the causeway is just one reason why your line of reasoning is broken.

Uh, yes it is. A quick look at the table of contents from Amazon demonstrates that.

Oh, it's possible. But it didn't happen in this particular case. The book's author is not an archaeologist. If he were, then his credentials would have been listed.

So what?

I see no reason why this couldn't be done - and you've certainly presented no evidence from architecture or archaeology why it's not possible.

You claimed it wasn't possible - the burden of proof is on your back.

That may have been part of the way the wall was built - or even the whole wall. But it doesn't matter. Because:

(a) before the wall comes down, there is work for the horses to do - they pull engines across the mole;
(b) after the wall comes down, there is work for the horses to do - they can enter the city and help conquer it

so having walls out to the edge of the sea, even if true, does not prevent the use of horses.

What's more, the source you quoted (Curtius) is describing the state of the walls in the time of Alexander - 200 years after the siege by Nebuchadnezzar. That's not good enough, lee. What you need is a statement that tells the state of Tyre's walls in Neb's time, not in the time of Alexander. We have plenty of reason to believe that the Tyrians improved their walls and other defenses after Nebuchadnezzar's siege; it was after that siege, of course, when Tyre destroyed the narrow causeway that had previously connected it to the mainland. Apparently they realized that was a dangerous thing.

And finally, I'll just add that the source I quoted also says the following, which at least partially contradicts what you are trying to claim:

22.7: Alex first breached the wall on the south. He uses his engine bearing ships to shake and batter down a section of the wall, but we are not specifically told that stone throwers are doing the work. The Tyrians repel the Macs when they try to cross over w/ boarding bridges.

23.1 More work with the engine bearing ships opens a bigger breach.

23.2: Two other ships brought in gangways and this time the assault was successful.

23.3: Some triremes were ordered to sail round about each harbor, in case they might force an entrance while the Tyrians were occupied with his own party's attack. Other warships (ὅσαι δὲ αá½?τὴν βέλη ἀπὸ µηχανῶν βαλλόµενα εἶχον á¼¢ ὅσαι τοξότας á¼?πὶ τῶν καταστÏ?ωµµάτωv ἔφεÏ?ον ...) which had missiles to fire from engines on board or which carried archers on the decks, were ordered to circle about the wall, run ashore whenever possible, or lie to within range, so long as it was impracticable to run ashore. In this way the Tyrians would be under fire from all sides and not know where to turn in the crisis.

23.4-6: the attack of the men from the landing gangways.

3.13: The next day he brought the fleet up against the walls--At all points his artillery, and especially his battering rams, shook the walls. The Tyrians repaired the breaches and started an inner wall.

3.14: Disaster was closing in on them. The mole was within javelin range; Alex's fleet encircled their walls. The Macs. had lashed together 4s so that the prows were locked together, but the sterns were as far apart as possible.

I'm not supposed to do anything. This is your claim; you need to support it, not me.

Already answered twice.

Either one is probable.


I just explained it and gave you a link. Get off your lazy ass and read it.


Go educate yourself about archaeology and layers, lee. I'm not spoonfeeding you all the answers.

noah

Lee,

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://www.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

Surely you don't need more than that

Can you point us to the chapter/verse which say "Nation of Babylon" please Lee?

----Genesis 18:19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just…Then Abraham will be the only person to direct his children in this way?-----

Yes Lee. Becuase if you read the preceding verses you will see that god is talking about Abraham.
Wow! Do I know the bible better than a believer? Guess so.

-----Then "many nations" cannot possibly mean many independent nations? This is impossible?---

No Lee, it's not. In this case it means the nations under Neb. Ezekiel is clear about that.(Sigh)

----Yes, that is your conclusion! We are discussing the reasons…----

Lee There's no conclusion. There are no reasons. I hope by now you have read the links I gave you and see that Tyre never sank into the ocean.

----Aren't ruins in a silted-up harbor evidence? I can't make a mathematical proof, though.----

Partly right Lee. Actually, you can't make any proof and that is why you are ad-libbing and gainsaying your way through this discussion.

Prove Lee, that those ruins are artifacts of Tyre's sinking into the sea.

Prove Lee, that Tyre ever sank into the ocean. By prove I mean cite a reputable source, a non-biased source, not a Christian apologist's book.
Show us where Tyre was. Show it to us on a map here, in this forum.

----Not if the walls went to the edge of the sea!----

Lee, you don't get it. You use chariots once the fortress walls or the gates to the city had been breached. If the walls went to the edge of the sea, the chariots could pour in all the more quickly. I still don't understand your position here.
The house to house fighting of today is a poor analogy Lee. Chariots would race through the city on to the main objective, the fortress. On the way the chariots would help the attacking infantry by riding down enemy troops and setting buildings on fire and cutting off avenues of escape etc.

------Well, that needs to be demonstrated, where are the Phoenician ruins?---

As we have told you Lee, they are under present day Tyre
As we have told you Lee, they are under present day Tyre
As we have told you Lee, they are under present day Tyre

Lee you can't just speculate ad infinitum. We are constantly giving you proof of our position and you continue to ignore it.
It's clear Sauron and Farrell are experts in this area. I'm humbled when Sauron mentions my name. But you seem to think you can keep going without proving your point, keep guessing at things and contradicting Sauron, and Till for that matter and keep ignoring peoples' posts and selectively "answering" points people make.

Have you no sense of humility, no faculty for reasonable discussion?

----Alex drew the map? This really is very unconvincing.----

Lee, if you would take the time to look at some histroical maps either here on the net or at your local lbrary, you will see that Alexander was not the only persom who drew a map of Tyre.

----I agree! And then the references to "they" might refer to more than the one referred to by "he"?

Lee, please read some of the posts peple have put up here in response to you.

----He was giving a succession of kings though, not a history of Neb.---

No Lee.Spin's excerpt is not a succession of Kings. If you read the whole thing you will see Josephus is talking about much more than succession of Kings.

Lee, the Encyclopeadia of bible difficulties is written by a well known Christian apologist. Check Lee, and tell us what sources he uses for his archaeological, scientific and historical references. More Christian apologists?

----But both the mainland and the island had walls and towers!----

Lee this is becoming pathological. Now you are claiming as though it were established fact that the mainland and island had walls and towers,as though this somehow proved a point you were trying to make
What applies to the one part of the city applies to the other. The prophecy was clear.
But it makes no difference Lee since Neb failed to take Tyre and Tyre was not destroyed permanently as Ezekiel predicted.
Look at any timeline Lee. You will see that no one mentions Tyre's sinking into the ocean.

-----Can you prove this, though? Now that we are … demanding evidence for every claim! And does the prophecy refer to only the island not being rebuilt?

Wow! First Base!!!!

Lee have you not read any posts here in this thread. Check a map. Check a historical map.
Lee, you have to prove to us that the island sank into the sea. That means showing us a book written by a non-biblicist that verifies your claims.
You can't just keep saying things Lee.

----why would Alex throw rocks from the island into the sea?----

Because he wanted to clear the rubble from the siege in order to make way for his own buildings. Or he may have decided to knock some buildings down and erect his own monuments temples and buildings in place of the Tyranian structures. Do some thinking Lee. I can't believe you need us to hold your hand through every question you pose. This is getting so amateurish I 'm surprised you don't catch yourself.
If you are not going to read pots Lee, please tell us and we'll stop wasting our time.

-----Herod's port went up in smoke?----

What? Are you suggesting that this proves Tyre sank into the sea?

---- can't bring any eyewitnesses!----

Really Lee, this is getting petty. As though eyewitnesses were the only proof you need to establish a point. Why read or believe any history if you require eyewitness verification?

-----That would endanger his whole career.----

No it would not Lee. People like you would keep on buying his books. He doesn't intend to sell to anyone else. At least I hope he doesn't, given how quickly one discovers the inadequacy of his sources and research.

-----Because there is a causeway, that is a good reason to use a chariot on it?!----

Here we go again Lee. First base!!!!! Horses would and do travel on causeways Lee. It's really not that big a deal. In war you make things work and travelling along a causeway would pose no difficulty at all especially since the causeway led up to the island city which is the point of your assault.
Lee if you check around you will see that both the mainland and the island were big enough and level enough to accomodate chariots. Trust me Lee, it's not that big a deal.
I'm surprised you have decided to make such a fuss over this small point.

I'm going to sign off now. I hope you look at the links I provided in this post.











-

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Doesn't it include the mainland part today, though? I do think the consensus is that both the island and the mainland were referred to as Tyre.

It could be that the buildings are not in the silt, but if they are, then they went underwater. Presumably they are excavating there because people haven't wanted to build there! Implying that the buildings are in the silt, not above it, and thus went underwater.

"Most of the remains" implies similar remains, though, and sunken ships won't be below the present town.

Sources, please? For any of these claims, where is this item documented in history?

Well, I checked a bit in their response to the chapter of concern here, and they are arguing with his conclusions, for the most part, not with his evidence! I saw an instance where they showed a quote from an author that said the opposite of McDowell's quote from the same author, only they didn't seem to look up McDowell's quote, so I think this is not shredding his integrity, authors do change their mind, and I don't think we have to insist that McDowell read every statement by every author he quotes, to see if this happened.

That's why I put "nation" in quotes, not "nation of Babylon."

Is this Biblical usage, though? This is Sauron's usage, but that does not help us understand what Ezekiel meant.

But Babylon corresponds to the Chaldeans, and how do we know that the Arameans etc. were serving Babylon at this point? But even if they were! Why doesn't the statement here just mention the Babylonians? Since that includes the other groups.

Otherwise, this is saying "The general sent the first division, and the third platoon from the first division, and the fourth platoon from the first division, etc."

No, what they do is just what I am after here, dictionaries do not pick quotes from just one author, but they do pick them from contemporaries.

I agree! That's the empire of Babylon, but not "Babylon" per se, in Biblical usage.

Yes, it's here:

Jeremiah 25:12 "But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the Lord, "and will make it desolate forever."

Not "The king of Babylon and his nations"…

I would say either interpretation is possible, but even if your interpretation is correct, it still needs to be demonstrated that "peoples" corresponds to "nations" here, sometimes it does (Gen. 10:18), and sometimes it doesn't (1 Sam 9:21).

Doesn't 2 Kings 24:2 quoted above specify other groups than the imperial army, though?

I am bringing out evidence, but if the opposite view is not argued for, then I shall not be convinced of the opposite conclusion!

But I expect this is their evaluation, but not their set of museum pieces, how do we know they have samples?

We need to be a bit more specific here, though.

References, please?

This is evidence that the island sank, though, if the port of Tyre in Djobeir's day was on the causeway, not the island, which is what I think was just what was meant by the apologetics authors. And how do we know that ships were not obstructed in Herod's time?

My interpretation is not impossible, though, it's plausible, if "many nations" means more than just Neb, which we are discussing.

Well, again, does family mean a nation here?

And to repeat in reply! That's the way scholars use secondary literature. Well, they do, so it makes it quite possible that Ezekiel could have meant that meaning, too.

Really, this is quite plain, the section quoted is listing a line of succession.

How did the mainland city withstand a siege, then? Certainly the island had walls. Could we spend a little more time on these responses, please? These objections are kind of like underbrush to clear.

I was arguing that they both had towers and walls, though, so towers and walls being broken down by "them" and by "Neb" doesn't mean Neb had to do it all, so I think this actually helps my argument here.

But this is a restatement of your statement, how is this a proof?

Nope.

This is not the way to advance the discussion, though.

He would stop minding the arrows, and throw some rocks into the sea?

A dock is positioned over the water, a port, however, is not!

We have a map of the city streets? The soldiers would have more sense than to take a stand in the most open places, though, I would expect.

For geological formations. A column of stone is on a much smaller scale. Suppose they see a column, how can they tell a Phoenician column?

They weren't saying they were doing sounding to find the extent of the ruins, though, as I recall. They were trying to locate them. There's a difference!

Then no inhabitants were left!

Certainly it would be possible, but not probable.

Again, this is not proof, but it does make it more probable that they were built that way in the first place.

But I can still make my point either way! We know that Neb did not attack the island, and anyone reading of an attack to come on Tyre using horses and chariots would think of the mainland, and thus the prophecy would be thought to indicate two attacks.

Which implies that the walls went to the edge of the seashore! "At all points"…

Well, they can't both be probable, possible, yes, but not probable.

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.

Which indicates that they don't have ruins to present to us?

Then Sarah would not instruct her children in what is right? I agree this is speaking of Abraham doing this, what I am asking is if this implies that no one else would ever speak to his children in this way.

Well, I'm asking if this interpretation is utterly impossible, "In this case" seems to imply that in other places it might be possible, and thus it could be at least possible here.

Well, Arrian was a bit of an apologist for Alexander, so we can't trust all he says! And a modern map does not prove the location of ancient Tyre! Neither of us can provide the level of proof you are asking for, here.

A chariot would actually be a singularly unwieldy way to attack soldiers in a city, though. You can't move nimbly, the horse is announcing your arrival at every point, etc.

Well, I'm trying to address every point! And everyone has to make estimates, in history there just aren't any mathematical proofs. And yes, I disagree with the view you all are presenting, now you may call that contradicting if you wish.

Well, it's evidence, if Herod's port sank.

Regards,
Lee

spin

Actually the mainland suburb of Tyre was about six kilometres to the south along the coast at a headland called Rashidiyeh. What you see as the mainland part today didn't exist at the time of Nebuchadnezzar.

You can think whatever you like, lee_merrill, but your claim that "the consensus is that both the island and the mainland were referred to as Tyre" is your own personal fabrication. That's dishonest, lee_merrill, but the only person you are able to be dishonest to is yourself.

Nebuchadnezzar was unable to reach Tyre and it continued to exist all the way down to Alexander's time, when he built the mole out to the island. But Alexander didn't flatten the place. The archaeologist Maurice Chehab found remains of Phoenician public buildings under a crusader basilica.

Please go away, lee_merrill, to a decent library which will supply you with some archaeology/history of the city of Tyre. It's time you stopped this circus. :wave:


spin

JCS

A wheel in dire need of lubrication or enema. Why bother? I went round and round with a fundy on another BB concerning this topic and evidence be damned, if their book says it is so-it is so! The guy claimed to be a teacher, which apparently to him it meant learning was not bidirectional.

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://www.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/...k/geos/le.html

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

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinat...on/history.htm

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

Regrading the use of chariots in attacking a city:

During sieges, chariots served two purposes. They were important for blockading the city. Because of their speed, they could quickly get to spots where enemy activity was happening, thereby being able to stop the escape of royalty (such as the capture of King Zedekiah by chariots/cavalry when he attempted to escape Babylon's siege of Jerusalem), and in the same manner, of stopping messengers, thereby stopping communications with allies. The other purpose they had was as a light artillery force. Again, because of their speed, they could dart within archery range, fire their arrows, then retreat back outside of range. The problem archers had on the walls is that the arrows took enough time in flight to reach where you aimed them, that a target with the speed of cavalry or chariots may or may not still be there. The archers on the chariots didn't have that problem. Because the besieged forces can prepare sorties unobserved by the besiegers, whereas those in the city can frequently see where the opposing forces are weakest, sorties can provide the defenders a means of suddenly matching their strongest against the attackers' weakest forces.

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

and here:

"Greeks in chariots attacked Troy"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyon...0_prog5c.shtml

----I agree! That's the empire of Babylon, but not "Babylon" per se, in Biblical usage.----

What difference does that make Lee? Neb was going to attack. He was king of Babylon.Babylon included Neb's empire.Babylon was considered an empire Like Rome which consisted of "many nations" Babylon is an inclusive term.

---I am bringing out evidence, but if the opposite view is not argued for, then I shall not be convinced of the opposite conclusion!----

Lee, you have no evidence. You have yet to cite a single non-biblical source in support of any of your contentions.

----But I expect this is their evaluation, but not their set of museum pieces, how do we know they have samples?-----

Lee what are you doing? Why would they make something up? If you believe they are mistaken then you have to prove Brittanica is mistaken. Right now the way you're going, it's a no-brainer. Brittanica wins out every time.

----Really, this is quite plain, the section quoted is listing a line of succession.----

No Lee. you have to actually read Josephus before you can comment on him.

-----How did the mainland city withstand a siege, then? -----

OMG! Lee, Neb took the mainland part of Tyre. What have you been smoking?

Lee, please prove the mainland city had walls.Pleeeeaaasse!

----But this is a restatement of your statement, how is this a proof?--

Do you know why it's a restatement Lee? Because it's true. You have not shown any evidence to the contrary on this or any point.

-----This is not the way to advance the discussion, though.---

The reason Sauron said "yep" is because he knows. What do you care about advancing the dsicussion Lee? All you do is ad-lib and gainsay.
You introduce no objective sources to help you prove your point.

-----He would stop minding the arrows, and throw some rocks into the sea?---

Lee, Alexander would wait for the battle to end before he began his building projects.

-----We have a map of the city streets? The soldiers would have more sense than to take a stand in the most open places, though, I would expect.---

Lee. Chariots and cavalry can be and were used in assaults on cities/fortresses. Look it up.

----Which indicates that they don't have ruins to present to us?----

What does this mean Lee? The ruins underground merely point out that the city is thousands of years old and has been rebuilt many many times.

---Well, Arrian was a bit of an apologist for Alexander, so we can't trust all he says! And a modern map does not prove the location of ancient Tyre! Neither of us can provide the level of proof you are asking for, here.----

Lee, show us any map. Historical maps will do nicely. Tyre is where it has always been. Look at ancient maps and modern maps and compare. We can provide the level of proof. You just need to look at historical maps.

---you may call that contradicting if you wish.---

Lee, it is contradiction and gainsaying. Why? Because you offer no evidence to support your points but you have no qualms about incessantly quibbling about our arguments which we support by links and texts and maps. You just have to look Lee.

-----in history there just aren't any mathematical proofs. ----

Yes there are Lee. We know the Egyptians existed. We know the Roman empire existed. We know about many cities and their histories. Holy Roman Empire. Babylon, Thirty Years War, Reformation, Napoleon and on and on and on. If an island city sank in a heavily populated area Lee, someone would have noticed.


You're starting to sound like a Holocaust denier Lee. You're making the same kind of arguments and using the same kind of tactics they use.
They really aren't interested in facts Lee. All they say is "prove it" over and over again. And when they aren't saying that, they're busy saying "that's your opinion" It doesn't matter to them which sources you use or people you quote or statistics you introduce, they keep saying "prove it" or ""that's your opinion" They rarely have anything substantive to use to prove their point.
How do I know Lee? Because I have a degree in German History. Or is that just my opinion?

Jack the Bodiless

Lee, we DO have a map that shows land now underwater: the Island of Hercules.

Here it is again:



...So, where's the "missing part" of the island fortress? NO map shows your "rounded tip": the island fortress of Tyre was NEVER "rounded", it always had the same basic shape it has today (minus the Island of Hercules), as THIS map shows.

If part of the island fortress sank, why wouldn't it be marked as "now under water" on THIS map, as the Island of Hercules has been marked?

You have as many maps of "the original Tyre before it sank" as I have maps of "the original Manhattan before it sank in September 2001": i.e. none.

You also have no more evidence for the sinking of Tyre than I have for the sinking of Manhattan: just a comment from one Christian apologist who plainly got it wrong.

Just for fun, I did a Google search on Tyre underwater (about 26,500 hits) and another on Manhattan underwater (about 155,000 hits): and the Tyre ones tend to refer to underwater automobile tyres/tires.

So, Manhattan is underwater! Didn't it have a big Jewish population? Can I now apply the Merrill Criteria and say that maybe the prophecy of the survival of the Jewish people failed, because all the Jews in the world have been drowned?