FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-13-2006, 01:44 PM   #411
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default Farrell Till embarrasses prophecy buffs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Merrill
Ezekiel even said there would be fishermen there, spreading their nets.
I would be surprised if fisherman did not spread their nets to dry. Surely nets were spread to dry even before Nebuchadnezzar's attacks.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 05:58 PM   #412
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,074
Default

Hi everyone,

Quote:
Gullwind: What part of the text indicates the switch in meanings, Lee? Why does one refer to the physical city and one not? Why does the sinking refer to the physical city but never being found does not?
Well, I would reiterate what I said though, that the context of "never found" does not so reasonably apply to a geographical location. But sinking under waves would.

Quote:
Don, responding to Bfniii: Why switch back and forth from Tyre the city, Tyre the culture, Tyre the nation, Tyre the island Tyre the mainland, Tyre the people etc etc etc.
Well, as in the above considerations? It does seem reasonable to conclude that there are switches in reference in this passage.

Quote:
Johnny Skeptic: You said that it IS pretty impressive to predict that the island settlement is underwater, but on the other hand you agreed with me that it IS NOT pretty impressive.
Right, an event can be not unusual in general, but a specific prediction of that event in a certain place would be impressive, like predicting a comet impact in northern Poughkeepsie, though comet impacts happen all over the world, and one happening somewhere is not astonishing.

Quote:
Don: that it “broke off and sunk” and is still lost as prophesized (Ez 26:21, "though sought for you will never be found again". You still believe this right?
I wouldn’t necessarily insist on “broke off,” and as above, I hold that “not found” refers to the people and trade and culture, but yes, otherwise, this is my view here.

Quote:
Where does this site say the wall I mentioned doesn’t exist or is not Phoenician…
But where does it say that each ancient wall in the area is not Phoenician? Isn’t it easier to just catalog the parts that are considered Phoenician, and then let the rest be considered non-Phoenician by default?

Quote:
Where does this site say the wall I mentioned doesn’t exist…
I again acknowledge that the wall exists!

Quote:
Conclusion: Tourist sites are incompetent, inaccurate, unreliable or simply don’t share the significance scholars do…
I agree that they are not scholarly journal articles! I also hold that they are informed by archaeologists to some degree, and thus their opinions indicate to some measure the opinions of the archaeologists, it’s simply more evidence, but not the best evidence, I agree.

Quote:
All my sources are united in saying several things:
1. This wall exists.
2. This wall is Phoenician in origin
3. This wall is from the 5th century
4. This wall shows evidence of bombardment
And I acknowledge your sources! But I have been making counterarguments, after seeing all the above statements, so repeating the arguments I find not so convincing.

But did Chehab say the wall shows evidence of bombardment? Or that it was from the 5th century? And Pierre Bikai says Roman columns and arena are above the Phoenician fortress wall, which was (we are told elsewhere) built to the edge of the sea! How do you expect people to build on top of a wall at the edge of the sea, as in an archaeological layer, I would still like to hear. So I think your sources are perhaps not quite so consistent.

Quote:
You told us that Tyre does not resemble a “normal peninsula” but you have yet to explain what the [hay] a normal one is supposed to look like.
I did explain, though, silting and erosion would tend to smooth out the edges, and this seems not to be the case at Tyre.

Quote:
The trivial changes you cited in Nina’s 2nd edition do not resemble anything that was researched and updated.
Um, those were the very first two quotes I have from the first edition, do you want me to check some more? The second quote doesn’t exist at all in any form! That I can tell.

Now you seem to be concluding that the changes were all trivial, on what basis do you make this claim, please? I need to see the evidence for your conclusion.

Quote:
In fact all you need to do is quote the second editions preface that will list the updates.
As I have said before, this is not discussed in the second edition.

Quote:
If your copy doesn’t have one then the best assumption is that no updates were done…
I guess I need to check more quotes then. The third quote is exactly the same, yet it is on page 137, instead of on pages 81-82 (first edition). The fourth quote may have an extra sentence versus the first edition, though this may be quote compression by the person quoting Jidejian, and the second edition quote is on page 247, not page 122. Then there are two more quotes on very different pages each, and in the second quote, the second edition has “Abu’l–Fida” instead of “Abu’l-fiela” in the first edition, do I need to continue? The changes are not all incidental, and are made throughout, and where have all the extra pages come from? Though this might simply be due to retypesetting, I think probably not, if the difference is 120 pages in one instance. So this is not a reprint, with a bit of polish, instead, it is plainly a real new edition.

Quote:
But the only reason you deny it is because you do not see tourist websites and Nina Jidejian mentioning it.
Um, no, I have made other points. Columns on the sea bottom, earthquakes (documented!) in the area, and a fault line, the island of Hercules sinking offshore, and so on, these come to mind.

The lack of ruins near the pottery, the lack of hearing of reports of ruins after digging where they expect to find them, the claim that Roman ruins were on top of the walls (an arena!), these also come to mind here.

Shall I continue? The hotel site not replying to me when I asked about why they made their claim, Nina’s account of the very causeway that Chehab (not Cherab!) said had the Phoenician walls, so she must not have missed this claim somehow…

Quote:
That is why I prefer citing scholars who are experts in their field.
Me too, so then when the experts do seem to disagree, I think we have to not make firm conclusions.

Quote:
They apparently have not consulted Dr. Frost, Dr. Cherab. Dr. Patricia Bikai, Dr. Pierre Bikai, Dr. Joukowsky, Dr. Badawi et al…Good observation Lee.
Right, so let’s put this to the test, will you contact some of these tourist sites? You are the one with these references, and I have contacted a hotel so far, so it can be done! I’m still here to tell the tale, and have not yet sunk into the sea…

Quote:
… wouldn’t you at least think it reasonable that Nina would mention why she DISAGREES with the consensus of all these other scholars…given the fact that no one contests their findings?
Yes, if this were a hot topic when the book was written. Thus it would seem the question had been satisfactorily resolved in her opinion, at that time.

Quote:
Lee: Not necessarily, did Phoenicians not return afterwards? If so, then they built no wall?

Don: … it is a 5th century wall how could it be built AGAIN in the 4th century?
Maybe they could be off by like 50 years?

Quote:
Lee: even if this is a wall that was before Alex, if all the other parts of the fortress are now underwater, I think that also covers the prophecy pretty well.

Don: How?
Because it was also said to become a place to spread fishnets, so then part of it would have to have remained above water, and the rest could have sunk, as in the offshore island.

Quote:
Sven: I may point out that Lee's "argument" about the walls being not mentioned is a classical "Argument from Silence".
But if you can demonstrate that 1) Nina discussed the very pavement that Chahab claimed also had the Phoenician walls, and that 2) Nina most definitely would have mentioned those walls (it’s a book about ancient Tyre!) if she thought they were really Phonician, then that silence is significant.

It would be like writing a book about discoveries of the writings of Plato, and not mentioning an original autograph manuscript of his most famous piece.

Regards,
Lee
lee_merrill is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 06:46 PM   #413
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Well, I would reiterate what I said though, that the context of "never found" does not so reasonably apply to a geographical location. But sinking under waves would.
Why not? No one knew where Troy was until Schliemann found it. Until then it was "not found." All "never found" adds is no one ever finding it. Where were the original colonist settlements in Virginia? We've found some, but not all of them. They are currently "not found." If we never do (quite likely, given the expansion of urban areas), they will be "never found." It seems to apply to geographical locations quite well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Well, as in the above considerations? It does seem reasonable to conclude that there are switches in reference in this passage.
So in other words, it means whatever it needs to mean to be a fulfilled prophecy.
Gullwind is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 04:10 AM   #414
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default Farrell Till embarrasses prophecy buffs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
You said that it IS pretty impressive to predict that the island settlement is underwater, but on the other hand you agreed with me that it IS NOT pretty impressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeMerrill
Right, an event can be not unusual in general, but a specific prediction of that event in a certain place would be impressive, like predicting a comet impact in northern Poughkeepsie, though comet impacts happen all over the world, and one happening somewhere is not astonishing.
Wrong, the U.S. stock market is a specific stock market. When it was between 6,000 and 7,000 a man, I forget who, predicted that it would be 10,000 within several years. Almost everyone disagreed with him, including most Christians. His prediction came true, but I don't know of anyone that believes that his prediction was inspired by God. There are of course many other unusual predictions, some in science, that have come true that almost no one thought would come true.

Another problem for you is that the prophecy had no time limit. If I predicted that a specific small islet in the Atlantic Ocean would become covered with water, but put no time limit on my prediction, if the island became covered with water in say one billion years, would you be impressed? I doubt it. Within one billion years, or possibly much sooner, maybe all small islets, and all small islands for that matter, in the entire world will be covered with water due to global warming or other natural factors. Jesus has not returned to earth. If he still hasn't returned to earth in one billion years, and if you were still alive, would you give up Christianity?

Are you expert enough in evaluating statistics and cause/correlation to quantify the odds of thousands of events throughout human history coming true?
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 07:02 AM   #415
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here
Posts: 10,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
But if you can demonstrate that 1) Nina discussed the very pavement that Chahab claimed also had the Phoenician walls, and that 2) Nina most definitely would have mentioned those walls (it’s a book about ancient Tyre!) if she thought they were really Phonician, then that silence is significant.
Yeah, sure it's significant as long as one is somehow able to ignore all the evidence to the contrary.
Sven is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 09:11 AM   #416
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default Farrell Till embarrasses prophecy buffs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Merrill
I might even be able to make my case if I grant that this is a Phoenician wall! For then if all the rest of the ancient fortress is under the sea, or if the wall was built after the seige, why then I still think my case here holds.
No it doesn’t. You also said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Merrill
…an event can be not unusual in general, but a specific prediction of that event in a certain place would be impressive, like predicting a comet impact in northern Poughkeepsie, though comet impacts happen all over the world, and one happening somewhere is not astonishing.
Wrong, the U.S. stock market is a specific stock market. When it was between 6,000 and 7,000 a man, I forget who, predicted that it would be 10,000 within several years. Almost everyone disagreed with him, including most Christians. His prediction came true, but I don't know of anyone who believes that his prediction was inspired by God. There are of course many other unusual predictions that have come true, some in science, that almost no one thought would come true.

Another problem for you is that the prophecy had no time limit. If I predicted that a specific small islet in the Atlantic Ocean would become covered with water, but put no time limit on my prediction, if the island became covered with water in say one billion years, would you be impressed? I doubt it. Within one billion years, or possibly much sooner, maybe all small islets, and all small islands for that matter, in the entire world will be covered with water due to global warming or other natural factors.

Are you expert enough in evaluating statistics and cause/correlation to quantify the odds of thousands of events throughout human history coming true? You demonstrated your ineptness in this area some time ago in another thread when you made some comments on miracle healings. I guess to you anything that is very unusual is miraculous, right, including very unusual bad things, including things that happen to Muslims and Hindus?

You are obviously unaware that when very unusual things happen, those events do not beat the odds. Rather, they fulfill the odds. Mathematical probability states it is far more likely that very unusual things will sometimes occur than that they will never occur. The best evidence of a miracle would be if they never occurred, because only divine manipulation could prevent very unusual things from not occurring. Of course, very unusual things sometimes happen to animals and plants too. Miraculous, eh, Lee?

If God exists, do you ever wonder why his intention has been to not make prophecies more clear? What advantage could such behavior possibly be for God or for humans? I know, there have to be good reasons because you have to rubber stamp everything that God does or says so that you will get to enjoy a comfortable eternal life.

By the way, do you have any evidence that the version of the Tyre prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version? If it isn't the same, of what value are any of your posts? The last chapter of the book of Revelation warns against tampering with the texts. If tampering were not possible, there
would have been no need for the warnings. Of course, tampering with the texts has never been difficult, and it would be quite easy today for some skeptics to rewrite parts of the Bible, take it to some remote jungle regions, and pass it off as a copy of the original.

Would God allow his word to be tampered with? Of course he would. Ample proof of that is that he has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without ever having heard the Gospel message. An inerrant Bible is most certainly no more valuable than no Bible at all as far as those people were concerned.

When I was young I once read that 10,000 people in the world died of starvation every day. So, we know that God not only does not have any interest in spreading the Gospel message in a timely fashion, but he also does not have any interest in the tangible needs of billions of people.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 06:12 PM   #417
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,074
Default

Hi everyone,

Quote:
Gullwind: Why not? No one knew where Troy was until Schliemann found it.
Because the context of the statement in Ezekiel does not fit well with a meaning of geography.

Quote:
Lee: Well, as in the above considerations? It does seem reasonable to conclude that there are switches in reference in this passage.

Gullwind: So in other words, it means whatever it needs to mean to be a fulfilled prophecy.
Well, no, actually, the other words are reasons for concluding this.

Quote:
Lee: … an event can be not unusual in general, but a specific prediction of that event in a certain place would be impressive, like predicting a comet impact in northern Poughkeepsie …

Johnny Skeptic: Wrong, the U.S. stock market is a specific stock market. When it was between 6,000 and 7,000 a man, I forget who, predicted that it would be 10,000 …
So then the stock market getting to this level is as about as probable as a comet impact somewhere specific?

Quote:
Another problem for you is that the prophecy had no time limit. If I predicted that a specific small islet in the Atlantic Ocean would become covered with water, but put no time limit on my prediction, if the island became covered with water in say one billion years, would you be impressed?
I would think the prophecy was intended for a smaller interval, though, that Ezekiel’s readers would not have thought a billion years was at all under consideration.

Quote:
Are you expert enough in evaluating statistics and cause/correlation to quantify the odds of thousands of events throughout human history coming true?
You seem to be claiming some ability to evaluate such estimates, though, and make comparisons.

Quote:
By the way, do you have any evidence that the version of the Tyre prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version?
Well, Johnny, if you want to open many more questions, I would recommend to you to open many more threads, the question before us here was about the text we have before us now...

Regards,
Lee
lee_merrill is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 06:44 PM   #418
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Because the context of the statement in Ezekiel does not fit well with a meaning of geography.
Really? Let's see, shall we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezekiel 26:19-21
19For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;

20When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;

21I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.
"Make thee a desolate city," that sounds pretty physical, doesnt it? It's hard to imagine referring to a trading empire as desolate, especially since the next line is "like the cities that are not inhabited." That has to be physical. The next part deals with the island sinking, but you obviously agree that is physical.

Verse 20 is somewhat metaphorical, but deals with the city becoming uninhabited. I don't see anything that refers to the trading empire, do you?

Verse 21 says "thou" shall be no more, sought but never found.

Everywhere else, "thou" has been Tyre, and elements belonging to Tyre were referred that way, such as "thy walls, thy gates, thy streets." Yet you are now trying to claim that all of a sudden "thou" does not refer to the city, but to an element belonging to Tyre. Specifically, what about the context here indicates such a change in focus? I don't see it. Care to enlighten the rest of us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Well, no, actually, the other words are reasons for concluding this.
You mean the ones that didn't happen the way its written, so they must mean something else?
Gullwind is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 08:44 PM   #419
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default Farrell Till embarrasses prophecy buffs

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic
By the way, do you have any evidence that the version of the Tyre prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Merrill
Well, Johnny, if you want to open many more questions, I would recommend to you to open many more threads, the question before us here was about the text we have before us now...
Just one question, not many questions, and the most important question of all. The issues that you are debating are completely irrelevant unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. Even if you win the current debates, you will still eventually lose until you successfully deal with my question. This is just simple logic.

You ought to already know that no skeptic at these forums ever publicly gives up skepticism because of anything that you write. The undecided crowd ought to be your main intended audience, and they are wondering why you won’t answer my question. Actually, some of them must already know that you are well aware that you cannot successfully answer my question, and they know that my question deserves as answer.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 11:11 PM   #420
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
But my statement here was granted that it’s underwater, if I can make my case here, that’s pretty impressive for a prediction!
Not really. Low lying areas and islands rise and fall often, so having that happen would not be impressive. What these areas DON'T do, however, is:

* sink entire cities under the water without anybody noticing their absence, and then
* elevate those same areas back above the water, just in the nick of time to be
* rebuilt by the very same people who used to live in the city before it sank

Which is pretty much what your crackpot idea requires.

Quote:
Noah: Remember Lee, you have no evidence.

Ahem. Could I say this by way of reply? “Remember Noah, you have no evidence.” But this is not much of a discussion.
No, you could not say it, for two reasons:
1. Noah doesn't need evidence - you are the claimant, not noah;
2. Noah has already provided far more evidence, even though he didn't have to do so

Quote:
If there is a Phoenician wall, then the prophecy fails.

Right, thus the argument that the wall is not Phoenician.
"thus the argument", eh?

1. Well, I'm glad you admit that the only reason you making that argument is to avoid watching the prophecy fail.

2. And of course, making an argument without offering any proof isn't going to work. The experts clearly indicate that the wall is Phoenician; therefore, the desperate speculation of one solitary uninformed christian are not enough to cast doubt.

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

Well, I think that is your job, to defend the proposal of these possibilities!
I'm sure you do -- however, you are the one tossing out the what-ifs in an attempt to refute the evidence that the wall is PHoenician. The burden of proof is still yours.

Quote:
I am not required to defend your view, or to prove your points.
And apparently you aren't planning on defending your own view, or proving your own points, either.

Quote:
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.”
As usual, you leave out important context. Your originally attempted to say that the rubble in the water proved that the island sunk. As long as there are other possibilities for the rubble in the water, then your attempt to draw a proof here fails.

I don't have to prove that ANY of these things happened. All I have to do is show that you have failed to account for all of hte possibilities, before you tried to summarily declare that Tyre sunk. And, of course, as I said before: as soon as you get off your lazy ass and provide proof for your many what-if scenarios and speculations, at that point -- and not before -- you'll be in a position to demand proof from others.

You always forget these points. Deliberately, of course -- you don't want anyone to realize what an intellectually dishonest person you are. But I am here to remind you.

Quote:
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
Wrong. Your job is to back up your claim that the rubble proves that Tyre sunk. In order to do that, you need to rule out other possible causes for the rubble being in the water. And since my list of other possible causes is far more accurate and historically sound, it's no wonder that you are avoiding this. You know that your crackpot idea won't stand close historical scrutiny.

Quote:
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.
Sadly, it does not make your argument stronger. Tyre is an island with a mercantile focus - do you get that point yet? As each successive city era or empire came, they would have cleared (urban renovated) the previous buildings of the city because real estate was at a premium.

Quote:
of the great stone breakwaters and jetties of the ancient Phoenician port...

But these are just rocks in the sea to keep the waves from crashing onto the shore, these are not buildings.
Really? Says who, lee? YOU? Are you pretending to be an "ancient maritime expert" again, lee? Haven't we told you the dangers of making shit up as you go? Haven't you been embarrassed enough by trying to speak as an expert on subjects that you didn't even know existed until five minutes ago?

Consider Tyre's sister-city, Carthage: another Phoenician maritime power. Carthage had an intricate jetty/breakwater system:



So considering that breakwaters and jetties in the ancient world (especially the Phoenician ones) were renowned for their complexity as well as engineering skill, you're going to need to support your claim that these were just "rocks in the sea and not buildings."

Quote:
Nor does one archaeologist mention the wall Don mentions here,
1. Tourist websites are not a source for good archaeological data - you seem to prefer your sources based upon how easy they are for you to obtain, as opposed to how authoritative they are;
2. Since you haven't surveyed all the tourist sites on the market, you really aren't qualified to say whether these walls are being advertised or not;
3. The wall may not be open to the public, in which case there is no reason for a tourist site to mention something that was off-limits to tourists;
4. I already told you that the Lebanese govt has reasons to downplay any Phoenician finds;
5. The wall may have been discovered after the tourist website blindly copied the text that you trust so heavily

In short, your argument from silence is not convincing.

Quote:
“Lots” however, is not a number, nor is it an argument.
Of course it's an argument - it's the same caliber of argument as your initial claim was. Your original claim was that you doubted any ancients botheed to record earthquakes, but as usual you failed to support that statement.

Given that, it's fair for your opponent to respond by saying "Lots got recorded." After all, you haven't supported your initial claim about the frequency of ancient societies recording earthquakes. Until you do that, nobody owes you much more than "lots".

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

Neat, so then have they applied them at Tyre?
That's something you should check into, since you're the one with the fantasy claim about an earthquake sinking the city.

Quote:
But let’s see…
Generic references to earthquakes are not sufficient to prove your case. You need:

1. an earthquake
2. at Tyre
3. at the time in question;
4. that sank the city; AND
5. some mechanism for getting the city to rise above the water again

Quote:
Well, there you have it! An earthquake recorded in this region.
*yawn* so many games you play....

There have also been earthquakes in Seattle. But the debris at the bottom of Lake Washington and in Union Bay didn't get there as a result of Seattle sinking.

An earthquake in 500 AD still doesn't help you. You need:

1. an earthquake
2. at Tyre
3. at the time in question;
4. that sank the city; AND
5. some mechanism for getting the city to rise above the water again

Quote:
”However, I don't know of any cities that sank into the sea.”

Which would not have been so much noticed, if Tyre had been abandoned at the time of such an earthquake,
However, there have been no such times in Tyrian history, so your premise is broken, right out of the starting gate. Moreover, Tyre was a regional power for centuries. If it had sunk, it would have been noticed by the neighboring civilizations.

Quote:
and archaeologist Renan did record seeing the city there as “Ruins built out of ruins.”
Uh, no.......you are merely misquoting Jidejian's comments about Renan again. Not only are you misquoting these comments, but you can't keep the chronology straight. Renan published his volume on research at Tyre in 1864. But you need a period of desolation much earlier. So his observations about Tyre are useless to you. Why? Because they're from a time period that was 23 centuries LATER than what you need to prove your crackpot idea.

Quote:
Please provide proof of your claim that a peninsula must look like Florida.

But what I meant was that the edges get rounded by erosion and silting, which is not the appearance of the coast at Tyre,
1. Says who? The island looks fairly rounded to me. It's all a matter of scaling.

2. You are still stuck with the problem that you claimed a peninsula had to take that shape. Who says so, lee? Who says that rounded edges are a requirement to be a peninsula? That's not what the dictionary definition says, nor is it the standard that geographers use. Are you making up another requirement out of the clear blue sky again, lee? Why, of course you are, silly us! :rolling:

3. But of course if you insist, then I have to point out that the following peninsulas also do not look like their edges were rounded by erosion and silting. It's not the appearance of Kenai, either.


Nor is it the appearance of Crimea:


Nor does the northwest peninsula of Iceland look like that:


See what happens when you make up criteria on the fly? :rolling:

Quote:
and Cypress is too large to be a proper counter-example.
Says who, lee? How did you decide that Cyprus was too large? What's the maximum size for a comparable island? What educational background do you have, that would allow you to make such a statement with any authority?

None. As usual, you make up whatever random criteria you need to reject valid counterexamples to your claims.

Quote:
… why have you not explained why no historian or geologist or geographer or contemporary observer has ever noted Tyre sinking because of an earthquake?

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,
Uh, no he isn't. He is an apologist, with no training in history or geology.

Quote:
and arguably a historian (as one of his hats! He wore many, as I have seen).
What a crock. He is not "arguably" a historian; that is merely your dishonest tactic to try and semantically lower the bar so you can get your favorite source accepted along with actual, bonified historians and archaeologists. Archer is a theologian and apologist, with a background in divinity studies. Nothing more.


Quote:
I need to see acknowledged-by-consensus Phoenician walls, for starters.

Noah: 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.

This is your evidence for your claim?! Joe’s evidence for his view is that Jim has no proof of some other view?
In the first place, you don't "need" to see anything. What you need to do is provide evidence for your claims. The Phoenician walls are there, above the water line, falsifying your silly idea. Your attempt to create doubt by sliding the phrase 'acknowledged by consensus' is transparently desperate. What's more, having read the rest of the thread it's obvious that dongiovanni1976x positively waxes the floor with you, by demonstrating the consensus of archaeologists and historians on this point.

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

Wait, may we not conclude they have not yet found the ruins they were digging for?
Why would we conclude that, without knowing the facts of the situation? you are the only one here around here who builds layer after layer of argument upon assumptions.

Your claim was that finding the ruins was less probable. But you don't even know what it was they have found already. Your speculation is empty.

Quote:
Each of those scenarios is plausible and historical.

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.
Nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you, the claimant here. Your job is to back up your claim that the rubble proves that Tyre sunk. In order to do that, you need to rule out other possible causes for the rubble being in the water. And since my list of other possible causes is far more accurate and historically sound, it's no wonder that you are avoiding this. You know that your crackpot idea won't stand close historical scrutiny.


Quote:
And I have presented evidence that is in disagreement, so now what?
No, lee; don't be silly. You have not presented any evidence. Don has presented evidence, but you have only waved your hands and speculated. That isn't evidence.

Quote:
Well, we have to weigh the evidence, and see what is most likely, for a conclusion.
We've already done that. The evidence says that your idea is loony, and if you were really intersted in what was "most likely", then you would have jettisoned it long ago.

Quote:
Archaeologists have mentioned these very jetties, without mentioning blah blah blah....
And again: an argument from the silence of your 3 or 4 preferred tourist websites is not an argument at all.

Quote:
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”?

All other sites I have seen have not mentioned this wall, though,
But as we've seen, you don't trouble yourself to do very much thorough reading on the matter. So the sites you've seen isn't a very good sampling of the available data out there.

Quote:
and Nina’s opinion does not count? Why not, may I ask?
Because she never offered an opinion on this. If you think she did, then repeat it here. In point of fact, we don't even know if she was aware of this wall when she wrote her book. If not, then it's not surprising that no special mention was made.

Quote:
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.
In point of fact, we have no evidence that there were any changes to the book between the first and second printing. You've tried to claim that several times, but each time I ask for proof you've failed to give any. Will you be giving any proof now, or will this be more of the same ducking and evasion?
Sauron is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:59 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.