Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Irrelevant, as Alexander didn't do that.
Incorrect. The Tyrians returned after Alexander had left. Does history even record that Alex left anyone there? A small garrison, maybe: but he had the Persian Empire to conquer, and manpower was limited. He never originally intended to conquer Tyre anyhow: it was "supposed" to surrender, as Sidon had done.
All incorrect, as usual. And all dealt with more fully in post #618 of the OTHER current Tyre thread, which you have yet to respond to.

According to the Book of Ezekiel itself, everything in the verses you cite applies to Tyre, and 26:8 merely makes a passing reference to the "daughter villages" without ever switching the meaning of "you" from Tyre itself to them. This is plain from the text. And, as I have already pointed out many times over, your argument fails EVEN IF we arbitrarily assume that this "Tyre" includes the mainland.

On the other thread, you have already effectively conceded the argument by admitting that "Tyre" has to include the island.
Blatant contradiction.

noah

Lee Merrill has yet to prove:

1) That Tyre sank

2) That Tyre, including the mainland suburb, was ever made a bare rock


Lee yo have no proof. You have no sources. Your links actually contradict what you're trying to prove. We on the other hand have the words of experts who contradict your claims flatly.

What evidence Lee? We have been wasting our time here for months on this issue and you still have no evidence except guesses, "what ifs" links that backfire on you and one little quote taken out of context about Phoenician ruins underwater.

We do have indisputable proof Lee. We have the words of scholars and maps and photographs and your backfiring links and out of context quotes.

Actually no Lee. Don asked you a straight forward question. It should have been easy for you to answer in a straight forward way. You dont answer Don's question, however, so we're still here where we have always been.

Don asked you You still have to answer the question Lee. Are you going to any time soon?

Remember Lee, you have no evidence.

You have done nothing to prove your claim. You have done nothing to discredit our evidence against your claim, namely photos of Tyre and all the evidence we have shown here which you keep ignoring every time you post a new response.

I guess you don't get it Lee. If there is a Phoenician wall, then the prophecy fails.

Yes Lee, "apart from the causeway". Here you have a perfectly reasonable possibility for the presence of Phoenician ruins underwater. You should by any stretch of reason simply accept this Lee.

And, as Sauron points out:
You still have yet to refute the other possible causes for there being Phoenician ruins underwater:
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.

Do you plan to account for any of these possibilities sometime Lee?

Except that you're wrong Lee. We have Phoenician ruins above Tyre.
You ducked this part of my previous post so I am going to include here again until you acknowledge it

People are living in and around them as Prof.Dr. Erdal Özhan points out in his short essay on coastal erosion management in the Mediterranean.

Why did you not answer this the first time Lee?

There's a phoenician cemetery on Tyre that was discovered in 1991.

Why did you not answer this the first time Lee?

Second we need not hold ourselves to merely ruins we have lots of Phoenician artifacts from Tyre now catalogued now and stored in Museums as this article from the American University of Beirut makes clear.

Third, as this site makes clear we have the remains in the forms of islands What was that about no Phoenician ruins (or artifacts) Lee?

Your move.

It sure is Lee. And I'm going to join him. When, if ever, do you plan to show us any evidence that:

1) Tyre sank

2) Tyre, including the mainland, ever sank

Plenty. Second, we have the technology today to find earthquakes which occurred in ancient times.

So please tell us all Lee why no one has found any evidence of an earthquake that sank Tyre?

I have been conversing with the webmaster of A Bequest Unearthed, Phoenicia
Not only is of Phoenician descent. He has actually been to Tyre. He is an independent scholar devoted to the study of his heritage.
I asked him whether Tyre had ever been sunk by an earthquake:
He had no idea what you are talking about Lee. He said Tyre is not even on a fault line, in an area which could make it vulnerable to an earthquake, never mind being sunk by one. He said in reply to me:
Can I ask why you posted this link Lee? Sauron beat me to it. Your article actually hurts your case.

Second, the other link you posted here hurts your case even more. The presentation makes clear that Seismic activity in the region over the last 2,000 + years is well documented.

The second map in that presentation shows clearly that Tyre is not on or near a fault line.


Referring to the issue of what a peninsula looks like:
No Lee. Saron says it is and Sauron is right. You seem to be in some great difficulty as to what a peninsula is supposed to look like. I don't know about you Lee but the shape of a peninsula was grade 6 geography. Peninsulas only have to jut out into th ewater. There is no "Lee Merrill requirement" that they look only like Florida. Your argument that a peninsula has to look like Florida is misguided to say the least.
The definition of a peninsula is clear. You ducked this part of my previous post to you so I will restate it here:
The definition of a peninsula as stated by the Oxford English Reference Dictionary is:
From Wikipedia:
From a third grade geography class plan:
From Dictionary.com From Merriam-Webster
Please provide proof of your claim that a peninsula must look like Florida.

Wrong Lee. Still no proof to substantiate your claim. (Recurring theme Lee?)Care to support your assertion? Do you plan to provide any evidence that Tyre sank or
that Tyre, including the mainland, ever was made into a bare rock?

Actually it's not Lee. I see no reason to believe that this map shows Tyre and the island of Hercules were ever connected. Why Lee? Because by definition two islands can't be connected. Two land masses surrounded by water can not be connected or else they wouldn't be called islands. They would be known and recognized under one name. I'm gal you respect maps all of a sudden though Lee. Take a look at all these maps of Tyre now that show it never sank and show the same respect for these maps as you did to the map of the island of Hercules that you linked to.

Second, and you still don't want to answer this question, why have you not explained why no historian or geologist or geographer or contemporary observer has ever noted Tyre sinking because of an earthquake?

Sorry to bother you there Lee but I am correct. Tyre is still right where it's always been
- Tyre never sank
- Tyre was never made a bare rock

Your second position is every bit as indefensible as this position

You have proved zero, nada, no part of your claim(s).

Do you plan to introduce any evidence in support of your claims sometime Lee?

Do you plan to respond to all points I and Sauron's make in our posts anytime Lee?

All the photos you have seen in this and the other long Tyre threads in which you set the cause of Christian fundamentalism back about 2000 years.

What do you mean you "need to see" Lee? You need to see why you have no proof of any claim you have made here. It's unreal. I don't think I have ever seen someone make such an ill-advised assertion and then make it worse for themselves by showing no, repeat no, evidence to support it. Absolutely amazing

You have already been shown proof of the Phoenician walls. You have also been shown that there is plenty of Phoenician ruins and artifacts right now to invalidate Ezekiel's prophecy

What you really need Lee is to prove your claim(s).

Is this an admission by Lee that the maps of Tyre are proof of Tyre's continued uninterrupted existence Lee?

Second, as I have said the map of the island of Hercules does nothing for you because:

1) The map is inconclusive as to whether the island of Hercules was connected physically to Tyre

2) The two islands could not have been connected since two islands surrounded by water could not be connected physically since water separates them.

3) You can't be selective and inconsistent about your respect for maps. If you want me to believe that map, then you have to believe all the maps that show Tyre is where it always was.

Do you have any proof of this claim here Lee? Answer: No.

How do you know there should be Phoenician ruins there? I mean what proof do you have outside your endless uninformed conjecture?

Why do you keep making claims related to disciplines you know nothing about and are prepared to do no research on?

Please do tell us about all these digs Lee (grabbing popcorn).

Do you have any experts you can quote here to prove there are no Phoenician ruins Lee?

Do you suppose at some point you might do more than guess and link to articles and sites that backfire on you?

No. It means he's biased, that he is a theologian and is not peer reviewed or respected in academic circles. If you are going to quote apologists Lee then you have to quote unbiased non-religious sources along with him. Archer's job is to affirm the faith and make a lot of money doing it.
An apologist for anyone or anything is unreliable as a source for anything by him or herself.

Yeah except the only problem is Sauron has lots and lots of support for his position and you have none for yours. Each of those scenarios is plausible and historical. What's your response? Nothing. You try to turn the tables as though none of us were following the thread, as though none of us were waiting for you to provide proof of your assertions.

Do you plan to provide any evidence to support your claims here Lee?

And again, you jumped right past the part where you have to prove Tyre sank.You're using your (unproven) conclusion as your argument and somehow you think none of us sees it. Too much.

To quote Sauron:
Do you plan to prove this assertion anytime in the near future Lee?


When did Tyre sink Lee?

When was Tyre ever made a bare rock Lee?

As usual you skipped past substantial parts of my reply to you Lee.

I issued you a challenge:

Why have you not taken me up on this challenge Lee?


Lee Merrill has yet to prove two things:

1) That Tyre ever sank

2) That Tyre, including the mainland, was ever made into a bare rock.

manwithdream

Hello,
I am new to this discussion forum.
I have an idea about the prophecy about Tyre in Ezekiel 26 that I put in the other thread about Tyre, but I am not sure if I should put it here instead. I read an article that said that Tyre at first resisted Babylon, but later made an agreement to serve them . I think that Ezekiel predicted Tyre's destruction because Tyre resisted becoming a servant to Babylon at first. Maybe when they put on Babylon's "yoke" they were saved from destruction.

Jeremiah 27:3 and 11 say that Tyre and some other places had to accept Babylon's yoke or be destroyed. It says they would be safe if they accepted the yoke which they did (according to the article I read).
Do you think that it is possible that Ezekiel's prophecy did not come true because Jeremiah's prophecy came true instead?

lee_merrill

Without you defending them? Mere assertions are fine, on your part?

Actually, these are the sort of what-if statements you are so adamantly opposed to.

Well then, you have now made my ignore list again, Mr. Sauron, it is impossible to have a discussion given such conditions.

Best wishes to you, though,
Lee

P.S. Will get back to other posts tomorrow...

Sauron

Already addressed this. If you weren't such a cowardly christian, you'd include my response:

1. You are the one with the affirmative claim for Tyre sinking. You need to rule out these other far more reasonable and likely possibilities.

2. We know that these items all occurred in Tyre's past. There is NO evidence for Tyre sinking. On that basis alone, any one of these explanations does a much better job of explaining rubble in the water than your silly idea does.

3. Perhaps if you ever do that, as well as support your encyclopedia of previous unsupported claims, at that point you MIGHT be in a position to ask others to support their statements. But right now you are so far overdrawn at the Bank of Credibility that bankruptcy is your only real option.

No, they're not. All you have to do to find out, lee, is support your previous claims. If you do, then you'll be in a position to call my bluff and force me to prove these things happened.

Given your past behavior and crappy track record, however, I'm not expecting to need to bring my proof anytime soon.

What conditions"?

The "conditions" that oh, I don't know, maybe ...... you need to support your claims? Those "conditions" lee? The "conditions" of being personally accountable for statements you make, instead of walking away from them? Do you think you are some kind of special privileged character? Do you think you have some kind of right to toss out claims, and then refuse to support them? What an enormous ego you must have, to carve out such a special double standard for yourself.

Conditions, yes. You exit any discussion where someone holds you accountable for what you claim and for what you say in a public forum. I already knew that; I just didn't expect you to admit that fact in such a public and obvious manner.

And as I said before:

Putting me on your "ignore" list won't solve the problem. The hard questions that I am asking you -- the ones you are running from -- those same questions are being asked by other people besides me. Putting me on 'ignore' won't make the hard questions go away. Moreover, I will still be able to see your posts, and I will still respond to them. It doesn't bother me at all to point out your mistakes to the entire audience. If you choose not to respond, that is your problem.

What's more, since you won't be addressing my posts any longer, that frees up all my time to help noah, Johnny Skeptic, and dongiovanni1976x in their questioning of you. Smart move, lee.

You have a habit of shooting off your own foot. You've just done it again.

I think it's clear to any observer what has happened here. Lee made some silly claims -- "all peninsulas look like Florida", Tyre sank, left no record of the sinking, and then rose again, etc. For his efforts, he got the living shit thrashed out of him in a very public and humiliating way. Instead of accepting responsibility for his rash and uninformed statements, he is trying to shift the blame onto his opponent. By doing so, he hopes that the audience will think he is somehow the victim here, instead of them seeing him for what he truly is: a flim-flam artist.

Unlikely. You've been promising to deal with other posts since last summer -- yet all you've done is conjecture.

dongiovanni1976x

Noah asked you a direct question and you keep dodging it by saying that we are both presenting evidence and we are weighing that evidence. Well the geological or geomorphic evidence for NO earthquake is that we have no geological or geomorphic evidence for it. Your turn. What geological or geomorphic evidence is there that there was such an earthquake?
No one is asking for irrefutable proof. We are asking for ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL that would lead someone to believe that an earthquake caused Tyre to fall off into the sea and sink as Gleason Archer suggested.
Once again: Lee, do you have any geological or geomorphic stability to your assertion? Or is your assertion nothing more than conjecture?

dongiovanni1976x

What more do I need to do Lee!? I have provided numerous scholars attesting to it, several of which have no only been there but I have seen them standing there MYSELF, a tourist who went there and saw it and now even your favorite source, a tourist website…all in agreement that this 5th century wall is there. What have you done to counter this evidence other than say, “hey this tourist site never mentions it and Nina Jidejian doesn’t say anything about it”?
So since two of the tourist pamphlets I got from the Hotel Gladiatori when I went to Rome this past March, did not list the Bath’s of Caracalla, and my guide to Ostia Antica had never been there, therefore I should question whether I was standing in that ancient Bath- or that I was misled by over zealous tourist guides? Your argument is ridiculous. What else ya got Lee? Just because you don’t accept my evidence does not put your conjecture on par with it.
What do you mean “apart from the causeway?” I offered a perfectly good explanation of why we might see stuff in the water. Others in this forum have offered even MORE plausible explanations. Yours is implausible because you have yet to demonstrate that Tyre sank. Until you make a case for that we should assume the more reasonable explanations that have been offered.

I agree with you Lee. Nina likely was referring to Greek and Roman ruins here and not Phoenician ones. Even the cemetery which is Phoenician was NOT on the island so it is moot. But I ask you, what do you think Peter Woodward was standing on? The Wall is above the water. The pottery was found in section 7 and is above water etc.
I do not need to “make a case”. You are the one suggesting that such an earthquake happened. All I need to do is assume that it didn’t until you make your case. Why would anyone ASSUME such a thing took place if there is no evidence for it?
Do you have any geological or geomorphic stability to your assertion that Tyre sank by an Earthquake or is your assertion nothing more than conjecture?
Lee, Noah offered many examples of what a Peninsula is, even giving you the etymological root (e.g. A peninsula (from Latin "paene insula", almost island) is a geographical formation consisting of an extension of land from a larger body, surrounded by water on three sides.) This “tis” vs. “t’aint” quibble is not supporting your case. You told us that Tyre does not resemble a “normal peninsula” but you have yet to explain what the hell a normal one is supposed to look like. You did tell me that even you yourself thought this made a weak argument. Why do you elaborate why you think this is so weak, maybe seeing your own words will help you realize that this argument needs to be removed completely. It is utter nonsense.
Huh?! “acknowledged-by-consensus”? I have Dr. Honor Frost (who discovered the wall in 1966), Dr. Martha Joukowsky (referring to it in her book, Heritage of Tyre 1992), Dr. Maurice Cherab (Director of Archaeology in Lebanon), Dr. Badawi (Lead Archaeologist at Tyre as of 2004) and Peter Woodward (physically standing there on the wall in 2004 talking about it), Dr. Patricia Bikai and her husband Dr. Pierre Bikai who excavated the area in 1971-75 (section #7, with the Roman Columns and the arena which are above the Phoenician wall), the mutual tourist who went there and saw the wall, whom we have been referring to (whom you say was “misled” for some reason), and now even a tourist website (which you respect so much). What the hell are you meaning to imply by “acknowledged-by-consensus”? You have lost me here!

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

But my statement here was granted that it’s underwater, if I can make my case here, that’s pretty impressive for a prediction!

No, I don’t, actually.

Ahem. Could I say this by way of reply? “Remember Noah, you have no evidence.” But this is not much of a discussion.

Right, thus the argument that the wall is not Phoenician.

Well, I think that is your job, to defend the proposal of these possibilities! I am not required to defend your view, or to prove your points. For example…

“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.”

That may be! Is this a what-if scenario? Well yes, until such time as we have evidence that the rubble is from a port or dock, that is precisely what it is, a what-if scenario. Now your job will be to show me evidence that this is what the rubble is, not to tell me to prove your point for you here.

“The shoreline south of the Town of Tyre in Southern Lebanon receded more than 100 meters in about 20 years due to commercial sand extraction from inshore and the beach face…”

I would think this indicates the mainland city then, not the island, when he refers to Phoenician ruins at Tyre.

Yes, and this is not ruins, and if this is the main result they have, they have no ruins to speak of, to point people to. Nor does a cemetery prove where the buildings were, and this cemetery, is it on the mainland? This page doesn’t say.

Which I think makes my argument stronger, artifacts, and no buildings?! I would have expected the stones to be generally more durable than the pottery.

But these are just rocks in the sea to keep the waves from crashing onto the shore, these are not buildings. Nor does one archaeologist mention the wall Don mentions here, even though this archaeologist is speaking about these very jetties as notable examples of remains of Tyre.

“Lots” however, is not a number, nor is it an argument.

Neat, so then have they applied them at Tyre? This would be my next question. But let’s see…

“The scientists suggest, therefore, that the prehistoric earthquakes that hit the region (during the time of the great Syrian-African rift upheavals) were of greater magnitude than those recorded later.”

That will do, some were recorded later in this very area…

Or here:

“Using this method, they discovered for the first time evidence of earthquakes that can be documented some distance from the Syrian-African rift that runs from Syria through Lebanon, Israel and Jordan and down into Africa. This rift caused great shifts in the topography of the region in prehistoric times.”

So then such shifts could occur again, I shall keep this link for future reference!

Well, there you have it! An earthquake recorded in this region.

Which would not have been so much noticed, if Tyre had been abandoned at the time of such an earthquake, and archaeologist Renan did record seeing the city there as “Ruins built out of ruins.”

However, the map I posted shows just such a fault line running down the coast, could you send this link to him for his opinion?

“According to Nur, the cities destroyed at the end of the Bronze Age were located in regions that historically have experienced high seismic activity. He has calculated the intensities of recent earthquakes and shown that the modern-day regions that experience heavy damage overlap with the ancient ruins destroyed at the end of the Bronze Age. As Nur states, ‘Earthquakes have been happening in this region for thousands of years. There is no way that these places could have escaped severe ground shaking. It is impossible.’”

So the argument here is primarily by deduction, not by observation.

Isn’t there a fault that runs right down the west coast of the Mediterranean? This map does show the fault on the land, though, not on the sea, I will agree with that aspect.

Well, now Noah says “t’aint!”

But what I meant was that the edges get rounded by erosion and silting, which is not the appearance of the coast at Tyre, and Cypress is too large to be a proper counter-example.

Alas, you have not quoted my response at all, though.

That was not the question at issue with Gullwind, though, the question was whether “never found again” means the geographical location.

Yes, but my argument here is that there was movement of land masses.

Yes, that is a good question, and thus I explain why I believe Gleason Archer is correct, he is, by the way, a scholar well-versed and trained in history, and arguably a historian (as one of his hats! He wore many, as I have seen).

This is your evidence for your claim?! Joe’s evidence for his view is that Jim has no proof of some other view?

Really, now, I think the shoe is on the other foot, in this instance.

Wait, may we not conclude they have not yet found the ruins they were digging for? Not hearing of such ruins would seem to be good evidence that what they were searching for, they have not found.

Are you claiming that they did find ruins, and somehow have not mentioned this? What, erm, evidence do you have for this claim?

So then what proof do you have for each of these items, that they really happened? Let’s have the proof, please and thank you.

Yes, that is what I have understood.

That is possible, though I think the prophecy is unconditional, and the judgment certain. But you raise a good point!

And I have presented evidence that is in disagreement, so now what? Well, we have to weigh the evidence, and see what is most likely, for a conclusion. Archaeologists have mentioned these very jetties, without mentioning the wall, and remarking on how remarkable having Phoenician remnants is, so I conclude the opinion on these walls has changed. And the tourist website was a hotel website, and they have not responded yet, to my email asking them for reasons for their conclusion.

All other sites I have seen have not mentioned this wall, though, and Nina’s opinion does not count? Why not, may I ask? And I think it most improbable that she was unaware of this claim of a Phoenician wall, for the claim predates her second edition by a large margin, and I hold that she is a competent archaeologist, until there is evidence to the contrary.

But my point is that no Phoenician ruins at all are mentioned, that is quite different. That would be like getting a tourist pamphlet that didn’t mention any Roman ruins, that would be very astonishing, indeed.

Nina seems to be saying they are in the harbor, which would be not part of the causeway then.

And this I do not dispute…

Right, so then there are those who agree, or at least agreed. Now there are some who by all appearances, disagree, thus this is not a consensus, I would say.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

First of all, which Scriptures are you referring to? Second of all, if you are referring to the island settlement, oceanographers will tell you that there is nothing at all unusual about islets or islands eventually becoming partially or completely submerged underwater. It's happened many thosands of times. Third of all, the mainland settlement is not underwater at this time. The Britannica 2003 Deluxe Edition says:

"Excavations have uncovered remains of the Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab, and Byzantine civilizations, but most of the remains of the Phoenician period lie beneath the present town. Areas of archaeological note include the ruins of a Crusader church, a street with a 2nd-century mosaic pavement and a double colonnade of white green-veined marble, Roman baths, the ruins of a Roman-Byzantine necropolis, and the largest Roman hippodrome ever discovered. Built in the 2nd century, the hippodrome hosted chariot races with a capacity of 20,000 spectators.

"In 1984 UNESCO designated the historic town a World Heritage site. In the late 20th century the ruins were damaged by bombardment, most notably in 1982 and 1996 during Israeli offensives in southern Lebanon. The site is threatened by urban growth, looting, and the decay of stone because of airborne pollution. In 1998 UNESCO created a special fund for the preservation and archaeological excavation of the ancient treasures of Tyre."

Then what gives God's judgments legitimacy? In other words, why does he have to be right? The ability to predict the future has only to do with power, not character. I submit that the God does not have good character, and that therefore no one should accept him. Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" If a human made someone blind, deaf, or dumb, he would be sent to prison, and with your approval. God makes people blind, but yet you approve of trying to prevent or cure blindness. Why do you oppose God's purposes?

dongiovanni1976x

But the southern harbor obviously should have ruins in it BECAUSE it was part of the ancient city. Your question here makes no sense.
You have now pluralized archaeologist into archaeologists to augment your position. ONE, repeat ONE archaeologist that you have cited does not mention this wall (Nina Jidejian is silent on the subject) in a book date 1969. My argument is that I have many archaeologists who mention this Phoenician wall, a tourist who went there and I saw several standing there talking about it. So the mere fact that Jidejian doesn’t mention it does not mean it doesn’t exist. You ask me: [quote=Lee Merrill} Nina’s opinion does not count? Why not, may I ask? [/quote] I respond by saying that her opinion does count. But she never says, “This wall doesn’t exits” she simply just doesn’t mention it. To which you say: So Lee let us WEIGH the evidence here as you like to put it:
So how do you determine which side weighs more? Well according to Lee this whole process doesn’t matter. Even though he says he wants to “weigh the evidence” he concludes by saying he will only accept “acknowledged-by-consensus” which he interprets as: So unless everyone agrees, no position can have more “weight”?! And anyone who disagrees with the majority opinion is put on par with that opinion simply because they disagree? Mind you Nina Jidejian does NOT DISAGREE with my sources. She is silent on the subject. Therefore she adds no more credibility to your case than she does take away from mine.

Tell me, which side has more evidence Lee...which side weighs more? Can you find me ONE source that says this wall is a hoax set up by these scholars and tourists etc? I await your response.