Gullwind

Call me a glutton for punishment, but from the limited view given in the picture, I would venture to guess you are looking west towards the Coromandel Peninsula, near Auckland, New Zealand. The specific location is hard to pin down without a more accurate picture or chart than I was able to find in a brief search.

Do I win anything? :huh:

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, we still need to discuss why they would or would not sail far enough out from the coast, in deep enough water, so that they would not need to know where every reef and rock was.

Certainly it would be, for those trying to steer into the harbor. I remain skeptical(!) that we have any ancient maps of the area of Tyre.

Do we have any historical record of the destruction of Pompeii by a volcano?

A link is better than a book? I would expect the opposite. I have ordered the Nina book, by the way, and an Arrian book, and I have actually used some links, one to a post in this thread, accidently not realizing the source! But still using the evidence there.

Yes, it is a limited view, that does make it more difficult. I would guess this is looking south, but not because I can match up the coastline, that's just the way the coast seems to run here. I could be wrong, and you might be right! But that was why I proposed the test, it's not at all easy to tell the outline of a coast by looking at it from sea level, even with satellite images, much less with hand-drawn ancient maps.

One kudo from Lee, redeemable for one Browser Cookie!

Regards,
Lee

noah

Yes Lee. We do have historical records of the destruction of Pompeii:

At all period in Roman history supplementary material is available from a variety of other sources, from Greek writers, from Latin and also Greek inscriptions, from early material embedded in the writings of several of the church fathers (Jerome and Augustine), from inscriptions, from coins, brickstamps with the Imperial names, and archaeological digs as at Pompeii. Sifting through mountains of such information, one finds the account of what went on in the Roman world becoming understandable, but one should remember that in terms of what is required for the study of modern historical epoches (e.g. Czarist Russia, the French Revolution, the American Civil War), the historical accounts of Rome are totally deficient. In this sense, we have in Roman History a kind of history in which every sliver of pertinent information is studied and restudied with the greatest attention, a discipline in which we cannot afford to miss anything. On the other hand, in the study of the history of recent times, the confronting problem is one of selection, which is necessary in order to make sense out of files far greater than any historian can read in a lifetime.

http://community.middlebury.edu/~har...istorians.html

Pliny the Elder (23 AD -79 AD)
Pliny was a Roman writer and encyclopedist, who was the foremost authority on science in ancient Europe. He was born as Gaius Plinius Secundus in Novum Comum, which is now called Como in modern Italy. At an early age he and his family moved to Rome.

When Pliny was 23 years old, he entered the army, serving in a campaign in Germania. Returning to Rome in AD 52, he studied legal jurisprudence, but, being unsuccessful as an advocate he devoted himself to study and writing.

From about 70 to 72 he served in Spain as procurator, or collector of imperial revenues. In 79, when the great eruption of Vesuvius overwhelmed and destroyed Herculaneum and Pompeii, he was stationed at Misenum, near Naples, in command of the western Roman fleet. Eager to examine the volcanic phenomenon more closely, he sailed across the bay of Naples to Stabiae, where he died from suffocation due to a volcanic eruption.

http://nabataea.net/ahistor.html

Geologic Processes

Vesuvius is lying on a fault in Italy that is caused by the subduction of the African Plate beneath the Eurasian Plate. As a result, the Meditteranean Sea is growing smaller and the Appenine Mountains are being uplifted. Vesuvius has formed on a fracture vent, possibly under the waters of the Bay of Naples. It is about 10,000 years old, a very young volcano within the scheme of geologic time. In the years proceeding the eruption in A.D. 79, Romans had recorded a series of earthquakes. Little did they realize what destruction was about to happen. Since the mountain had been dormant for centuries and covered in vegetation, its dangers lay sleepiing beneath a placid surface.

http://www.earlham.edu/~karlajo/jkgeo.htm

Gullwind

Charts as accurate as possible of every foot of coast were necessary because they never knew where they might get blown by a storm, or where they might have to put in to make repairs, or acquire fresh water, or just to let the captain's dog do his business. Do you actually think that sailors only need to know the position of every rock and reef in the areas where they are supposed to be? Trust me. Sailors have a habit of going all manner of places where they are NOT supposed to be.

Yeah, south or west. Its hard to tell from one picture with a relatively limited view. I can guarantee you, though, that with a panoramic picture and a nautical chart I could plot the postition to within a few yards. And not from the coastline, either. There is a lot more to terrestrial navigation than just the coastline, which can change with the tides. Rocks, islands, even trees and structures can all be used, by aligning them with other objects farther away and comparing them to the chart. The more accurate the chart (as in the more information you have about things like islands sinking), the more accurate the position. Accuracy means better postions, which means less time spent going places you don't have to go, which means more profits. Accuracy is money.

meforevidence

Sauron: The linguistic washing machine - whenever a word gets passed through several languages on its way to English, it often gets changed linguistically. Many of the original forms of names (Egyptian, Persian, etc.) get changed when the Hebrews transcribed them. They got changed again in the Greek or Latin. So they've been through at least two cycles of being Hebraicized or Hellenized, before arriving to English. For example, the English name Cyrus comes from the Hebrew Kurash. But the original person was Kshatriyah.
Kshatriyah --> Kurash --> Cyrus.

Same thing is true here. You have an original Phoenician city, that the Hebrews named, and then that name was transcribed into Greek. It's entirely normal for the name to get mangled up as a result of that process. This happens in all languages.

Response: This is not the same. The above example is not sufficient because in perhaps every example you may be speaking of, the names were changed in several different books, times, and places. The example I am using is within the same place, time, and book. In one case, it is within the same chapter. Another book of the age supports my statement. You have said you do not know about the book of Judith. Here is just a what part of a chapter in the book of Judith reads:
Judith 2: 27 “Then he went down into the plain of Damascus in the time of wheat harvest, and burnt up all their fields, and destroyed their flocks and herds, also he spoiled their cities, and utterly wasted their countries, and smote all their young men with the edge of the sword. 28 Therefore the fear and dread of him fell upon all the inhabitants of the sea coasts, which were in Sidon and Tyrus, and them that dwelt in Sur and Ocina, and all that dwelt in Jemnaan; and they that dwelt in Azotus and Ascalon feared him greatly.�
It does not take a scholar to read the sentence above and see that “Sur� was a different place than Tyre and it was located on the coast along with the other cities.

Sauron: No, it is not. Sur is just another way of spelling Tyre.Sauron: And as I already explained, that proves nothing. We know that there are variant spellings in the Greek text.

Response: Again you are wrong on this one. Throughout the ages, Sor has become synonymous with Tyre, but in the time of the writings of Judith and the LXX, it was two different words that do not have the same root word. In your statement about the usage of Tyre and Tyrus, we must remember that there was the city of Tyre and the district of Tyre. In every case though, the same root word was used (even in the Greek). This is not the case with Sor and Tyre.

Sauron: Your own source refutes you. (I can't copy it here because the PDF text won't copy, but the interlinear clearly states in 26:4 that Sur
• will become a smooth rock,
• a place for refreshing dragnets,
• in the midst of the sea; and that
• her daughters in the plain will be done away with
The Greek interlinear says all this about Sur - the name of the town that you claim was supposedly just on the mainland. But the comments above clearly indicate that the island city is being talked about. This is especially clear with the last point; "her daughters in the plain" only makes sense from the perspective of the *island city*.

Response: My source does not refute myself. The mainland of Sur did become as a smooth rock, a place for the refreshing of dragnets (which may be photographed even today) its stones, timber and dust were cast in the midst of the sea (note: they were not already in the midst of the sea.), and the daughter cities on the mainland not the daughter city that was an island would also suffer as she did.

Quote:
In the LXX interlinear, Ezekiel 27:32 it reads: “{Shall take their sons over you a lamentation} and a wailing, Sor, who is as Tyre, observing silence in the middle of the sea.� So we see in the Greek Text that Sor is compared with Tyre and there would be a lamentation for her because she will be cast into the sea.

Sauron: This is a turn of phrase; you are mistaking a turn of phrase. IT is as if a verse said "blessings upon David, even the lord's beloved" - and you assumed that (1) David and (2) the lord's beloved must be two different people. The turn of phrase indicates that they are the same. That is why the English translation of Ezekiel 27:32 -- the verse you are focusing on -- reads as follows (Young's Literal Translation):
You've built an entire argument based upon your unfortunate misunderstanding of a turn of phrase.

Response: This is not the same thing. Let’s look at your example.
“David� = “the Lord’s beloved� is understood by the context and not by the words having the same definition. In other words, the two phrases or words become synonymous only by context, not definition or using the same words (like you are trying to make Tyre and Sur be).
“Tyre� = “Sor� is different. By your example you would be saying that the two words are only synonymous by context and not by the same definition or word which would contradict your earlier statement that the words are the same.

Sauron:
We are *not* discussing the language of the time. We are discussing the Greek translation of Hebrew documents written hundreds of years before the Alexandrian effort. It was a Greek effort full of errors, stretched out over decades. And those Hebrew documents described a Phoenician city - all reasons to suspect variant spellings. (As if the Origen reference from Britannica wasn't sufficient.)

Response: We are discussing the language of the time. The earliest translation we have is the Aramaic script tablets which support the Greek LXX. The Hebrews pretty much lost their language during the Babylonian captivity. When Cyrus decreed that they return, most of them knew only Greek and Aramaic. You have no proof of an earlier Hebrew script because there has not been one found yet. I agree that many of the books would have been copied from an earlier Hebrew text, but there has not been any found. Furthermore, since Ezekiel prophesied during the Babylonian captivity, the language was mostl likely aramaic. The earliest forms of the book of Ezekiel we have are the cuneiform Aramaic tablets which agree with the Greek Septuagint.


Sauron: I don't know about Judith, but the LXX does not separate them. You're confused.

Response: I am not confused. The language is clear and simple. Four different cities of the coastlands are named in Judith, and the words “Sur� and “Tyre� are absolutely two different words in the Greek text and Aramaic Text (the languages used at the time). There is nothing difficult about that.

Sauron: This has caused you to mistake a variant spelling for a different city. But even in the KJV, we have Tyre as well as Tyrus:

JER 25:22 And all the kings of Tyrus, and all the kings of Zidon, and the kings of the isles which are beyond the sea,

JOS 19:29 And then the coast turneth to Ramah, and to the strong city Tyre; and the coast turneth to Hosah; and the outgoings thereof are at the sea from the coast to Achzib:

Variant spellings do not indicate a second location.

The original context -- as demonstrated above -- shows that Sur was the island city.

Response: You are using the KJV again which derived from a text written between 350 and 500 A.D. The original text of Jos 19:29 reads: 29 And the borders shall turn back to Rama, and to the fountain of Masphassat, and the [B]Tyrians;[/B] Furthermore, in each case you are using, they each have the same root word. No part of Sor in the Greek text has the same root word as Tyre, Tyrus, Tyrians, etc.

Meforevidence: The KJV version differs from the original Greek though.

Sauron: And in some places the LXX is wrong, or is not the best translation - all bible translators are aware of that fact. Your unquestioning allegiance to the LXX only demonstrates that you either don't know the history of its creation, or you don't care that it has mistakes in it.

Response: It seems that it is only wrong where you are trying to use the KJV to prove your point. It is obvious that I know more about the history of the LXX than you do. It becomes funnier how you are beginning to sound more like a fundamentalist Protestant than I do by depending on the KJV so much. And speaking of mistakes, the KJV has many more than the LXX. Even the earliest Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the LXX. Most true Bible scholars agree with that.

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

Wrong. Young's literal translation again:

Response: You are wrong. Again you are using a concordance based on the Masoretic text written hundreds of years after the LXX was written. Here is what the verse reads from the LXX: Jos 19:29 reads: 29 And the borders shall turn back to Rama, and to the fountain of Masphassat, and the Tyrians;
It is like playing the gossip game. The more it is passed around, the more it changes. You should go back to the original text (or at least the oldest one we have to this day).

Sauron: You skipped the reference to Tyrus in Jeremiah. Let me remind you that it is yet another example of a variant spelling for Tyre.

Response: I did look up the word in Jeremiah in the Greek and it appears three times in the LXX. Ch 25:22) (Ch. 27:3) and (Ch. 47:4) and in all three places, the word is the same and is simply "Tyre". They each read “Tyre.� There is no difference even in the Greek. Your problem is you continue to use the modern versions aand translations.
The book of Jeremiah is shorter than the Masoretic version of Jeremiah and is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls.


Sauron: Furthermore, we know that there were variant spellings in the Septuagint; so many, in fact, that Origen had to work to clean them up. Assuming that the 70 translators working on the Septuagint deliberately intended such a difference as "Tyre" vs. "Sur" simply goes against what we know of the history of the creation of the Septuagint.
I don't know how much he changed. But the fact that you are worried about it suggests that you believe the LXX is some kind of perfect and flawless document, against which all others should be referenced.

Response: I am not worried at all. I am confident about using the LXX. I am definitely more confident using it than the KJV. It was what Jesus and the disciples quoted. It was written closer to the time period we are discussing, and there are fewer contradictions. What could possible make me worry about that? I agree it is not flawless, but it definitely is less flawless than any other complete text we have today (except perhaps the Samaritan Pentateuch which agrees with the LXX in the majority of the cases).

Sauron: 1. By putting the text into Greek, they already moved away from the original text -- in a big way.

Response: They found the cuneiform Aramaic tablets which agree with the Greek. Ezekiel lived during the Babylonian captivity and so used the common languages of the time which were Aramaic and Greek. Since archeologists have found those tablets dated to that period, there is probably no older version, so what did they “move away from�?

Sauron: The Greek text of the LXX would have transcribed the Hebrew metaphor. So the prophetic metaphor originally existed in Hebrew, and was transcribed into Greek for the Hellenized Jews of the period.

Response: This was discussed above. There is no early Hebrew that we know of.

Sauron: The fact that the Hebrews include the metaphor in the Masoretic text only lends weight to my argument -- to wit, that the metaphor was a Hebrew one to begin with. Here's another Hebrew metaphor that got transcribed to Greek: "the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." You've find that one in the LXX, and in the Masoretic text. But the metaphor itself is Hebrew, not Greek.

Response: We do not disagree on the metaphor style, however, even though the metaphor is Hebrew, the language and writings were not.

Sauron: Finally, the Masoretic text does not put any "stamp of approval" on the phony distinction you are trying to create between "Tyre" and "Sur."


Response: Although it can be helpful for me to use the Maroetic text at times, it is sufficient for me that the LXX, the Aramaic Script tablets and the book of Judith DO put a “stamp of approval� on Tyre and Sur being two separate cities. It is as clear that there is a distinction both in the LXX and the book of Judith. You said that you do not know much about the book of Judith. It is easy for any person to see that the writer of the time understood clearly that “Sur� and “Tyre� are two separate places.



Sauron: And since Ezekiel's prophecy requires the destruction of the island by Nebuchadnezzar, the prophecy failed. From my document on this topic, written as a rebuttal to Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In this piece, I am rebutting McDowell's attempt to restrict the Ezekiel prophecy to just the mainland colonies:

Response: It did not require the destruction of the island because Sor was not the island.


Sauron: I agree - it did not happen that way to the island. However, the *prophecy* says that it was SUPPOSED to happen that way to the island city of Tyre. The island city was SUPPOSED to be destroyed. But Nebuchadnezzar was not able to do that - and so, that is why the prophecy failed.

Response: You are right that this did not happen to Tyre. It happened to Sor. They were not the same city. Furthermore, the text in Ezekiel 26 and 27 does not use the word “island� when speaking of Sur.

Sauron: Yes, but you are trying to force-fit the prophecy into the historical record. That is cheating. The prophecy says that the island was going to be destroyed, ALONG WITH the daughter colonies on the mainland. That is why Ezekiel speaks both of the island, as well as the daughters in the field.

Response: It never said “the island� was going to be destroyed. What is worse, cheating or lying? It said Sor (which is the mainland) would be destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Sor and later, Alexander the Great took what was left of it and threw it into the sea to reach the “island� of Tyre.


Sauron: Destroying only the mainland colonies is not sufficient to prove the prophecy was fulfilled; especially since the island city of Tyre was the main prize - not the minor colonies on the mainland.


Response: It is sufficient since the city he was speaking of (Sor) was only on the mainland. Sor was very near the island. The island of Tyre also depended on Sor for their water which had fresh water springs. There was definitely a great connection between the two cities, but Sor was not Tyre.
I also gave references for people to look for themselves the text used at the time that the word “island� was used for Tyre in Isaiah 23. Your response was:

Sauron: Those are just reference sites for searchable versions of the LXX. That's not proof for your claims, though. You have four claims wrapped up in that paragraph, none of which are true.

Response: Those references are sufficient evidence of the word “island� being used. You can not provide an earlier text that reads differently.



Sauron: It was not conquered - not until Alexander, and even then only temporarily. 18 years later it was back in business and up to full speed.


Response: Sor was conquered. The evidence is that when years later Alexander the Great wanted to conquer the island of Tyre, he used the ruins of Sor to do so.

Sauron

WHY CAN'T YOU USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION, MEFOREVIDENCE?

1. Incorrect; this is the same. The linguistic evidence here (Grimm's law) as well as the fact that the initial letter of this name can be transcribed two different ways are easily demonstrated.

2. Secondly, the names were not "changed" at all - there is simply a variant spelling. Nor is there any pattern that would suggest deliberate change.

True, but irrelevant, since it does not prove your case. All you are demonstrating is that one particular writer used one variant spelling. We have other examples of that in various books where a particular writer favored one spelling over another. That does not demonstrate that two different places (or people) are being described, however.

Utter nonsense, for several reasons:

1. Stating that a book dates from the same period is not proof that such a place existed - and that ignores the fact that the book of Judith is known to have problems with history and geography (more to follow);

2. This paragraph clearly describes Sidon and Tyrus as "inhabitants" of the sea coast. It then goes on to list other cities, whose identification is not clear, and given that this "Sur" is linked to Azotus and Ascalon,

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

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

And:
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/judith.html

In the third place the text names (v. 28) the coastal towns, where the fate of DAMASCUS raises a panic. Most of these names create no problems:

Sidon = saidã
Tyrus = sûr
Jemnaa = Jamnia ….
Azotus = isdûd ….
Ascalon = 'asqalãn ….
Some mss. add: Gaza = ghazzeh.

The remaining two are obscure. ocina seems to have been somewhere between Tyrus and Jemnaa and is for this reason usually identified with 'acco = 'akkã …. Sour, which neither because of the name itself nor on the ground of its location … can be reasonably considered to render Hebrew "dor" …is probably but a duplicate of TYRUS (cp. Hebr: Sor).It is possible that the distinction between the island-city and the settlement on the mainland (Palaetyrus) accounts for the duplication.

1. Incorrect. They are the same word - for the reasons I have given.

2. It is true that you are now trying to put forth such a hypothesis of two different words. But pretending that such a distinction existed "throughout the ages" this is the case is sheer grandiose hogwash.

3. There are numerous documents that date from the period that fail to make such a distinction; moreover we have documents that specifically indicate that the mainland colonies are considered part of Tyre. For that reason alone, the hypothesis you are trying to push is defeated.

4. You entire case rests on a variant spelling in the LXX, and a non-canonical book that we already know has atrocious geography; i.e., Nebuchadnezzar did not have a capital at Nineveh, etc.

So difficult have commentators found it to secure an historical locus for the events described in the Book of Judith that the almost universal tendency today has become to relegate it to the somewhat meaningless category of "historical fiction", as some kind of literary fusion of all the enemies (Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, etc.) with whom ancient Israel ever had to contend. This is not entirely surprising in that whoever might aspire to show the historicity of the book tends to choke right at the start, with verse 1:1:"It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchednezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. In those days Arphaxad ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana". At first appearance, we have here a great Babylonian king, "Nebuchednezzar", ruling over an Assyrian capital city, "Nineveh", that had ceased to exist several years before Nebuchednezzar's rule. And that Babylonian king, in Assyria, will in that very year - as we learn a bit further on in verse 5 - make war on the Medes, who were in fact the allies of Nebuchednezzar; the Medes in Judith being ruled by "Arphaxad", a historical unknown. And, to complete this historical potpourri, Nebuchednezzar's commander-in-chief, introduced into the narrative in chapter 2, will be found to have a name that is considered to be Persian, "Holofernes", as will be thought to be the case also with his chief eunuch, "Bagoas". No wonder then that earlier commentators had sought for the book's historical locus in periods ranging over hundreds of years. "Attempts have been made to identify the Nebuchadnezzar of the story with Assurbanipal, Xerxes I, Artaxerxes Ochus, Antiochus Epiphanes: Arphaxad with Deioces or Phraortes" [1].

And the Catholic Encyclopedia lists similar problems of relying too heavily on the historical or geographical accuracy of the book of Judith:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08554a.htm

Yes, your source does refute you, sad to say. And trying to tie these four bullet points to the mainland colonies does not work. You are ignoring key points of the text in order to try and keep your hypothesis afloat. Once again, the text says that Sur:

1. will become a smooth rock - that applies to the island, not the mainland city. An island colony, even if destroyed, is not a smooth rock; Tyre was the rock, not the mainland colony. It makes no sense to try and apply that to the mainland city, especially since "Tyre" literally means "rock" and thus the verbal pun would need to be completed - a point I already outlined ;

2. "in the midst of the sea" - again, applies to the island, since by definition the colonies on the mainland are not located "in the midst of the sea" - that would be the island that could make such a claim;

3. "a place for refreshing dragnets" - again, the island, not the mainland. Why? Because what the text actually says is It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea. So even if modern-day mainland Tyre can be photographed with spread fishnets all over the shore, that does not satisfy the text above. The place for doing all this fishnet spreading is itself a place in the midst of the sea - which can only be the island city.

4. "daughters on the mainland" - if "Sor" referred to the mainland in the first place, then this prophecy wouldn't make sense; the mainland colonies WOULD BE the daughters. Therefore this prediction only makes sense if it is spoken against the island city, which itself had "daughters on the mainland."

1. But that is your personal attempt to re-word the prophecy. The actual text doesn't say that the building materials would be in the midst of the sea, nor is that really even relevant. The text says that the city: It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea

2. "Not the daughter city that was an island???" You have that reversed. The island city was not the daughter city; your history is flawed.


No. They are understood as being the same thing once you realize that there is a linguistic turn of phrase, a Hebraicism, where two things can be equated if they are separated by the word "even":

And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water.
[...]
And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he talked with him, even a pillar of stone: and he poured a drink offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon.
[...]
And he took some of his brethren, even five men, and presented them unto Pharaoh.
[...]
Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:
[...]
Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

The pattern is: [item 1] even [item 2]

So "even" can be translated as "that is to say", "specifically" or "to be precise." There are dozens of examples like this. But if you don't understand the turn of phrase, then you might be tempted to think that [item 1] and [item 2] are not the same thing.

No. But assume you're right, for argument's sake: even by context, your hypothesis still loses. The context of Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre clearly shows that "Tyre" and "Sor" are the same thing. (Not only the context, but the historical evidence, linguistic evidence, etc.) The phrase above "Sor, who is as Tyre" is another such example of a turn of phrase.

No. Tyre = Sor is the same thing, per the above.

Sauron

No. We are not. The language of the time -- the time of Ezekiel and Nebuchadnezzar's invasion -- was not Greek.

What we are discussing is a Greek translation made over 300 years later (at a minimum), by over 70 different people, spanning decades, and which we know to have been riddled with errors. So many errors, in fact, that Jerome had to specifically set out to rectify variant spellings between versions.

*THAT* is what we are discusssing -- and not the original language of the time.

1. Which Aramaic tablets?
2. "Which support the Greek LXX" - too broad a claim.

I don't need proof of an earlier Hebrew version. Your statement that we are discussing "the language of the time" is simply incorrect, by looking at history and the details of how the LXX was compiled. We are discussing a translation that came 300 years after the events it describes - and a translation that suffers many flaws.

So what? Finding earlier texts is not the question - it never has been. The LXX may be the earliest we have, but that still does not guarantee anything about its accuracy. It is the earliest, but it is also plagued with problems - which is why modern biblical scholars rely on more than just the LXX when determining a translation. They are aware of the history of how the LXX was compiled, and recognize that oldest isn't the same as best

The real question is why you persist in trying to make a hypothesis out of a simple variant spelling, even when the context, linguistic evidence and the historical evidence show them to be the same place.

You'll have to show proof that the Aramaic tablets support two different names for "Tyre" in Ezekiel.

Pay attention. I said the LXX does not separate the terms. So repeating what Judith says does not support your claims abou the LXX.

As for Judith - already addressed that in Part 1.

No. they are two variant spellings of the same place name. Just like Jeremy and Jerome and Jeremiah are all three variant spellings of one Hebrew name.

Apparently there is for you.

Which is irrelevant. You still don't get it.

The point is that:
1. the KJV started with the LXX, and
2. starting from a single language;
3. English scholars still managed to get several variant spellings, no matter how hard they tried to avoid it

English men using Greek text still had several variant spellings once they were finished with the translation.

So in like fashion:
1. the LXX started with Hebrew/Aramaic texts;
2. starting from a single language;
3. 72 Greek Jewish scholars still managed to get several variant spellings as well, no matter how hard they tried to avoid the same problem.

72 Greek Jews in Alexandria, working off of Hebrew/Aramaic texts, encountered the same problem that English men creating the KJV did. Variant spellings are a problem of large group efforts in an era before computers, typesetting, etc. Fact of life.

Are you trying to lie to me now? You pointed me to the Greek interlinear; did you not expect me to read it?

Assuming that by "original text" you mean the LXX, then you are wrong. That is NOT what it says. I'll repeat again what I posted earlier - pay attention to the bold underline:


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

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

Contrary to your claim.

Wrong. The root for both "Sor" and "Tyre" is the s-r, an early Semitic root that means "rock". Moreover, since the word itself is Semitic and not Greek in the first place, looking for a Greek root of a Semitic word is rather nonsense.

No, the LXX is wrong in many places - as is the KJV. And sometimes the KJV is wrong precisely because it relied upon the LXX, instead of using better texts. There are problems in both documents, and both are filled with historical, scientific and archaeological goofs and mistakes.

But the only one around here who is making an infallible stone tablet of the LXX is you, not me.

Is it? Says who, you? Just because you feel like patting yourself on the back doesn't mean the audience thinks you deserve it. And considering how gullible you were in believing the Greek myth origin of the Phoenician alphabet, you might be a little more careful about blowing your own trumpet.

No, it is not a concordance. It is a translation. For someone who claims to know so much about the LXX, it's strange that you are confusing "concordance" with "translation."

Bottom line: sometimes the LXX is wrong. Apparently this is one time.

And as I just demonstrated above, you can't even get a quote from the LXX right. The text from the LXX interlinear which you yourself provided specifically says:

and unto (city the fortress) of the Tyrians,

which is talking about the city of Tyre.

That won't help in the case of variant spellings that were introduced during the creation of the LXX.

No, the problem is that you continue to misunderstand that I am using the English KJV to draw a parallel example here. The KJV has variant spellings in English, even though the original text (LXX) may have only one spelling.

IN LIKE FASHION:

the LXX has variant spellings, even though the original Hebrew/Aramaic used one term for the name of Tyre.

noah

How do you use the quote function? Every time I try I get the whole text.

Sauron

1. Hit the quote button.

2. Everything in the preceding post should be enclosed between

(QUOTE=noah) text text text text text. (/QUOTE)

Pretend instead of left and right parentheses, I had used left and right brackets.

3. Start typing after the (/QUOTE). For example, pretend this is a discussion. Also pretend instead of left and right parentheses, I had used left and right brackets - which you should see, if you use the quote button:

----------------------------------


(QUOTE=noah) text text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text text. (/QUOTE)

I disagree.


(QUOTE=noah) text text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text texttext text text text text more more more more more more more more more text text text text textmore more more more more more more more moremore more more more more more more more moremore more more more more more more more moremore more more more more more more more moremore more more more more more more more more. (/QUOTE)

Okay, I agree with that.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

But I only see a reference to this in Pliny dying of suffocation in an eruption, now certainly he could not have been the one to record the eruption. So I am wondering if we have a record of Pompeii being destroyed, an actual mention of this in a historical record. So far, I can't find one.

But the sailors in Acts 28 didn't know they had been blown to Malta until the people there told them that was the island they were on.

I'll try and come up with a better picture, then!

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that. But then would they need many maps for each location? That seems rather difficult to produce, especially given the inevitable inaccuracies of ancient maps.

Regards,
Lee