lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

But there are remains from the periods after Phoenicia, why weren't those buildings cleared or built over?

But we don't have photographs of Phoenician ruins above water. And I agree that underwater ruins are not proof, but they are indeed evidence.

I agree! The mainland city remained.

OK, the mole is red, and it is called a causeway, and I see the large lump at the end, and the northern and southern parts are called ports, and appear on both maps, which … I suppose Alexander drew himself.

The excavation was under silt, which is just as good, I would say.

The harbor in the map Alexander drew!

I understand that they apparently haven't seen these ruins yet!

Yes, I have thought of writing and asking building companies there how far down they have to go to hit bedrock when they build their towers. Maybe I will do that! They should know…

But Scripture refers to "the nation of Babylon," not to the "nations of Babylon." We need to know what Scripture means here.

And even if Babylon can be called many nations in Scripture, must we conclude that "many nations" must mean only the nations led by Neb? It couldn't include Alex?

Yes, doesn't this most probably mean the mainland city, though? You don't take war horses to battle an island fortress!

And God, too: "I will put an end to your noisy songs" (v. 13).

Well then, Ezekiel is also not distinguishing between Nebuchadnezzar and God, either! So they must be the same, God is Nebuchadnezzar, and Nebuchadnezzar is God, in his view?

But saying Bob-and-many-people cooked dinner and gave a party doesn't mean only Bob and people Bob knew did all this.

Well, I agree! Neb could be part of many nations, quite readily.

Nor does the presence of underwater ruins, and the absence of ruins elsewhere, prove the island is above water! No, it doesn't…

I just read yesterday in "Cities of the Biblical World" that Tyre became subject to Neb after the siege. Surely that means he conquered the mainland.

Yes, I agree.

Only if Neb had to do it all, though.

But it looks like there's a part missing! Not a round tip…

And does the island look like part broke off of it?

But "ruins of Tyre" implies those of the ancient city, does it not?

I think the tourist department would like to know about this!

Which means they don't have samples yet, I would say.

Then we should have Phoenician buildings! But we apparently don't even have ruins above ground. And do we know the island was never made bare? How could we find archaeological evidence that there have always been buildings here?

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

Who says they weren't? Some of them were. Not all the Roman era buildings are still standing. That is why the reference I gave you said:

The Roman levels of Tyre are of such importance that every effort has been made to preserve them. To determine the exact location of eariler Phoenician and Canaanite levels soundings are being made throughout the excavated areas.

"Excavated areas." They're talking about the Roman levels of Tyre. You don't need to excavate those levels, unless they were built over or buried.

Yes, we do. Please see my post regarding the soundings being made under the current excavations.

No, they're not proof. And to make matters worse, they're not even evidence. Until you have some verifiable explanation of how they got to be underwater, there are too many possibilities.

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.

Until you get something more than a one-line reference from a book you've never read, you have neither proof nor evidence.

Then you understand incorrectly.

Wrong. You need to read your bible. The text does *not* say that. It explicitly says:

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

A "king of kings" means that he was the head of many nations. Oh, and by the way: the phrase you listed above, "the nation of Babylon" does not occur anywhere in Ezekiel. Nor, for that matter, does it occur anywhere in the Old Testament - yes, I looked. Just one of the benefits of having a searchable Old Testament.

We already do. The only question is how long you're going to try and make it mean something other than the obvious.

Not "can be called". It *IS* called "many nations".

Yes, we must conclude that Nebuchadnezzar was intended. Why? Because Nebuchadnezzar was specifically named as the agent of destruction by Ezekiel. You need to stick to what the text actually says; you don't get to add other famous military leaders to the list here, merely because Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre.

Not that it matters much; Alexander also failed to destroy Tyre.

Why not? Alexander used horses; so did the crusaders. Why wouldn't Nebuchadnezzar have used them? Of course you would use horses. First you break down the walls, then you move inside. Once the walls are down there are going to be soldiers and defenders that have to be dealt with.

9: And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

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

Besides, at the time of the siege of Nebuchadnezzar, there was a narrow causeway connecting the island to the mainland city. So the horses wouldn't have even needed to get their feet wet. It wasn't until after Nebuchadnezzar's siege that the Tyrians destroyed their own causeway, thinking that was a much safer situation. And that was why Alexander was forced to *build* a causeway 2.5 centuries later when he wanted to siege Tyre.

Apparently you are agreeing with me that Nebuchadnezzar and "many nations" are the same thing.

Oh, please. Is that the best you can do?

Ezekiel clearly and plainly lays out in Ch 26 that this is God's punishment, but that God is using Nebuchadnezzar to carry it out for him. It is as if Ezekiel were painting God as the general, sending his captain, Nebuchadnezzar, to carry out his military orders:

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

Ezekiel again makes this plain in Ch 29:

EZE 29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
EZE 29:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
EZE 29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

In such a scenario, it's perfectly reasonable for the general to say "I did such-and-such", because he gave the order. And it's also reasonable for the captain to say "I did such-and-such", because the captain actually carried it out. Your attempt at rebuttal is desperate.

Nebuchadnezzar also doesn't care about "noisy songs" from Tyre; that's the (alleged) reason for God sending this punishment. So Ezekiel does NOT treat God and Nebuchadnezzar as the same, contrary to your lame defense.

And finally, Nebuchadnezzar also failed to take Egypt, either. So Ezekiel's attempt to rescue the first failed prophecy by creating a new one about Egypt only made matters worse. Now there are two failed prophecies to deal with.

It certainly does, if nobody else is mentioned as having cooked that dinner.

Nice try. But that is not what I said, nor what the rabbi said. The identification of the agent of destruction as Nebuchadnezzar is the same as "many nations", as the text indicates. This also makes historical sense, because of the nature of the Babylonian empire and the make-up of the Babylonian army. The empire was a consolidation of several other nations. Its army was likewise. From my document:

Moving along....

1. You continue to insist on being misinformed; there is no absence of ruins elsewhere. The Britannica reference clearly states that the majority of Phoenician ruins are under the present-day city.

2. Debris underwater does not demonstrate anything about an island sinking.

*sigh* No, it does not mean that.

1. Tyre agreed to pay tribute after the siege. But it retained its independence.

2. Conquering the mainland is no big deal; the mainland was the suburbs. The boonies. It was New Jersey, compared to New York City. The real prize, the center of the wealth and power, was the island. Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer that.

Which means that Ezekiel's prophecy failed, since the prophecy stated that Nebuchadnezzar's armies were going to wipe the Tyrian city off the face of the island.

And he did - that's what the Ezekiel passage indicates.

Why do you think a round tip is required? It isn't.

No, it does not. In addition, I've uploaded two other photos at Freethought Forum that show a more complete picture of the island. Nothing is missing.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...ead.php?t=2703

No. It does not imply that. There have been many cities of Tyre over the centuries. It could be referring to any of those.

You're in a bind because you are hanging your entire argument on a single possibly out-of-context quotation. You might actually want to do some research instead.

The tourist department already knows. The question is how long until YOU know.

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

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

Well, we do have Phoenician buildings. However, the fact that the island escaped destruction does not automatically mean that Phoenician buildings would still be found. After centuries of construction, there are no guarantees that intact buildings from 2600 years ago are going to be found.

1. "Apparently" you're wrong; the source I cited indicates that impressive Phoenician ruins exist.

2. Not sure why "above ground" matters anyhow.

Sheesh. If you're claiming the island was made bare, then it's up to YOU to prove it. It's not up to the skeptics to disprove that claim.

And there is a way to find that the island was always inhabited. But I'm going to make you look it up yourself; your comments indicate that you could use some exposure to archaeology.

noah

Quote:
Noah: One could also consult Mark 7:31, Acts 21:3 and 7, Matt. 15:21, and Mark 3:8 to see that Tyre never disappeared.

------I agree! The mainland city remained.

Lee, what I don't think you're getting is that Tyre was not identified by its coastal suburb.Suburbs don't bear the names of cities of which they are a part.Tyre proper consisted of the island and the suburb.

From this site here:
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/...geog/geog.html
"It was built on an island and the neighbouring mainland"
Check out this site:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9074016 It says:
"Tyre, built on an island and on the neighbouring mainland"
That's like calling New York Queens or Brooklyn.
When Jesus and co. went to Tyre it means they went to Tyre.Some part of Tyre must have been there for them to go to and depart from. Suburb or main city on the island, it makes no difference. If the prophecy had been fulfilled there would have been no Tyre at all
Look at Matt. 15:21 "departed into the coasts of Tyre--Possessive-coasts of that means the coasts were part of Tyre the island. You don't say the Straits of Gibraltar without meaning the rock that is Gibraltar.
If you think the suburb was Tyre, the "mainland city", then you are admitting the failure of the prophecy. Because it was still there for Jesus to go to and depart. Remember All of Tyre was to be wiped out foreverEither all of Tyre was wiped out or it wasn't.

Lee, your own link says Tyre repelled Neb's siege: in 585-573 it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian King Nebuchadrezzar II.

Can you show us any proof anywhere of Tyre's sinking into the water? A record of such a calamity must surely exist.
Even if Tyre did sink into the water at some point, Neb's siege still failed.
The prescence of underwater ruins doesn't help you much Lee, if Tyre was rebuilt where it is today. It was never to be rebuilt

Check out this Lebanese travel site :http://www.destinationlebanon.com/historymore.asp It says:
"While there are few evident Phoenician ruins in Tyre today, visitors can see the jetties and breakwaters from the ancient island cities just off the coast of the city."
Do you see there still are a few Phoenician ruins above water. Although I don't know what you think this proves.
I guess it hasn't occurred to you that they could have built over the ruins,on
top of them. As I said, the fact that Tyre is or has been rebuit anywhere proves the prophecy's failure.
You should look at some historical maps.
What was Alexander laying siege to if Neb did wipe it off the face of the planet?
By the way, why did god not name Alexander if Alexander was to be the means of this prophecy's fulfillment?Why would he name Neb, and Neb only, and make himself look bad and leave him and his prophecy open to question.
Why did he leave Alexander's name out of it?

noah

I'd like to ask you whether or not you are not afraid of

Revelations 22:18 "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book; if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book."


If you take a look Lee, it is hard to miss that you are playing fast and loose with the scripture while we, the non-believers, are the ones stickin' to the text.
You are the one adding all this extra meaning and speculation to the text.

Statements like "Only if Neb had to do it all, though."

and

"Well, for the first point, Neb was to "ravage the settlements on the mainland," and "many nations" were said to destroy Tyre, so we need not insist that Neb must do all that is described here."

and

"Well then, Ezekiel is also not distinguishing between Nebuchadnezzar and God, either! So they must be the same, God is Nebuchadnezzar, and Nebuchadnezzar is God, in his view?"

Sure do make you wonder who the Christian in this exchange is.

By the way why do you put so much faith in a book that says Darius was the son of Xerxes when he was the father of Xerxes (Ahasuerus is Hebrew for Xerxes) and the son Hystases? Daniel 9:1

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Soundings are planned, but this is not photographs, nor is this proof of ruins.

How are they not evidence? Do you not consider ruins they dig up in other places, evidence of previous buildings that were built there? Must we say the Romans maybe brought stones from other places, and the whole story of Roman buildings there is fictional?

Yes, but king of kings refers to his empire, does it not? Not to Babylon, proper, nor to the makeup of his army. And yes, Babylon is referred to as a nation, not as "nations":

Jeremiah 25:12 But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians.

And even when a reference is made to many kings, in those who would attack Babylon, we still read of one nation, not many:

Jeremiah 50:41 "Look! An army is coming from the north; a great nation and many kings are being stirred up from the ends of the earth."

So "many nations" almost certainly refers to more than just one kingdom attacking Tyre.

He sent all the Tyrians he did not kill into captivity though, I think he did fulfill the prophecy.

On ships? Chariots, too! This has to mean the mainland.

That's the first I've heard of this, could you give the reference here?

I'm tyred. No, this doesn't follow, maybe Bob had a friend who brought a friend to help him cook. Maybe Bob hired a chef, and helped the chef cook.

They have x-ray vision, perhaps? They said they were planning soundings…

No, there were Babylonian officials in charge (so says my book), with limited power, yet rulers, nonetheless.

God said he would do that, though:

Ezekiel 26:4 I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.

X will do this, I will do that, need not imply X will do that.

Well, I have to login to access the pictures, but I'm satisfied that the current geography of Tyre indeed does not have a round tip, and does not look much like an island and a causeway.

The fortress was said to have walls extending to the edge of the sea, now that would be an odd decision, if the island had those two projections on it, and they built the wall to match that.

It's "ruins of ancient Tyre" underwater in Nina Nelson's book, which is even more indicative of the island fortress, I would say. Certainly other ruins might be meant, but what is most probable as to the meaning?

Well, what visitors can see are jetties and breakwaters, apparently, those are the "few evident ruins," surely they would have also mentioned any buildings above-ground, too!

If they have samples, though, why are they taking soundings to find the location of the Phoenician ruins? They might do this to find the extent of the ruins, but not simply to find them.

You were claiming it was not, though! Do you not have to prove your point?

And I admit I may have a difficult time proving it was, only Alex really tore up the fortress upon conquering it, so maybe this can't be resolved much either way, but what is more easily addressed is whether it is rebuilt.

Shall I call his hand here? I'm calling your hand here, I don't believe there is any way to prove absolutely continuous occupation of my town home, or that it hasn't be destroyed and rebuilt, since I moved into it!

Well, the prophecy did refer in some places specifically to the mainland, and in other places, rather clearly to the island, so may we not apply different parts of the prophecy to different parts of the city?

Well, that's one interpretation! Which we are discussing. But "bare rock" I would say means the island fortress, not the mainland.

Well, if it was indeed a bare rock, and then sank, then perhaps only the seagulls would have thought this was notable.

The island fortress! Neb was said to use horses and chariots, so that indicates to me that his role was in attacking the mainland city.

The mention of "many nations" probably includes him, though, I would say.

Well, we might disagree on who is running off the road a bit here!

Well, isn't the objection usually that Darius is unknown outside of the Biblical references to him? Thus I think we can't say either way whether there is confirmation or not, of his descent.

Regards,
Lee

noah

Revelations 22:18 "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book; if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book."

You just did it again:

---The mention of "many nations" probably includes him, though, I would say.--

Alexander is nowhere in the scripture.

and again:

----He sent all the Tyrians he did not kill into captivity though, I think he did fulfill the prophecy.

Lee, Alexander is not mentioned in the scripture. Once again, from Revelations:

Revelations 22:18 "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book; if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book."


2)---Well, the prophecy did refer in some places specifically to the mainland, and in other places, rather clearly to the island, so may we not apply different parts of the prophecy to different parts of the city?---

So what is it Lee? It was either all destroyed or it wasn't. Tyre was both the mainland and the island. Where did Jesus go when he went to Tyre?It should have been gone forever, the island and the mainland.The prophecy should have already been fulfilled by the time JC got there.There should have been no Tyre for JC to go to.

---How are they not evidence? Do you not consider ruins they dig up in other places, evidence of previous buildings that were built there?---

If the ruins are part of old Tyre then the prophecy fails. Not a trace of Tyre was to be left.
In any case there are ruins of old cities everywhere. People just build over them or leave them where they are.
The question is what is Tyre doing there now?Why is it there?


----Ezekiel 26:4 I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.----

With reference to all the photos we have given you, can you tell us where that bare rock is?

You keep missing the point that Tyre is there and that falsifies the prophecy.
Never to be rebuilt means never to be rebuilt.

----On ships? Chariots, too! This has to mean the mainland.-----


No Lee it doesn't. I pulled this from an aplogist's article on Tyre:

being built upon a small island, and separated from the mainland by a strait of no great depth (vid., Movers, Phoenizier, II p. 288 ff.).

Please Note: no great depth

That means chariots and siege engines etc. could and did cross the tiny strait.


-----Well, that's one interpretation! Which we are discussing. But "bare rock" I would say means the island fortress, not the mainland.----

Lee, I 'm not sure what your point is here. But if you are trying to say that an island is by definition "bare rock", you are mistaken. Many islands are green with vegetation, trees etc. I live on island on the west coast here and believe me, it is not (a) "bare rock"


----Well, isn't the objection usually that Darius is unknown outside of the Biblical references to him? Thus I think we can't say either way whether there is confirmation or not, of his descent.----

Come on Lee. God wrote the scriptures, remember. Are you trying to say that God didn't know who Xerxes' father was?

Sauron

Wrong on both counts. As usual.

Do you know what a CATscan is? Or an MRI? It's a picture of your body using techniques other than photoreactive imaging. You're clearly ignorant of modern archaeology techniques. The same techniques are used in paleontology, by the way. You should go rent "Jurassic Park" and see the opening segment where they are blasting sound waves through a rockbed to create a 3D image of the fossils.

The ruins exist, Lee. If they didn't, then Britannica wouldn't say that they did - or any of the other websites that have been mentioned. If you think these sites are lying, or they are wrong, then go right ahead and demonstrate that. But your postings so far demonstrate that your experience with this topic wouldn't fill a teacup.


Because they don't prove what you are claiming - that the island sank. Finding items under water doesn't prove that the earth was lowered. If it did, then all the trash in Boston Harbor proves that Boston Harbor sank.

No one has dug up anything, Lee. These are pieces of buildings found in the water. That does not prove that the island sank. I gave you five other explanations -- and those explanations are more believable than yours, because each one of those five explanations represents an event that we know happened in Tyre's history. (Note that I am using blue text for the areas that you are ignoring - to illustrate the fact that your questions have already been answered, but you fail to deal with the answer):

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.

Your ad hoc explanation, part of the island sinking, has absolutely no evidence to support it.

No, it refers to Nebuchadnezzar himself. If someone is a "man among men" then the reference is to the one individual person. If someone is a "queen among women", then the reference is to the individual woman.

Wrong. "Many nations" refers to both Babylon, as well as its army, for all the reasons I outlined earlier. You seem to be forgetting - Ezekiel used the exact same terms for both Nebuchadnezzar's army, and "many nations." Why would he do that, if they weren't the same thing?

Just for clarity's sake, let's review the uncomfortable point you are avoiding:


Moving along....

But not by Ezekiel. And it is Ezekiel's prophecy in Ch 26 that we are talking about.

Incorrect. Since Ezekiel identifies Nebuchadnezzar, and since Ezekiel assigns the same actions to both (a) Nebuchadnezzar and his army and (b) "many nations", they are the same. And as added icing on the cake, I have quoted a Jewish rabbinical source that confirms this interpretation.

Remind me, Lee: what do you have?

1. Guessing again, Lee? Didn't I warn you about that? No, Alexander the Great did not send all the Tyrians into captivity.

2. You seem to be hanging your hopes on the idea of an exile. Why is that? If you think that exile is a fulfillment of prophecy, then you need to read your bible. Ezekiel says nothing about exile. He speaks of destruction. Do you know the difference between exile and destruction of a city? If not, speak up and we'll gladly explain the difference.

3. Alexander at his worst only destroyed half the city. The prophecy calls for total destruction. Alexander did not fulfill this prophecy, either.

Uh, no. It does not have to mean the mainland. I explained this before; you must be feeling cornered and helpless, because you ignored it.

Of course you would use horses. First you break down the walls, then you move inside. Once the walls are down there are going to be soldiers and defenders that have to be dealt with.

9: And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

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

Besides, at the time of the siege of Nebuchadnezzar, there was a narrow causeway connecting the island to the mainland city. So the horses wouldn't have even needed to get their feet wet. It wasn't until after Nebuchadnezzar's siege that the Tyrians destroyed their own causeway, thinking that was a much safer situation. And that was why Alexander was forced to *build* a causeway 2.5 centuries later when he wanted to siege Tyre.

Lee - unlike you, I actually have researched this topic. This reference can be found in "Syria & Lebanon", a Cadogan Guide, by Michael Haag, 1995. Page 354. Cadogan Books. Distributed in the USA by The Globe Pequot Press, Old Saybrook, Connecticut. ISBN 1-86011-025-8.

Your move.

Then Bob didn't cook the dinner after all, and the original statement is not true. End of argument.

No, they're just more informed about archaeology than you are. That doesn't require Kryptonian super powers; it only requires being something other than a fundamentalist. X-ray vision is actually somewhat similar to modern techniques in archaeology and paleontology, by the way.

The way I see it, the choice is clear. Britannica is a world-reknowned encyclopedia that enlists Ph.D. level experts in each feature area to write its articles. Now my dear Lee - if you believe that they are in error, then by all means prove it to them. But right now, the choice is to believe either:

(a) Encyclopedia Britannica and its staff of professionals

or

(b) one Lee Merrill, fundamentalist from North Carolina with no archaeological background and frequent committer of embarrassing misstatements about history

Easy choice. I'll go with (a).

No, they did not. Britannica never mentioned soundings. Please try to keep up with the thread.

Your christian apologetics book is wrong - wow, did I make a tautology? :rolling:

And yet he did not. Neither Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, or any other conqueror in the last 2500 years has wiped the Tyrian city off the face of the island.

Except that in the Ezekiel passage, God is still speaking about what Nebuchadnezzar is going to accomplish for God himself. Just like I said earlier: Ezekiel is casting God in the role of general, and Nebuchadnezzar in the role of the captain that carries out the orders of the general. Your quotation of v.4 is followed by this quotation that shows how God intends to make the events of v4 happen:

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

Notice the phrase "For thus saith the Lord GOD"? That indicates how the preceding verses 1-6 will come to pass.

1. Tyre does not require a "round tip." I still don't know why you think this is somehow important or required.

2. Tyre most certainly is an island with a causeway. Every map in existence shows that Tyre is an island, joined to the mainland by Alexander's causeway. The fact that you can even argue such a universally accepted fact of history only demonstrates how desperate your position is.

It was? Who said this? Names and references, please.

Why do you think so? If you think it's odd, then explain why. I see nothing odd about it.

It is? How would you know, Lee? Do you own the book? No; you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be quoting it in ellipses.

Besides, people speak of "ancient Rome". The Roman ruins of Tyre date from the same time period as that of "ancient Rome". Given those facts, the ruins in the water could be Canaanite, Phoenician, or Roman.

Lee, the bottom line is that you don't have any proof here. What you do have is an 18-word quotation - edited as well - from a book you don't own, and the context of which you do not know.

But the only reason you would say that is because you are focused on trying to prove this prophecy correct. That is not a satisfactory basis upon which to examine an archaeological question.

Ah, so now you appeal to the idea of "most probable.". Funny; earlier you were trying to twist "many nations" to mean something else besides the "most probable" interpretation. This is why bible literalists come up short in the credibility department; they want to appeal to the most obvious answer, unless that answer contradicts their interpretation of scripture. In which case, the scripture is twisted and bent like Gumby on steroids.

No matter. The earlier point stands: "ancient ruins" could mean anything from the Canaanite times up to (but not including) the Islamic period.

1. Why "surely"? There is nothing 'sure' about it.

2. Why are you obsessed with above ground? There is no scriptural or prophetic requirement that ruins be above ground. The majority of the Phoenician ruins are -- as Britannica indicates -- below ground.

I already explained this. Time for blue text again, since Lee Merrill can't be bothered to read text the first time it's given to him:

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

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


Again - you would REALLY benefit from studying archaeology, instead of just running around internet forums tossing out your hopeful guesses. You are chronically uninformed, and you are embarrassing yourself.

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

Here; perhaps even your intellect can understand this: imagine this were a search for oil or natural gas, instead of for archaeological ruins. The technology used to find out the extent of a gas or oil field could also be used to verify if a gas/oil field existed in a new, uncharted area. And if that uncharted area were under a major city, then using this technology would prevent interruptions to business, expensive lawsuits, wasted time, etc.

Moreover, there are actually cultural issues that stand in the way of extensive archaeological investigations into Phoenician Tyre. The Christian (Maronite) community of Lebanon has always insisted that it is the descendant of the original Phoenicians in Lebanon. They claim that the Muslim Lebanese are outsiders, and are not part of the original people of Lebanon. National Geographic had a cover article on this issue several months ago, and outlined how this Christian/Phoenician issue has poisoned relations between the Muslims and the Christians in Lebanon today:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature2/


1. I'm just disagreeing with your claim. I'm free to do that, especially since you haven't proven your claim.

2. It isn't up to anyone else to disprove your claim. You don't get to bust into a room and shout, "This is what I believe. It's true, unless you prove me wrong." He who asserts, must prove.

3. Not only that, but you claimed first. That means you have first burden of proof.


1. Alexander did not destroy it - the historical record proves that;
2. The island was rebuilt - multiple historical sources attest to it.

The prophecy was not fulfilled. Game, set, match.


Well, you could -- but it doesn't change the burden of proof. You (and other bible literalists) claim that the island was destroyed and habitation was ended. Therefore, it's up to you to do the homework here - I don't have to prove your claim is wrong.

No one cares. In case you haven't realized it yet, this isn't the "Let's Educate Lee Merrill About Archaeology" forum. We don't exist merely to spoonfeed you information and subsidize your intellectual laziness. Anyone who wants to engage in this discussion actually *does* have some personal responsibility to do some research and investigation, Lee. So instead of relying upon us to fill in the (large) gaps of your knowledge, may I suggest a new and exciting idea?

Get off your backside and do some research. I'll even give you a hint: layers.

You also believe (without proof) that Tyre sank. So I don't think too many people are going to get worked up about what Lee Merrill does -- or does not -- believe.

The mainland was nothing. The island city was the focus of industry, wealth, and power. For that reason, the prophecy also focused on the island city.

Too bad that the island city was never turned into a bare rock, though.

Who says that?

badger3k

Well, since this wasn't covered too much, I'd just mention Herodotus, The Histories, (a good version is: Heroditus: The Histories; translated by Robin Waterfield, Oxford University Press, 1998; ISBN: 0-19-282425-2) amazon link. Of course, to keep it simple, here's one link to start you off if you want to find more on Darius - he was well known: http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/char/darius.htm.

I know it's off topic, but since we're correcting things, I wanted to cover this.

andrewcriddle

The problem is that the Darius mentioned in the link and known to Herodotus, the Darius who came to the throne after Cyrus and Cambyses, cannot really be the same as the Darius in Daniel who appears to be ruling either before Cyrus or at the same time.

Andrew Criddle

Sauron

Just to be clear what Lee Merrill is trying to do here - the bible inerrantists are in a bind. The Darius that is known to history and archaeology is precisely the one you are describing. However, the account in Daniel of Darius is full of errors.

To avoid admitting the errors, bible inerrantists try to pretend that not enough is known about Darius to rule Daniel's account to be wrong. Some inerrantists even to posit a *second* ruler by the same name - a ruler that is unknown to history or archaeology, to avoid making the obvious admission of error in Daniel.